Content uploaded by Zhimin Chen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zhimin Chen on Dec 15, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tfdt20
International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and
Education
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tfdt20
Fashion innovation through an innovation
ecosystem – a research agenda
Li Zeng, Chris K. Y. Lo & Zhimin Chen
To cite this article: Li Zeng, Chris K. Y. Lo & Zhimin Chen (2023): Fashion innovation through
an innovation ecosystem – a research agenda, International Journal of Fashion Design,
Technology and Education, DOI: 10.1080/17543266.2023.2247421
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2023.2247421
Published online: 21 Aug 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 35
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Fashion innovation through an innovation ecosystem – a research agenda
Li Zeng
a,b
, Chris K. Y. Lo
a
and Zhimin Chen
c
a
School of Fashion and Textiles, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China;
b
School of Art and Design, Shenzhen Polytechnic,
Shenzhen, China;
c
Manchester Fashion Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK
ABSTRACT
This paper employs the paradigm of an innovation ecosystem to stimulate fashion innovation. This
study applies an integrative literature review on fashion innovation, innovation ecosystem and
policy-driven innovation, proposes a theoretical framework – fashion innovation ecosystem and
streams future research directions. The findings suggest the innovation ecosystem is an
inclusive, constructive and systematic lens and contribute to the management of fashion
innovation. A mechanism of policy-driven fashion innovation is proposed to stress the role of
government as a key actor in the fashion innovation ecosystem. It identifies five research
directions from the theoretical framework of the fashion innovation ecosystem, namely fashion
innovation measurement, research methodology, policy-driven fashion innovation, fashion
sustainability innovation ecosystem and open innovation. The study contributes to the
theoretical development of fashion innovation management and innovation ecosystem; has
practical implications for innovation strategy in the fashion sector; will benefit policymakers in
formulating policy and fostering the institutional environment.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 6 January 2023
Accepted 8 August 2023
KEYWORDS
Fashion innovation;
innovation ecosystem;
policy-driven
1. Introduction
‘Fashion is accompanied by a process of continuous
innovation in which new designs are developed’ (Pesen-
dorfer, 1995). The lifecycle of fashion items was short,
with rapid replacement of dierent styles. While fashion
was asserted to be ‘non-innovative novelties’ because of
the absence of technological advancement (Piatier,
1984). However, innovation was captured in the fashion
industry, introducing computer technology in design,
machine and retail stock in the knitwear industry and
yielding low-cost designs (Walsh, 1996). Digital tech-
nology secured seasonal fashion innovation, namely
fashion collections (Baraldi & Nadin, 2006). The phases
of textile innovation in a linear progression were elabo-
rated to identify innovation sources (McAdam &
McClelland, 2002). Some innovation studies employed
fashion or apparel as examples although one of which
was an unsuccessful clothing project (Cozzarin, 2006;
Na, Choi, & Harrison, 2017; Roy & Riedel, 1997). A
specific case was the Mini skirt in the 1960s, which
was regarded to be the result of meaning-driver rapid
innovation (Bernardo & de Medeiros, 2021; Norman
& Verganti, 2014).
Given thriving innovation research in the manage-
ment field and the fact that fashion is one of the most
innovative industries, research on fashion innovation
has recently begun, albeit in a fragmental state (Raus-
tiala & Sprigman, 2006). Fashion innovation featured
both incremental changes in embellishments, colours
and fabrics and disruptive changes in materials and
function (Dalla Chiesa, Pavlova, Lavanga, & Pysana,
2022). Although researchers have examined fashion
innovation from various dimensions, such as function,
material and style, few studies attempted to investigate
fashion innovation in a generalised and holistic manner
and explore the strategy for fashion innovation from a
management perspective, including its drivers and
facilitators.
Regarding who facilitates product innovation, a prior
study established a conceptual taxonomy of actors’ roles
and their interactions in the context of local innovation
(Guercini & Runfola, 2015). Customers and the govern-
ment have been extensively addressed as crucial actors
(Evans & Chisholm, 2016; Rahman, Chen, Fung, &
Kharb, 2020). It informed actors such as firms, users,
universities, organisations and government via the
lens of the innovation ecosystem (Adner, 2017; Car-
ayannis & Campbell, 2009). In the fashion sector, a
study on brokerage as an actor was investigated during
London Fashion Week; it was the only research that
referenced the innovation ecosystem in the context of
fashion (Lin, 2018). The government played a key role
in the fashion industry’s innovation process and issued
© The Textile Institute and Informa UK Ltd 2023
CONTACT Li Zeng leah-li.zeng@connect.polyu.hk School of Fashion and Textiles, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong,
China; School of Art and Design, No. 7098 Liuxian Avenue, Nanshan District, Shenzhen Polytechnic, Shenzhen, China
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2023.2247421
policies to support marketing activities (Guercini &
Runfola, 2011). As a governmental measure in the
innovation ecosystem, policy intentionally stimulated
innovation and was extensively used in the medical
field and the energy industries (Quitzow, 2015).
Although policy-driven innovation in fashion was inte-
grated into fibre invention, fashion designer knowledge
transfer and industrial development, it is unclear how
policy was enforced through the lens of the innovation
ecosystem.
The term ‘Ecosystem’ of ‘innovation ecosystem’ has
gained popularity because of its metaphor as a relation-
ship and network reecting an integrative and co-
evolving phenomenon of external and internal entities
for innovation, value capture and value creation
(Adner, 2006; Baiyere, 2018; Hou & Shi, 2021; Jacobides,
Cennamo, & Gawer, 2018; Moore, 1993). In the inno-
vation field, the attachment of ‘ecosystem’ has been a
success in explaining disruptive or incremental develop-
ment scene and proposing relation-based development
strategies (Adner, 2017; Baiyere, 2018; Ghazinoory, Sar-
kissian, Farhanchi, & Saghafi, 2020; Ritala & Almpano-
poulou, 2017). As such, ‘ecosystem’ has become a
sophisticated strategy for the development of traditional
textile and fashion entrepreneurship (Brydges & Pugh,
2021; Ramachandran, Pant, & Pani, 2012). However,
only one study attempted to explain one aspect of the
innovation ecosystem in the fashion industry, namely
the brokerage (Lin, 2018). There appears to be a dearth
of research on theoretical and empirical investigations
of the innovation ecosystem in the fashion domain.
To explore and elucidate the intricate phenomenon of
fashion innovation, an inclusive and holistic mechanism
should be proposed, namely the fashion innovation eco-
system, which comprises fashion innovation, actors and
activities, viewed from the ecosystem-as-structure per-
spective (Adner, 2017; Hou & Shi, 2021).
Compared to the relatively established topics on the
ecosystem, such as entrepreneurship and platform, the
innovation ecosystem (IE) in the fashion sector has
gained less attention (Gu, Hu, Zhang, & Hou, 2021).
Since the innovation ecosystem in the fashion sector is
an emerging topic, there is a need to synthesise litera-
ture in the aforementioned fields to explore the new
phenomena in the specified context, e.g. the fashion
innovation ecosystem (Torraco, 2005).
The purpose of this study is to develop a conceptual
framework for the fashion innovation ecosystem to
answer the research question ‘How does the innovation
ecosystem play a role to stimulate fashion innovation?’.
It attempts to capture fashion innovation within the lit-
erature, establish the framework of the fashion inno-
vation ecosystem and explore the government’s
involvement. Furthermore, new research could be
identified based on the fashion innovation ecosystem.
This research presents an opportunity to advance
fashion innovation and innovation ecosystem theory.
It will provide policymakers with valuable insights
into the role of government in the fashion innovation
ecosystem. It will make a contribution to fashion pro-
duct development and innovation management strategy
on the practical level.
2. Methodology
The integrative literature review was employed in three
main fields. The three-step method consisting of review-
ing, critiquing and synthesising the literature generates
a new framework and research agenda on the topic
(Torraco, 2005).
The precise steps began with the identification of tar-
get literature using the Web of Science for its rich meta-
data and high inuence on academics. The literature
was retrieved without a specific timeframe for a gener-
ally completed outcome. The search utilised a topic
search which covered title, keyword and abstract. The
first field included keywords ‘fashion’ and ‘innovation’,
the second field included keywords ‘innovation ecosys-
tem’ and the third field included keywords ‘policy-dri-
ven’ and ‘innovation’. Three researchers conducted a
staged review. First, three researchers examined the
title and retained only those that were pertinent to the
research question focusing on fashion innovation, the
general theory of innovation ecosystem and policy-dri-
ven innovation. Particular attention was paid to high-
citation literature and review articles in the innovation
ecosystem field. Then, keywords and abstracts were
initially read for further discarding. Based on the
reduction result, the introduction, methodology and
findings received further investigations. More scrutiny
was completed by reading the entire article. During
the initial review and comprehensive review, themes
were identified and critically evaluated.
Regarding the organisation of all literature, three ses-
sions were woven into one theoretical model guided by
the innovation ecosystem paradigm to address the
research question ‘How does the innovation ecosystem
play a role to trigger fashion innovation?’ (Adner, 2017).
3. Result
The first theme is fashion innovation which highlights
three main categories of fashion innovation within the
innovation ecosystem. The second session examines
the innovation ecosystem and provides a holistic and
historical perspective from structure to successful
2 L. ZENG ET AL.
factors, ultimately leading to a contextual fashion inno-
vation ecosystem. The third theme focuses on policy-
driven-innovation-related studies that are relatively dis-
persed across disciplines and geographic settings and
are indispensable when discussing the innovation
ecosystem.
3.1. Fashion product innovation
Based on the impetus, innovation by design in the
fashion industry can be categorised into five types,
including product-driven innovation, process-driven
innovation, technology-driven innovation, culture-dri-
ven innovation, brand-driven innovation and consu-
mer-driven innovation (Hodges & Link, 2019).
Another paper outlined four stages of fashion inno-
vation based on the circular economy: textile inno-
vation, design innovation, relationships innovation
and commerce innovation (Sugg, 2022). Extant fashion
studies that claimed their research was innovative or
innovative relevance were in a vast amount and dis-
persed throughout numerous academic domains.
Technology-driven fashion innovation explicitly
presents a prevalence, typically those related to digital
technology. Although technology adoption strategy
rather than technology innovation benefited the
fashion industry in Bangladesh, 15 types of technology
related to automation, computer, robots, IoT and man-
agement were embraced by the fashion industry (Park-
Poaps, Bari, & Sarker, 2021). It was believed that
Industry 4.0 was integrated into the fashion sector,
particularly in terms of digital technology (Bertola &
Teunissen, 2018). Diversified software, such as 3D soft-
ware, has been proven to facilitate more ecient and
eective traditional product development (Davis,
Tomlinson, Khoza, & Jamaludeen, 2020; Georgeta,
Claudia, & Sabina, 2017; Jasminka & Josipa, 2018;
Popescu, Olaru, Niculescu, Foiasi, & Salistean, 2019;
Shin & Westland, 2017). IoT has been demonstrated
to be a powerfully functional and innovative tool for
advancing marketing and consumer study via social
media and apps (Khaire & Hall, 2016; Moodley,
2003; Rossol & Lapolla, 2020; Soni, Jain, & Kumar,
2019; Torres & Arroyo-Canada, 2017). Other digital
technologies including intelligent technology, interac-
tive technology and big data prompt innovation (Fu
& Liu, 2019; Wang, Nagai, Fang, & Maekawa, 2018;
Yu, Moore, & Chapman, 2021). One benchmarking
fashion innovation was the smart garment, which
was inseparable from wearable technology (Barile &
Sugiyama, 2020; Cerqueira, Da Silva, & Santos, 2020;
Mo, Mo, & Ho, 2020; Stankeviciute, 2020; Yang,
Wang, & Li, 2017).
Material innovation in the fashion sector stretched
from fibre through finishing, aligning with the pro-
duction process. Extensive research has engaged in elec-
tronic optical fibre (Bai, Tan, Johnston, & Tao, 2015;
Chan, Shin, & Jiang, 2018; Wang, Yang, Huang, & Jin,
2012). User-oriented materials that prioritised comfort
by improving thermal and respiratory properties con-
tributed to human health (Glovinsky & Zavrel, 2018;
Jakubas & Łada-Tondyra, 2018; Matusiak & Fracczak,
2017; Wickramarathne & Al Mahmud, 2021). Green
technology, such as natural dyeing (Agrawal & Chopra,
2020; Linton, 2020), self-grown bacterial cellulose (Ng &
Wang, 2016) and local resources (Wickramarathne & Al
Mahmud, 2021), resulted in environmental innovation
that was similar to other industries. The sustainability
goal was implicitly interwoven, but no study specifically
addressed it.
The subcategory of product development had a criti-
cal role in fashion innovation. The framework or mech-
anism for fashion product development was created
using diversified dimensions (de Araújo et al., 1998;
Sokolowski, 2020; Tran, 2010). The actors including
communities, fashion designers and fashion consultan-
cies were investigated (Maria & Finotto, 2008; Rieple,
Gander, Pisano, & Haberberg, 2015). Cooperation
with users is synonymous with open innovation and
has been examined by many authors in the fashion
field (Baker, Yu, Gam, & Banning, 2019; Gordon &
Guttmann, 2013; Morris & Ashdown, 2018; Morris &
Ashdown, 2018). In accordance with sustainability,
users on an online innovation platform could co-
develop items throughout the innovation process,
from idea generation and prototype to actual use
(Vehmas, Raudaskoski, Heikkilä, Harlin, & Mensonen,
2018).
There is still a wealth of literature related to fashion
innovation. For instance, scholarly interest has been
shown in design outsourcing and network structure
concerning fashion innovation (Delbufalo, 2015; Shen,
Li, Dong, & Quan, 2016). Innovation regarding
management and business was beyond the scope of
this paper.
From the standpoint of product innovation, it sheds
light on three main categories, namely technology,
material and product development, which involved
dierent actors, such as fashion designers, consumers,
suppliers and digital service providers, as well as dier-
ent activities, such as R&D, outsourcing and marketing,
dierent interactions, such as cooperation. However,
few studies have studied fashion innovation compre-
hensively and systematically, much alone from a strat-
egy management perspective (Hodges & Link, 2019;
Sugg, 2022). This literature analysis on fashion product
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 3
innovation provided an overview of fashion innovation,
urging the exploration of the fashion innovation ecosys-
tem to investigate who facilitates fashion innovation and
how it is enabled.
3.2. Innovation ecosystem
Regarding how to achieve innovation, Adner stated that
‘successful innovation requires tracking your partners
and potential adopters as closely as your track your
own development process’ (Adner, 2006). Granstrand
and Holgerson defined an innovation ecosystem as
‘the evolving set of actors, activities, artefacts, and the
institutions and relations, including complementary
and substitute relations, that are important for the inno-
vative performance of an actor or a population of actors’
(Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020). The concept of a
national design innovation ecosystem is coined by inte-
grating the innovation ecosystem with the design disci-
pline as ‘the actors, context(s) and interactions required
to support design as an enabler of people centred-inno-
vation’ (Evans & Chisholm, 2016).
In the sense of an infinite reciprocal cycle or co-evol-
ution, which was analogous to the biological meaning in
nature, the ecosystem lens was more suitable for inno-
vation management than a system or a network lens
(Jacobides et al., 2018; Moore, 1993; Ritala & Almpano-
poulou, 2017). Oh et al. criticised the innovation ecosys-
tem as a metaphorical and fuzzy-logic term, as opposed
to a rigorous construct, and did not contribute substan-
tially to the innovation management field (Oh, Phillips,
Park, & Lee, 2016). Ritala & Almpanopoulou responded
with the paper titled ‘In defense of “eco” in innovation
ecosystem’ which referred back to Moore’s point of
view on co-evolution among interdependent entities
and the boundaries issue that could be identified by geo-
graphical scope, temporal scale, openness and ow types
(Moore, 1993; Ritala & Almpanopoulou, 2017). More-
over, Oh et al. failed to acknowledge Adner, an aca-
demic pioneer in the innovation ecosystem who
almost simultaneously articulated the distinction
between the ‘ecosystem’ and various alternative struc-
tures such as platforms, networks, supply chains and
industrial architecture (Adner, 2006, 2017). This study
intends to examine the fashion sector and will, there-
fore, leverage the consolidated, mature and widely
accepted innovation ecosystem paradigm (Ferasso,
Wunsch Takahashi, & Prado Gimenez, 2018; Gran-
strand & Holgersson, 2020; Jacobides et al., 2018).
The innovation ecosystem was investigated from a
structural standpoint, and four elements were identified:
activities, actors, positions and links (Adner, 2017). On
the basis of ‘ecosystem as aliation’, organisations and
individuals from the public and private sectors partici-
pated as an organism (Adner, 2017; Moore, 1993; Ritala
& Almpanopoulou, 2017). Specifically, the actors
included suppliers, producers, competitors, users,
industrial companies, government agencies, universities
and research institutions with a focal value objective
(Adner, 2017; Moore, 1993; Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke,
2020). The boundary of the ecosystem would be broken
by the continuous expansion of participants. For
example, the innovation ecosystem evolved from the
‘Triple Helix’ which supported innovation by connect-
ing industry, government and academia, to the ‘Quad-
ruple Helix’ which incorporated the public as the
fourth helix (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). A case
study from the EU elaborated framework entities and
incorporated the natural environment as a key actor
(Fernández, Kubus, & Pérez-Iñigo, 2019). Coopetition
and interdependence among actors aected the equili-
brium of the innovation ecosystem (Valkokari, Seppä-
nen, Mäntylä, & Jylhä-Ollila, 2017).
When dealing with elements or components, several
researchers sought to map the innovation ecosystem in
a linear fashion, beginning from project innovation and
ending with consumers, or from inputs to outputs in a
value-added model (Adner, 2006; Arena, Azzone, &
Piantoni, 2021). A parallel frame was an option for
emphasising the equilibrium of the network (Fernández
et al., 2019; Suseno & Standing, 2018). The holistic
research simultaneously explored activities, actors and
themes (Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020). All kinds of
resources, including finances, suppliers, customers and
information, were captured (Ferasso et al., 2018).
Resources were allocated within the actor-network (Fer-
asso et al., 2018). Factors contributing to successful
innovation were identified to be resources, governance,
strategy and leadership, organisational culture, human
resource management, people, technology, futures and
clusters (Durst & Poutanen, 2013; Evanschitzky, Eisend,
Calantone, & Jiang, 2012; Johne & Snelson, 1988).
Oh et al. acknowledged that quantitative indicators
such as licensing income were unreliable and invalid
as metrics due to the non-linear and co-evolutional
nature of the innovation ecosystem (Oh et al., 2016;
Ritala & Almpanopoulou, 2017). Nine highly-cited
papers on the innovation ecosystem employed qualitat-
ive investigation as evidence of methodology (Feng, Lu,
& Wang, 2021).
As the target of the innovation ecosystem, innovation
is further delineated by sector, context and boundary in
terms of its applications and subcategories. According
to the boundary framework, an innovation ecosystem
can be categorised as a global innovation ecosystem, a
national innovation ecosystem, a regional innovation
4 L. ZENG ET AL.
ecosystem city-based innovation ecosystem, an enter-
prise innovation ecosystem, a sectoral or industrial
innovation ecosystem and an open innovation ecosys-
tem (Feng et al., 2021; Ferasso et al., 2018; Fernández
et al., 2019; Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020; Oh et al.,
2016; Ritala & Almpanopoulou, 2017; Suseno & Stand-
ing, 2018). Consequently, in the fashion sector, a fashion
innovation ecosystem can be proposed based on
Adner’s ‘ecosystem as structure’ standpoint (Adner,
2017).
3.2.1. Fashion innovation ecosystem
The majority of innovation ecosystem research has been
conducted in the setting of high technology. As for the
low-tech industry, there have been few researchers par-
ticipating (Chandna & Salimath, 2020; Ghazinoory
et al., 2020). Even less is known about the innovation
ecosystem in the fashion sector. It should be noted
that the sole paper that mentioned the innovation eco-
system investigated the role of brokers in the diusion
of fashion design innovation (Lin, 2018). One similar
study was the application of the entrepreneurial ecosys-
tem (EE) to the Toronto fashion industry (Brydges &
Pugh, 2021). After developing the market and organisa-
tion along an unintentional problem-solving path, a
producer ecosystem for impoverished handloom arti-
sans was built (Ramachandran et al., 2012). Similarly,
the function of design in the entrepreneurship ecosys-
tem was underlined in the context of less developed
countries (Nthubu, 2021; Nthubu, Perez, Richards, &
Cruickshank, 2022). The fragmentation and deficiency
of research informed that there is a need to build a
fashion innovation ecosystem to investigate the pro-
found fashion innovation process, inputs and outcomes,
the relationships and interactions between various
actors, as well as activities and events based on the afore-
mentioned result of fashion innovation. In addition to
existing theories in the fashion sector, such as supply
chain and industry cluster, etc., the alternative theoreti-
cal orientation, namely the fashion innovation ecosys-
tem, may help policymakers and practitioners embed
and engage fashion innovation from an open, cross-dis-
ciplinary and co-evolutionary perspective.
3.3. Policy-driven innovation
According to its drivers, innovation can be categorised
as technology-driven, design-driven, market-driven
and customer-driven, responding to the three main cat-
egories of fashion innovation (Norman & Verganti,
2014; Verganti, 2008, 2011). Utilising stakeholder the-
ory in innovation ecosystem research facilitates the
comprehension of governance structure and value
creation (Freeman, 2010). The innovation ecosystem is
composed of firms, users, universities, research
institutes and the government as actors (Adner, 2017).
Triple Helix and the consequent Quadruple Helix
demonstrated that the government’s inclusivity encour-
aged innovation and innovation ecosystem (Carayannis
& Campbell, 2009; Etzkowitz & Leydesdor, 2000). The
relationship between government policy and innovation
has been the subject of fruitful research and innovation
played a crucial role in policy-making (Whitham, Pérez,
Mason, & Ford, 2019; Xiong & Xia, 2020). However,
little research has been conducted on how policy and
government inuence fashion innovation.
Cluster research explicitly clarified the policy-driven
connotation by comparing it to the spontaneous one.
The policy-driven type was formed as a result of the
government’s initiatives, whereas the spontaneous type
was prompted by actors acting spontaneously in a
specific region (Chiaroni & Chiesa, 2006; Hassan &
Abu Talib, 2015; Huang, Yu, & Seetoo, 2012; Su &
Hung, 2009). Another policy-driven viewpoint was
obtained by contrasting it with a researcher-driven
way (Moatti, Chanut, & Benech, 1994). Regarding the
impact of policy-driven innovation, firm innovation
was inhibited by the moderating eect of energy policy
in a relatively mild institutional environment (Zhang
et al., 2020). Using patent data, catching up rather
than incentive also demonstrated a policy-driven eect
on innovation (de la Tour, Glachant, & Ménière, 2011).
The policy-driven research field has expanded glob-
ally and been empirically validated, such as in Malaysia
and Croatia (Anić, Corrocher, Morrison, & Aralica,
2019; Hassan & Abu Talib, 2015; Omar, Mohan, &
Zhao, 2017). Some countries, such as EU member states
and China, produced most of the studies in the policy-
driven field. EU took advantage of policy-driven prac-
tice and enticed researchers to explore and exploit the
policy-driven study. A national level of research net-
works eectively illustrated the EU policy-driven
model of Framework Programmes (FPs) in terms of
participant involvement, evolutionary approach and
innovation. China, as an emerging country, has trans-
ferred from innovation follower to innovator through
government intervention (Georghiou, 2001; Marin,
Marzucchi, & Zoboli, 2015; Quitzow, 2015; Yi, Hong,
Hsu, & Wang, 2020). Hong Kong and Singapore were
compared to demonstrate the impact of government
intervention on innovation, with more intervention
having a positive eect in Singapore (Wang, 2018).
Scholars in Malaysia have been enthusiastic about pol-
icy-driven research due to Multimedia Super Corridor
(MSC Malaysia) (Hassan & Abu Talib, 2015; Omar
et al., 2017).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 5
From the industrial perspective, research concen-
trated on biomedical, energy, electric vehicle and the
environment and utilised a supply-demand paradigm.
Particularly, the photovoltaics (PV) industry was
believed to be policy driven that inuenced the market
from the supply side (Quitzow, 2015; Wang, Yuan, &
Kuah, 2017). The same demand-supply model was
employed to compare design policies between the UK
and China and revealed that demand-side policies
were more eective (Sun, 2010). The integration of
demand-pull and government policy, i.e. the govern-
ment acting as a customer, stimulated both customer-
driven and policy-driven innovation (Omar et al.,
2017). The objective of the ‘Innovation-demand-policy’
(IDP) framework was to explore drivers of the inno-
vation ecosystem in the new energy vehicle industry,
which compassed technology innovation, the market
and policy (Wu, Yang, Hu, Wang, & Huang, 2018).
‘Industry-specific institutional policy’ strengthened
innovation performance (Yi et al., 2020).
Regarding one of the components of the innovation
ecosystem, actors, the policy-driven interaction between
university and industry, dierent levels of government
contributed a distinguished performance to the regional
innovation system, which demanded balanced growth
with policy support (Sohn, Kim, & Lee, 2009). More-
over, the coordination of actors required a policy-driven
agency or policy-driven brokers (Hernández-Chea,
Mahdad, Minh, & Hjortsø, 2021; Klitkou & Godoe,
2013; Leick & Gretzinger, 2020). As a policy-driven
tool, Industry 4.0 institutionalised an innovation system
with a Triple Helix model comprising of firms, acade-
mia and the government (Reischauer, 2018). The struc-
ture and composition of two policy-driven innovation
networks could be evaluated in the emerging technol-
ogies using social network analysis (van der Valk, Chap-
pin, & Gijsbers, 2011). Specifically, a policy-driven
innovation ecosystem was proposed and validated in
the context of vaccine development, shedding light on
the path of policy-driven fashion innovation within
the fashion innovation ecosystem (Li & Garnsey, 2014).
Policy and innovation were integrated with resource
theory. Based on resource-based theory, policy embedd-
edness built a regional network of knowledge exchange
in ICT (Larty, Jack, & Lockett, 2017). Based on resource
dependence theory, innovation in small firms in Taiwan
would benefit relatively more from policy-driven parks
(Huang et al., 2012); credibility and legitimacy played
a crucial role in the policy-driven innovation network
in the Dutch electric vehicle industry (van Rijnsoever,
Welle, & Bakker, 2014). Using the resource-based
view, a framework for evaluating the performance of
innovation networks was developed and compared to
two policy-driven innovation networks in emerging
technologies (van der Valk et al., 2011).
In the fashion-related industry, few scattered studies
haven’t formed a mechanism or pathway. The environ-
mentally sensitive fibre was acknowledged as a type of
policy-driven innovation (Geum, Kim, & Lee, 2016).
An extreme instance of oligarchy in Indonesia resulted
in the disparate development of the clothing business
in two provinces (Achwan, 2013). It was also demon-
strated that, despite the government’s establishment of
an R&D centre to incentivise textiles and clothing
research, Hong Kong’s patent production as a measure
of innovation did not substantially surpass Singapore’s
due to insucient policies (Wang, 2018). To promote
the growth of the fashion industry, British policy advo-
cated cross-border knowledge transfer, such as the
mobility of fashion designers through the education sys-
tem (McRobbie, 2016).
Although policy-driven innovation and related issues
have been extensively investigated, regardless of whether
the policy-driven inuence was positive or negative and
despite the intimate relationship between fashion and
politics, few studies have examined policy-related fashion
innovation and the fashion innovation ecosystem. This
multidisciplinary path combining policy, resources, inno-
vation and fashion functions as a black box and necessi-
tates study to decipher (Teixeira & Silva, 2013). Since
the government is a critical actor, one of the goals of
the research is to address this research gap and embed
the channel from government to innovation into the
fashion innovation ecosystem.
4. Theoretical framework
The multidisciplinary literature review in three fields is
synthesised, and a theoretical framework is proposed
based on the ‘ecosystem as structure’ view and the
research question ‘How does the innovation ecosystem
play a role to stimulate fashion innovation?’, as shown
in Figure 1 (Adner, 2017). The conceptual map com-
bines and visualises pertinent themes, including fashion
innovation and innovation ecosystem (Maxwell, 2013).
It presents two primary parts: the left part focuses on
fashion innovation that necessitates a comprehensive
investigation from an overview perspective because
dierent categories of fashion innovation are composed
of distinctive actors, activities and links; the right part
explores the fashion innovation ecosystem composing
of actors, activities and links that can contribute to
fashion innovation. These two parts are connected by
the logic that actors, links and activities in the proposed
fashion innovation ecosystem will depend on what
fashion innovation in the left part is, as indicated by
6 L. ZENG ET AL.
the arrows pointing to the right. For instance, the
material category of fashion innovation requires actors
such as scientists, raw material suppliers and yarn man-
ufacturers, as well as activities such as R&D in the
fashion innovation ecosystem paradigm. It is not
about the specifics of fashion innovation, such as the
technical path, but rather fashion innovation from the
perspective of strategic management. In reverse, all
left-pointing arrows imply that actors, links and activi-
ties of the proposed fashion innovation ecosystem will
motivate fashion innovation categories at the left part.
A conduit from the government in the fashion inno-
vation ecosystem to fashion innovation will foster pol-
icy-driven fashion innovation. The relationship
between the government and other actors, together
with activities such as financial support provide both
essential and complementary resources to stimulate
fashion innovation categories identified in the preced-
ing literature analysis.
5. Future research
The conceptual framework throws new light on fashion
innovation research and expands the context of the
innovation ecosystem. The study also responds to a
special editorial in JPIM on the development of product
design research through a new lens of the innovation
ecosystem (Swan & Luchs, 2011). In the subsequent ses-
sions, several research directions derived from the
theoretical framework will be discussed.
5.1. Fashion innovation measurement
Because the current arguments present a multidimen-
sional explication of the construct in the available litera-
ture, the key construct lacks a precise and succinct
definition. There is a need to properly define the focal
construct and variable of fashion innovation. Future
research should attempt to explicate the concept of
fashion innovation and its dimensions.
It has been pointed out that product innovation per-
formance could be measured from three perspectives,
namely function, appearance and ergonomics (Moon,
Park, & Kim, 2015), as well as from an emotional cogni-
tive dimension (Gilal, Zhang, & Gilal, 2018). Due to the
challenges created by aesthetic intricacy and the subjec-
tive meaning of fashion products, scanty investigations
have contributed to the assessment of fashion inno-
vation; only the process and model of stylistic inno-
vation have been proposed (Cappetta, Cillo, & Ponti,
2006; Tran, 2010).
In fashion marketing research, product innovation was
evaluated by asking customer questions containing the
phrases ‘unique’, ‘hard to find’, ‘novel’ and ‘special’ (Torres
& Arroyo-Canada, 2017). Aesthetic, expressive and func-
tional factors were used to access customer satisfaction
with 3D printing fashion (Cui, Chattaraman, & Sun,
2022). However, the Chair of Ernesto Gismondi Arte-
mide’s words ‘Market? What market? We do not look at
market needs. We make proposals to people’ was quoted
to distinguish design-driven innovation from the market-
or customer-centred innovation, more research is needed
to explore how to measure fashion innovation that does
not focus on consumer response (Verganti, 2011).
Regarding the above discussion, an objective, rational
and professional measurement of fashion innovation
should be identified to better capture activities and
actors related to the fashion innovation ecosystem.
5.2. Methodology
Because the innovation ecosystem was a non-linear and
co-evolutional paradigm, quantitative indicators such as
license venue were unreliable and invalid as metrics (Oh
Figure 1. The theoretical framework of the fashion innovation ecosystem.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 7
et al., 2016; Ritala & Almpanopoulou, 2017). Being evi-
dence, nine highly cited papers on the innovation eco-
system employed qualitative investigation (Feng et al.,
2021). Future research will comply with the previous
studies by using qualitative methodology to explore
the fashion innovation ecosystem. It is suggested that
fashion innovation could be clarified and conceptual-
ised quantitatively based on abundant research on inno-
vation and new product development measurement
(Moon et al., 2015).
Due to the multidisciplinary feature of the conceptual
framework, a multiple-approach strategy will be appro-
priate (Kawamura, 2011). A generalised qualitative
study using mixed methods and procedures is a possi-
bility. Moreover, empirical studies, such as case studies
and field research using interviews and surveys, could be
employed to validate the conceptual framework and the
propositions.
5.3. Policy-driven fashion innovation
As previously discussed, few researchers have investi-
gated the impact of policy on the fashion sector. Actu-
ally, the government occupied a leading position and
behaved as a powerful actor, as stated by ‘the govern-
ment … the key players shaping the fashion industry’
(Karadayi-Usta, 2023). It was discovered that the gov-
ernment’s eort to achieve sustainability through
healthy and safety laws will greatly impact the supply
chain. Sustainable innovation requested governmental
regulations and rules in terms of transparency (Jestrati-
jevic, Uanhoro, & Creighton, 2022). Waste resources
would be legally restricted in some countries such as
Denmark (Sandvik & Stubbs, 2019). The government
provided training and financial incentives to encourage
the use of sustainable technology (Hoque, Rasiah, Fur-
uoka, & Kumar, 2022). From the customer’s perspec-
tive, they would disseminate petitions and vote for a
government with sustainability policies (de Oliveira
Campos, de Souza Lima, Costa, & da Costa, 2022).
The Australian government identified and promoted a
holistic pathway of sustainability in the fashion sector
through investments in technology, procurement, edu-
cation and collaboration (Piller, 2023). Another national
example testified that policy could enhance industrial
competitiveness in Trinidad and Tobago (Wilson,
2020). However, it can be concluded that most of the
research did not use the terms policy-driven or govern-
ment-driven to describe such practices and did not
directly link to innovation.
The theoretical framework will serve as a paradigm to
explain policy-driven fashion innovation. Governmen-
tal embeddedness provides both essential and
complementary activities such as trade fairs and fashion
week, as well as interactions with other actors such as
associations and universities, to stimulate fashion inno-
vation. Input and supply from the government result in
sustainable output in fashion innovation regarding the
economy, society, human beings and environment
which will be of interests to future research.
5.4. Sustainability of fashion innovation
ecosystem
Sustainability merits a prominent position in fashion
innovation research, despite the fact that many papers
have handled it at the micro-level without overtly indi-
cating it. For instance, mud-dye in the material category
of fashion innovation contributed to the environment
although the research focused on the innovation of
intangible heritage (Linton, 2020). Considering this
tacit academic trend, the conceptual framework of the
fashion innovation ecosystem can be trimmed with a
focus on sustainability. An actor lens helps to analyse
the sustainability of the innovation ecosystem within
which the circular economy is dependent on the activi-
ties of actors (Hoque et al., 2022; Whicher, Harris, Bev-
erley, & Swiatek, 2018). SMEs have been identified as a
leading role in circular economy innovation (Piller,
2023). The government laid the groundwork for evalu-
ating waste resources (Sandvik & Stubbs, 2019). More-
over, it would be more objective to incorporate
sustainability as an indicator for measuring fashion
innovation, or as the output of the fashion innovation
ecosystem from the input-output perspective (Dong,
2015).
5.5. Open fashion innovation
From a constructivist perspective, the innovation eco-
system consists of actors, relationships and activities
(Adner, 2017). Actors broaden the scope of the fashion
innovation ecosystem in tandem with its dynamic
boundary. User or customer participation is relevant
to open innovation. Fashion end-users are the type of
actors with a distinctive aesthetic sensibility and phys-
ical body who, through social media platforms and
online campaigns, co-creates and crowdfunds fashion
innovation products (Dalla Chiesa et al., 2022; Roncha
& Radclye-Thomas, 2016). Open innovation in fashion
covers a broad spectrum, from 3D body scan to made-
to-measurement garments, from comfort improvement
to smart technology (Georgeta et al., 2017; Yu et al.,
2021). Future research could explore open innovation
through the lens of the fashion innovation ecosystem,
such as its shifting to fashion services, its embodiment
8 L. ZENG ET AL.
within dierent innovation processes and its contri-
bution to well-being, etc. (Baker et al., 2019; Ches-
brough, 2017; Gordon & Guttmann, 2013; Morris &
Ashdown, 2018; Morris & Ashdown, 2018).
Based on the elaboration of future research of the
fashion innovation ecosystem, a theoretical framework
for the future research of the fashion innovation ecosys-
tem was redesigned mainly with the integration of
actors including customers and the government, as
shown in Figure 2. The path from users to fashion inno-
vation would generate open fashion innovation and the
path from the government to fashion innovation would
create policy-driven fashion innovation. The fashion
innovation ecosystem could be further developed into
a fashion sustainability innovation ecosystem. Mean-
while, fashion innovation must be studied in terms of
its measurement to identify its pertinent components
within the fashion innovation ecosystem.
6. Conclusion
This paper frames literature on the fashion innovation
and innovation ecosystem, proposes a conceptual
framework – fashion innovation ecosystem and endea-
vours to explain the mechanism of fashion innovation
within the innovation ecosystem domain. Utilising the
government as an example of a key actor, the literature
review on policy-driven innovation validates the exist-
ence of a mechanism from the government to fashion
innovation within the fashion innovation ecosystem.
Future research studies based on the framework are
proposed: open fashion innovation and policy-driven
fashion innovation considering actors; the measure-
ment of fashion innovation considering the conceptual-
isation and taxonomy; the sustainability fashion
innovation ecosystem considering the application and
context; applicable methods considering research meth-
odology. The absence of many potential studies appears
to be the limitation of this research. Another limitation
is that the integrative literature review method has not
been combined with software to obtain a more robust
result via statistical analysis.
The study has significant implications for both theory
and practice. From the theoretical perspective, it
responds to some recent papers on the innovation eco-
system and fashion innovation. It fosters a theoretical
agenda of fashion innovation (Hodges & Link, 2019).
It expands innovation ecosystem theory in the context
of the fashion sector (Baiyere, 2018; Lin, 2018; Luo, Ole-
chowski, & Magee, 2014). It sheds light on policy-driven
innovation formerly regarded as a black box or paradox
(Xiong & Xia, 2020; Yi et al., 2020). The study fills the
research gap of fashion innovation and fashion inno-
vation ecosystem by integrating fashion, innovation
ecosystem and policy into an inclusive and holistic
model at a macro-level, it contributes to the develop-
ment of fashion innovation research and innovation
ecosystem theory.
The study has practical implications for innovation
strategy in the fashion sector. Fashion is a rapidly
renewing product, for which continuous newness and
novelty are the norm. Fierce competition in the fashion
Figure 2. The theoretical framework for research agenda of the fashion innovation ecosystem.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 9
industry seeks both incremental and disruptive inno-
vation along the value chain (Hodges & Link, 2019).
The ‘useless’ innovation when compared with technol-
ogy innovation, necessitates an alternative strategy to
reduce time and cost along the product lifecycle (Pesen-
dorfer, 1995). Our research contributes to managers and
designers by providing an innovation paradigm and a
governmentally supportive way. The study will benefit
policymakers with a holistic view to design industry-
specific regulations and rules that foster an institutional
environment.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Achwan, R. (2013). Living with oligarchy: The clothing
business in provincial Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary
Asia, 43(2), 276–294. doi:10.1080/00472336.2012.757435
Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your
innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4),
98–148.
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable con-
struct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58.
doi:10.1177/0149206316678451
Agrawal, A., & Chopra, S. (2020). Sustainable dyeing of
selected natural and synthetic fabrics using waste teak
leaves (Tectona grandis L.). Research Journal of Textile
and Apparel, 24(4), 357–374. doi:10.1108/RJTA-05-2020-
0046
Anić, I.-D., Corrocher, N., Morrison, A., & Aralica, Z. (2019).
The development of competitiveness clusters in Croatia: A
survey-based analysis. European Planning Studies, 27(11),
2227–2247. doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1610726
Arena, M., Azzone, G., & Piantoni, G. (2021). Uncovering
value creation in innovation ecosystems: Paths towards
shared value. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 25, 432–451. doi:10.1108/EJIM-06-2021-
0289
Bai, Z., Tan, J., Johnston, C. F., & Tao, X.-M. (2015).
Connexion: Development of interactive soft furnishings
with polymeric optical fibre (POF) textiles. International
Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 27(6), 870–
894. doi:10.1108/IJCST-05-2014-0058
Baiyere, A. (2018). Fostering innovation ecosystems - Note on
the 2017 ISPIM innovation forum. Technovation, 69, 1–1.
doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2017.11.003
Baker, R., Yu, U. J., Gam, H. J., & Banning, J. (2019).
Identifying tween fashion consumers’ profile concerning
fashion innovativeness, opinion leadership, internet use
for apparel shopping, interest in online co-design involve-
ment, and brand commitment. Fashion and Textiles, 6,
doi:10.1186/s40691-018-0158-9
Baraldi, E., & Nadin, G. (2006). The challenges in digitalising
business relationships. The construction of an IT infra-
structure for a textile-related business network.
Technovation, 26(10), 1111–1126. doi:10.1016/j.
technovation.2005.09.016
Barile, N., & Sugiyama, S. (2020). Wearing data: From
McLuhan’s “extended skin” to the integration between
wearable technologies and a new algorithmic sensibility.
Fashion Theory, 24(2), 211–227. doi:10.1080/1362704X.
2018.1514847
Bernardo, A. A. C., & de Medeiros, W. G. (2021). Model for
characterizing the innovation process in design.
International Journal of Innovation, 9(1), 158–179. doi:10.
5585/iji.v9i1.15891
Bertola, P., & Teunissen, J. (2018). Fashion 4.0. Innovating
fashion industry through digital transformation. Research
Journal of Textile and Apparel, 22(4), 352–369. doi:10.
1108/RJTA-03-2018-0023
Brydges, T., & Pugh, R. (2021). Coming into fashion:
Expanding the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept to the
creative industries through a Toronto case study. The
Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 65(3),
346–367. doi:10.1111/cag.12674
Cappetta, R., Cillo, P., & Ponti, A. (2006). Convergent designs
in fine fashion: An evolutionary model for stylistic inno-
vation. Research Policy, 35(9), 1273–1290. doi:10.1016/j.
respol.2006.02.009
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). ’Mode 3’ and
’Quadruple Helix’: Toward a twenty-first century fractal
innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology
Management, 46(3-4), 201–234. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2009.
023374
Cerqueira, S. M., Da Silva, A. F., & Santos, C. P. (2020). Smart
vest for real-time postural biofeedback and ergonomic risk
assessment. IEEE Access, 8, 107583–107592. doi:10.1109/
ACCESS.2020.3000673
Chan, C. K., Shin, J., & Jiang, S. X. K. (2018). Development of
tailor-shaped bacterial cellulose textile cultivation tech-
niques for zero-waste design. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, 36(1), 33–44. doi:10.1177/
0887302X17737177
Chandna, V., & Salimath, M. S. (2020). When technology
shapes community in the cultural and craft industries:
Understanding virtual entrepreneurship in online ecosys-
tems. Technovation, 92-93, 102042. doi:10.1016/j.
technovation.2018.06.005
Chesbrough, H. (2017). The future of open innovation: The
future of open innovation is more extensive, more colla-
borative, and more engaged with a wider variety of partici-
pants. Research-Technology Management, 60(1), 35–38.
doi:10.1080/08956308.2017.1255054
Chiaroni, D., & Chiesa, V. (2006). Forms of creation of indus-
trial clusters in biotechnology. Technovation, 26(9), 1064–
1076. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2005.09.015
Cozzarin, B. P. (2006). Are world-first innovations con-
ditional on economic performance? Technovation, 26(9),
1017–1028. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2005.10.007
Cui, T., Chattaraman, V., & Sun, L. (2022). Examining consu-
mers’ perceptions of a 3D printing integrated apparel: A
functional, expressive and aesthetic (FEA) perspective.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 26(2),
266–288. doi:10.1108/JFMM-02-2021-0036
Dalla Chiesa, C., Pavlova, A., Lavanga, M., & Pysana, N.
(2022). When fashion meets crowdfunding: Exploring sus-
tainable and innovative features of online campaigns.
10 L. ZENG ET AL.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 1–21.
doi:10.1108/JFMM-03-2021-0068
Davis, L. C., Tomlinson, J., Khoza, L., & Jamaludeen, N.
(2020). Collaboration of 3D technology and fashion inno-
vations: A creative accessory development assessment.
Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 7(2-3), 179–191. doi:10.
1386/fspc_00013_1
de Araújo, M. D., Neves, M., Neves, J., Hong, H., Fangueiro,
R., dos Santos, A. J. F., … Janssens, K. (1998). Design and
marketing innovation. Journal of the Textile Institute, 89,
16–34. doi:10.1080/00405009808658680
de la Tour, A., Glachant, M., & Ménière, Y. (2011). Innovation
and international technology transfer: The case of the
Chinese photovoltaic industry. Energy Policy, 39(2), 761–
770. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.10.050
de Oliveira Campos, P., de Souza Lima, A. A. L., Costa,
C. S. R., & da Costa, M. F. (2022). The inuence of volun-
tary simplicity and environmental activism on sustainable
fashion purchase intention. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 27, 352–369. doi:10.1108/JFMM-10-
2021-0254
Delbufalo, E. (2015). The inuence of supply network struc-
ture on firm’s multiple innovation capabilities: A longitudi-
nal study in the fashion industry. Management Decision, 53
(10), 2457–2476. doi:10.1108/MD-07-2014-0431
Dong, A. (2015). Design × innovation: Perspective or evi-
dence-based practices
†
. International Journal of Design
Creativity and Innovation, 3(3-4), 148–163. doi:10.1080/
21650349.2014.943294
Durst, S., & Poutanen, P. (2013). Success factors of innovation
ecosystems-Initial insights from a literature review.
COCREATE 2013: The Boundary-Crossing Conference
on Co-Design in Innovation, Helsinki.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdor, L. (2000). The dynamics of
innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a
Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations.
Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333
(99)00055-4
Evans, M., & Chisholm, J. (2016). Design for Europe:
Employing scenarios to benchmark the eectiveness of
European design policy. The Design Journal, 19(2), 253–
268. doi:10.1080/14606925.2016.1130362
Evanschitzky, H., Eisend, M., Calantone, R. J., & Jiang, Y.
(2012). Success factors of product innovation: An updated
meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
29, 21–37. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00964.x
Feng, L., Lu, J., & Wang, J. (2021). A systematic review of
enterprise innovation ecosystems. Sustainability, 13(10),
5742. doi:10.3390/su13105742
Ferasso, M., Wunsch Takahashi, A. R., & Prado Gimenez, F.
A. (2018). Innovation ecosystems: A meta-synthesis.
International Journal of Innovation Science, 10(4),
495–518. doi:10.1108/IJIS-07-2017-0059
Fernández, S. G., Kubus, R., & Pérez-Iñigo, J. M. (2019).
Innovation ecosystems in the EU: Policy evolution and hor-
izon Europe proposal case study (the Actors’ perspective).
Sustainability, 11(17), 4735. doi:10.3390/su11174735
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder
approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781139192675
Fu, B., & Liu, X. (2019). An intelligent computational frame-
work for the definition and identification of the
womenswear silhouettes. International Journal of Clothing
Science and Technology, 31(2), 158–180. doi:10.1108/
IJCST-08-2017-0128
Georgeta, P., Claudia, N., & Sabina, O. (2017). Innovative
technologies for the design and simulation of children’s
clothing products using anthropometric data obtained
by 3D standardized scanning. Industria Textila, 68(2),
95–102. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000400278900003. doi:10.
35530/IT.068.02.1356
Georghiou, L. (2001). Evolving frameworks for European col-
laboration in research and technology. Research Policy, 30
(6), 891–903. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00163-3
Geum, Y., Kim, M.-S., & Lee, S. (2016). How industrial con-
vergence happens: A taxonomical approach based on
empirical evidences. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 107, 112–120. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.020
Ghazinoory, S., Sarkissian, A., Farhanchi, M., & Saghafi, F.
(2020). Renewing a dysfunctional innovation ecosystem:
The case of the Lalejin ceramics and pottery. Technovation,
96-97, 102122. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102122
Gilal, N. G., Zhang, J., & Gilal, F. G. (2018). The four-factor
model of product design: Scale development and vali-
dation. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 27(6),
684–700. doi:10.1108/JPBM-11-2017-1659
Glovinsky, P., & Zavrel, E. (2018). Sleepwear with lateralized
thermal properties for the treatment of sleep disturbance
in women. International Journal of Clothing Science and
Technology, 30(1), 62–72. doi:10.1108/IJCST-08-2016-0104
Gordon, L., & Guttmann, S. (2013). A user centered approach
to the redesign of the patient hospital gown. Fashion
Practice-the Journal of Design Creative Process & the
Fashion Industry, 5(1), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.2752/
175693813 × 13559997788961
Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosys-
tems: A conceptual review and a new definition.
Technovation, 90-91, 102098. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.
2019.102098
Gu, Y., Hu, L., Zhang, H., & Hou, C. (2021). Innovation eco-
system research: Emerging trends and future research.
Sustainability, 13(20), 11458. doi:10.3390/su132011458
Guercini, S., & Runfola, A. (2011). Marketing cooperation and
public policy in Italian networks of fashion firms. In
Network strategies for regional growth (pp. 163–184).
doi:10.1057/9780230299146
Guercini, S., & Runfola, A. (2015). Actors’ roles in interaction
and innovation in local systems: A conceptual taxonomy.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30(3-4),
269–278. doi:10.1108/JBIM-12-2012-0256
Hassan, I., & Abu Talib, N. (2015). State-led cluster develop-
ment initiatives: A brief anecdote of multimedia super
corridor. Journal of Management Development, 34(5),
524–535. doi:10.1108/JMD-02-2014-0011
Hernández-Chea, R., Mahdad, M., Minh, T. T., & Hjortsø, C.
N. (2021). Moving beyond intermediation: How intermedi-
ary organizations shape collaboration dynamics in entre-
preneurial ecosystems. Technovation, 108, 102332. doi:10.
1016/j.technovation.2021.102332
Hodges, N. J., & Link, A. N. (2019). Innovation by design.
Small Business Economics, 52(2), 395–403. doi:10.1007/
s11187-018-0098-1
Hoque, M. A., Rasiah, R., Furuoka, F., & Kumar, S. (2022).
Critical determinants and firm performance of sustainable
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 11
technology adoption in the apparel industry: The stake-
holder approach. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 27, 182–200. doi:10.1108/JFMM-06-2021-
0147
Hou, H., & Shi, Y. (2021). Ecosystem-as-structure and ecosys-
tem-as-coevolution: A constructive examination.
Technovation, 100, 102193. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.
2020.102193
Huang, K.-F., Yu, C.-M. J., & Seetoo, D.-H. (2012). Firm inno-
vation in policy-driven parks and spontaneous clusters:
The smaller firm the better? The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 37(5), 715–731. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9248-9
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards
a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39
(8), 2255–2276. doi:10.1002/smj.2904
Jakubas, A., & Łada-Tondyra, E. (2018). A study on appli-
cation of the ribbing stitch as sensor of respiratory rhythm
in smart clothing designed for infants. The Journal of The
Textile Institute, 109(9), 1208–1216. doi:10.1080/
00405000.2017.1422308
Jasminka, K., & Josipa, Š. (2018). 3D print additive technology
as a form of textile material substitute in clothing design –
interdisciplinary approach in designing corsets and fashion
accessories. Industria Textila, 69(3), 190–196. <Go to
ISI>://WOS:000436359100004. doi:10.35530/IT.069.03.1430
Jestratijevic, I., Uanhoro, J. O., & Creighton, R. (2022). To dis-
close or not to disclose? Fashion brands’ strategies for
transparency in sustainability reporting. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal, 26(1), 36–50. doi:10.1108/JFMM-09-2020-0182
Johne, F. A., & Snelson, P. A. (1988). Success factors in pro-
duct innovation: A selective review of the literature.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5(2), 114–
128. doi:10.1111/1540-5885.520114
Karadayi-Usta, S. (2023). A novel neutrosophical approach in
stakeholder analysis for sustainable fashion supply chains.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 27,
370–394. doi:10.1108/JFMM-03-2022-0044
Kawamura, Y. (2011). Doing research in fashion and dress: An
introduction to qualitative methods. Oxford, NY: Berg.
Khaire, M., & Hall, E. V. (2016). Medium and message:
Globalization and innovation in the production field of
Indian fashion. Organization Studies, 37(6), 845–865.
doi:10.1177/0170840615622061
Klitkou, A., & Godoe, H. (2013). The Norwegian PV manu-
facturing industry in a Triple Helix perspective. Energy
Policy, 61, 1586–1594. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.032
Larty, J., Jack, S., & Lockett, N. (2017). Building regions: A
resource-based view of a policy-led knowledge exchange
network. Regional Studies, 51(7), 994–1007. doi:10.1080/
00343404.2016.1143093
Leick, B., & Gretzinger, S. (2020). Business networking in
organisationally thin regions: A case study on network bro-
kers, SMEs and knowledge-sharing. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, 27(5), 839–861.
doi:10.1108/JSBED-12-2019-0393
Li, J. F., & Garnsey, E. (2014). Policy-driven ecosystems for
new vaccine development. Technovation, 34(12), 762–772.
doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.002
Lin, S. (2018). The structural characteristics of innovation
ecosystem: A fashion case. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 21(4), 620–635. doi:10.1108/
EJIM-09-2017-0115
Linton, C. (2020). “Making It For Our country”: An ethnogra-
phy of mud-dyeing on Amami Ōshima Island. Textile, 18
(3), 250–277. doi:10.1080/14759756.2019.1690837
Luo, J., Olechowski, A. L., & Magee, C. L. (2014). Technology-
based design and sustainable economic growth.
Technovation, 34(11), 663–677. doi:10.1016/j.
technovation.2012.06.005
Maria, E. D., & Finotto, V. (2008). Communities of consump-
tion and made in Italy. Industry and Innovation, 15(2),
179–197. doi:10.1080/13662710801954583
Marin, G., Marzucchi, A., & Zoboli, R. (2015). SMEs and bar-
riers to Eco-innovation in the EU: Exploring dierent firm
profiles. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 25(3), 671–705.
doi:10.1007/s00191-015-0407-7
Matusiak, M., & Fracczak, L. (2017). Comfort-related proper-
ties of seersucker fabrics in dry and wet state. International
Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 29(3), 366–379.
doi:10.1108/IJCST-09-2016-0106
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interac-
tive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
McAdam, R., & McClelland, J. (2002). Sources of new product
ideas and creativity practices in the UK textile industry.
Technovation, 22(2), 113–121. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972
(01)00002-5
McRobbie, A. (2016). Towards a Sociology of fashion micro-
enterprises: Methods for creative economy research.
Sociology, 50(5), 934–948. doi:10.1177/0038038516650593
Mo, S., Mo, M., & Ho, K.-C. (2020). Fabrication of electric
heating garment with plasma-assisted metal coating
(PAC) technology. International Journal of Clothing
Science and Technology, 32(3), 297–306. doi:10.1108/
IJCST-04-2019-0050
Moatti, J. P., Chanut, C., & Benech, J. M. (1994). Researcher-
driven versus policy-driven economic appraisal of health
technologies: The case of France. Social Science &
Medicine, 38(12), 1625–1633. doi:10.1016/0277-9536
(94)90063-9
Moodley, S. (2003). The challenge of e-business for the South
African apparel sector. Technovation, 23(7), 557–570.
doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00002-0
Moon, H., Park, J., & Kim, S. (2015). The importance of an inno-
vative product design on customer behavior: Development
and validation of a scale. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 32(2), 224–232. doi:10.1111/jpim.12172
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey - a new ecology of
competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.
Morris, K., & Ashdown, S. (2018). Expanding the concept of
lead users as collaborators in functional apparel design.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 36(3), 180–198.
doi:10.1177/0887302 ( 18765262
Morris, K. D., & Ashdown, S. P. (2018). Partnerships in prac-
tice: Producing new design knowledge with users when
developing performance apparel products. Fashion
Practice, 10(3), 328–353. doi:10.1080/17569370.2018.
1507149
Na, J. H., Choi, Y., & Harrison, D. (2017). The design inno-
vation spectrum: An overview of design inuences on inno-
vation for manufacturing companies. International Journal
of Design, 11(2), 13–24.
12 L. ZENG ET AL.
Ng, F. M. C., & Wang, P. W. (2016). Natural self-grown
fashion from bacterial cellulose: A paradigm shift design
approach in fashion creation. The Design Journal, 19(6),
837–855. doi:10.1080/14606925.2016.1208388
Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and rad-
ical innovation: Design research vs. technology and mean-
ing change. Design Issues, 30(1), 78–96. doi:10.1162/DESI_
a_00250
Nthubu, B. (2021). The value of a co-design visualization
approach: Enhancing the understanding of local entrepre-
neurial ecosystems. The Design Journal, 24(5), 749–760.
doi:10.1080/14606925.2021.1957327
Nthubu, B., Perez, D., Richards, D., & Cruickshank, L. (2022).
Navigating complexity through co-design: Visualising,
understanding and activating entrepreneurial ecosystems.
The Design Journal, 25(5), 730–751. doi:10.1080/
14606925.2022.2088096
Oh, D.-S., Phillips, F., Park, S., & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation
ecosystems: A critical examination. Technovation, 54, 1–6.
doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.004
Omar, A. A., Mohan, A. V., & Zhao, X. (2017). Can govern-
ment policies drive open innovation type platforms?
Ideas from the MSC Malaysia agship applications.
Science, Technology and Society, 22(3), 490–505. doi:10.
1177/0971721817724315
Park-Poaps, H., Bari, M. S., & Sarker, Z. W. (2021).
Bangladeshi clothing manufacturers’ technology adoption
in the global free trade environment. Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, 25(2), 354–370. doi:10.1108/
JFMM-06-2020-0119
Pesendorfer, W. (1995). Design innovation and fashion cycles.
The American Economic Review, 85(4), 771–792.
Piatier, A. (1984). Barriers to innovation. Luxembourg: OPOCE.
Piller, L. W. (2023). Designing for circularity: Sustainable path-
ways for Australian fashion small to medium enterprises.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 27, 287–
310. doi:10.1108/JFMM-09-2021-0220
Popescu, G., Olaru, S., Niculescu, C., Foiasi, T., & Salistean, A.
(2019). New 3D to 2D design method of clothing for teen-
agers. Industria Textila, 70(4), 299–302. doi:10.35530/IT.
070.04.1585
Quitzow, R. (2015). Dynamics of a policy-driven market: The
co-evolution of technological innovation systems for solar
photovoltaics in China and Germany. Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 126–148. doi:10.
1016/j.eist.2014.12.002
Rahman, O., Chen, Z., Fung, B. C. M., & Kharb, D. (2020). A
cross-national study of young female consumer behaviour,
innovativeness and apparel evaluation: China and India.
The Journal of The Textile Institute, 111(3), 334–344.
doi:10.1080/00405000.2019.1632627
Ramachandran, J., Pant, A., & Pani, S. K. (2012). Building the
BoP producer ecosystem: The evolving engagement of
Fabindia with Indian handloom artisans. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 29(1), 33–51. doi:10.
1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00877.x
Raustiala, K., & Sprigman, C. (2006). The piracy paradox:
Innovation and intellectual property in fashion design.
Virginia Law Review, 92(8), 1687–1777.
Reischauer, G. (2018). Industry 4.0 as policy-driven discourse
to institutionalize innovation systems in manufacturing.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132, 26–33.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.012
Rieple, A., Gander, J., Pisano, P., & Haberberg, A. (2015). UK
fashion designers working in micro-sized enterprises; atti-
tudes to locational resources, their peers and the market.
Industry and Innovation, 22(2), 147–164. doi:10.1080/
13662716.2015.1035959
Ritala, P., & Almpanopoulou, A. (2017). In defense of ‘eco’ in
innovation ecosystem. Technovation, 60-61, 39–42. doi:10.
1016/j.technovation.2017.01.004
Roncha, A., & Radclye-Thomas, N. (2016). How TOMS’
“one day without shoes” campaign brings stakeholders
together and co-creates value for the brand using
Instagram as a platform. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 20(3), 300–321. doi:10.1108/JFMM-10-
2015-0082
Rossol, E., & Lapolla, K. (2020). Hashtag Vogue: A content
analysis of the dierences between regional Vogue
Instagram accounts. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 7
(2–3), 259–279. doi:10.1386/fspc_00018_1
Roy, R., & Riedel, J. C. K. H. (1997). Design and innovation in
successful product competition. Technovation, 17(10), 537–
594. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(97)00050-3
Sandvik, I. M., & Stubbs, W. (2019). Circular fashion supply
chain through textile-to-textile recycling. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, 23(3), 366–381.
doi:10.1108/JFMM-04-2018-0058
Shen, B., Li, Q., Dong, C., & Quan, V. (2016). Design outsour-
cing in the fashion supply chain: OEM versus ODM.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 67(2), 259–
268. doi:10.1057/jors.2015.23
Shin, M. J., & Westland, S. (2017). Digitizing traditional cul-
tural designs. The Design Journal, 20(5), 639–658. doi:10.
1080/14606925.2017.1349725
Sohn, D.-W., Kim, H., & Lee, J. H. (2009). Policy-Driven uni-
versity – Industry linkages and regional innovation net-
works in Korea. Environment and Planning C: Politics
and Space, 27(4), 647–664. doi:10.1068/c0890b
Sokolowski, S. L. (2020). The development of a performance
hand wear and tools product innovation framework.
Fashion and Textiles, 7(1), 18. Article 15. doi:10.1186/
s40691-020-0205-1
Soni, M., Jain, K., & Kumar, B. (2019). Factors aecting the
adoption of fashion mobile shopping applications.
Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 10(4), 358–376.
doi:10.1080/20932685.2019.1649165
Stankeviciute, K. (2020). Communicating identity through
wearable technologies: The case of the action film.
Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 7(2-3), 297–313. doi:10.
1386/fspc_00020_1
Su, Y.-S., & Hung, L.-C. (2009). Spontaneous vs. policy-dri-
ven: The origin and evolution of the biotechnology cluster.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(5), 608–
619. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.08.008
Sugg, B. (2022). Circular textiles innovation during COVID-
19: Not the silver lining some had hoped for. Journal of
fashion marketing and management, 1–16. doi:10.1108/
JFMM-07-2021-0180
Sun, Q. (2010). Design industries and policies in the UK and
China: A comparison. Design Management Review, 21(4),
70–77. doi:10.1111/j.1948-7169.2010.00097.x
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 13
Suseno, Y., & Standing, C. (2018). The systems perspective of
national innovation ecosystems. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 35(3), 282–307. doi:10.1002/sres.2494
Swan, K. S., & Luchs, M. (2011). From the special issue edi-
tors: Product design research and practice: Past, present
and future. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
28(3), 321–326. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00800.x
Teixeira, A. A. C., & Silva, J. M. (2013). The intellectual and
scientific basis of science, technology and innovation
research. Innovation: The European Journal of Social
Science Research, 26(4), 472–490. doi:10.1080/13511610.
2013.786910
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews:
Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development
Review, 4(3), 356–367. doi:10.1177/1534484305278283
Torres, J. A. S., & Arroyo-Canada, F. J. (2017). Building brand
loyalty in e-commerce of fashion lingerie. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, 21(1), 103–114.
doi:10.1108/JFMM-05-2016-0047
Tran, Y. (2010). Generating stylistic innovation: A process
perspective. Industry and innovation, 17(2), 131–161.
doi:10.1080/13662711003633322
Valkokari, K., Seppänen, M., Mäntylä, M., & Jylhä-Ollila, S.
(2017). Orchestrating innovation ecosystems: A qualitative
analysis of ecosystem positioning strategies. Technology
Innovation Management Review, 7(3), 12–24. doi:10.
22215/timreview/1061
van der Valk, T., Chappin, M. M. H., & Gijsbers, G. W. (2011).
Evaluating innovation networks in emerging technologies.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(1), 25–
39. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.07.001
van Rijnsoever, F. J., Welle, L., & Bakker, S. (2014). Credibility
and legitimacy in policy-driven innovation networks:
Resource dependencies and expectations in Dutch electric
vehicle subsidies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39
(4), 635–661. doi:10.1007/s10961-013-9326-7
Vehmas, K., Raudaskoski, A., Heikkilä, P., Harlin, A., &
Mensonen, A. (2018). Consumer attitudes and communi-
cation in circular fashion. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 22(3), 286–300. doi:10.1108/JFMM-08-
2017-0079
Verganti, R. (2008). Design, meanings, and radical inno-
vation: A Metamodel and a research Agenda*. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 25(5), 436–456. doi:10.
1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00313.x
Verganti, R. (2011). Radical design and technology
epiphanies: A New focus for research on design
management. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 28(3), 384–388. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.
2011.00807.x
Walsh, V. (1996). Design, innovation and the boundaries of
the firm. Research Policy, 25(4), 509–529. doi:10.1016/
0048-7333(95)00847-0
Wang, J. (2018). Innovation and government intervention: A
comparison of Singapore and Hong Kong. Research Policy,
47(2), 399–412. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.008
Wang, J., Yang, B., Huang, B., & Jin, Z. (2012). Design and
development of polymeric optical fiber jacquard fabric
with dynamic pattern display. Textile Research Journal, 82
(10), 967–974. doi:10.1177/0040517511427965
Wang, P., Yuan, L., & Kuah, A. T. H. (2017). Can a fast-
expanding market sustain with supply-side government
Aid? An investigation into the Chinese solar photovoltaics
industry. Thunderbird International Business Review, 59(1),
103–114. doi:10.1002/tie.21771
Wang, W., Nagai, Y., Fang, Y., & Maekawa, M. (2018).
Interactive technology embedded in fashion emotional
design: Case study on interactive clothing for couples.
International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology,
30(3), 302–319. doi:10.1108/IJCST-09-2017-0152
Whicher, A., Harris, C., Beverley, K., & Swiatek, P. (2018).
Design for circular economy: Developing an action plan
for Scotland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 3237–
3248. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.009
Whitham, R., Pérez, D., Mason, K., & Ford, C. (2019). Realising
the value of open innovation in policy making: Equipping
entrepreneurs for valuation work. The Design Journal, 22
(sup1), 189–201. doi:10.1080/14606925.2019.1595857
Wickramarathne, T. I., & Al Mahmud, A. (2021).
Considerations for designing sportswear for low-income
tropical countries. The Design Journal, 24(2), 207–230.
doi:10.1080/14606925.2021.1877236
Wilson, S. (2020). Building apparel manufacturing competi-
tiveness through policy–a system dynamics approach.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 24(2),
277–302. doi:10.1108/JFMM-10-2019-0243
Wu, J., Yang, Z., Hu, X., Wang, H., & Huang, J. (2018).
Exploring driving forces of sustainable development of
China’s New energy vehicle industry: An analysis from
the perspective of an innovation ecosystem.
Sustainability, 10(12), 4827. doi:10.3390/su10124827
Xiong, Y., & Xia, S. (2020). Mechanisms behind China’s inno-
vation achievements: A multi-level view. Technovation, 94-
95, 102123. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102123
Yaghmaie, P., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2020). Identifying and
describing constituents of innovation ecosystems.
EuroMed Journal of Business, 15(3), 283–314. doi:10.1108/
EMJB-03-2019-0042
Yang, C., Wang, J., & Li, L. (2017). Innovative artificial leather
with high thermal conductivity as a new leather product.
Textile Research Journal, 87(20), 2487–2504. doi:10.1177/
0040517516673328
Yi, J., Hong, J., Hsu, W. C., & Wang, C. (2020). Reprint of
"The role of state ownership and institutions in the inno-
vation performance of emerging market enterprises:
Evidence from China". Technovation, 94-95, 102095.
doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102095
Yu, Y., Moore, M., & Chapman, L. P. (2021). Social network analy-
sis of an emerging innovation: Direct-to-garment printing tech-
nology. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 25(2),
274–289. doi:10.1108/JFMM-03-2020-0053
Zhang, J., Zhang, W., Song, Q., Li, X., Ye, X., Liu, Y., & Xue, Y.
(2020). Can energy saving policies drive firm innovation
behaviors? - Evidence from China. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 154, 119953. doi:10.1016/j.
techfore.2020.119953
14 L. ZENG ET AL.
