IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ssa/lemwps/2021-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sustainable innovation and intellectual property rights: friends, foes or perfect strangers?

Author

Listed:
  • Carolina Castaldi

Abstract

As sustainable innovation becomes a strategy for companies to gain competitive advantage, the question of how to profit from sustainable innovation becomes central. Surprisingly, little research exists on the appropriation strategies of companies engaged in sustainable innovation and the few studies are poorly connected. This chapter focuses on intellectual property rights (IPR), the formal tools available to companies to protect their intangible assets. I link the three main types of IPRs to common archetypes of sustainable innovation and I discuss the motives why companies might file patents, trademarks or design rights or instead choose not to. I conclude by discussing how IPRs might act as incentives, barriers or be simply neglected by sustainable innovators and I offer directions for further research.

Suggested Citation

  • Carolina Castaldi, 2021. "Sustainable innovation and intellectual property rights: friends, foes or perfect strangers?," LEM Papers Series 2021/11, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    • Handle: RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2021/11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/files/2021-11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Suma Athreye & Claudio Fassio, 2020. "Why do innovators not apply for trademarks? The role of information asymmetries and collaborative innovation," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1-2), pages 134-154, February.
    2. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2010. "How Much Should Society Fuel the Greed of Innovators? On the Relations between Appropriability, Opportunities and Rates of Innovation," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Block, Jörn H. & Fisch, Christian O. & Hahn, Alexander & Sandner, Philipp G., 2015. "Why do SMEs file trademarks? Insights from firms in innovative industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1915-1930.
    4. Jorge L. Contreras & Bronwyn H. Hall & Christian Helmers, 2018. "Green Technology Diffusion: A Post-Mortem Analysis of the Eco-Patent Commons," NBER Working Papers 25271, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Marcel Seip & Carolina Castaldi & Meindert Flikkema & Ard-Pieter de Man, 2019. "A taxonomy of firm-level IPR application practices to inform policy debates," LEM Papers Series 2019/03, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    7. Desyllas, Panos & Sako, Mari, 2013. "Profiting from business model innovation: Evidence from Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 101-116.
    8. Hall, Bronwyn H., 2003. "Business Method Patents, Innovation, and Policy," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt2n24f63d, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    9. Claudia Ghisetti & Sandro Montresor, 2019. "Design and eco-innovation: micro-evidence from the Eurobarometer survey," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(10), pages 1208-1241, November.
    10. Arthur Vankan & Koen Frenken & Carolina Castaldi, 2014. "Designing for a Living? Income Determinants Among Firm Founders in the Dutch Design Sector," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 117-140, February.
    11. Marcel C. Hollander & Conny A. Bakker & Erik Jan Hultink, 2017. "Product Design in a Circular Economy: Development of a Typology of Key Concepts and Terms," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(3), pages 517-525, June.
    12. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    13. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    14. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Albert Jolink & Eva Niesten, 2015. "Sustainable Development and Business Models of Entrepreneurs in the Organic Food Industry," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(6), pages 386-401, September.
    16. Carolina Castaldi & Joern Block & Meindert J. Flikkema, 2020. "Editorial: why and when do firms trademark? Bridging perspectives from industrial organisation, innovation and entrepreneurship," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1-2), pages 1-10, February.
    17. Leiponen, Aija & Byma, Justin, 2009. "If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1478-1488, November.
    18. Castaldi, Carolina, 2018. "To trademark or not to trademark: The case of the creative and cultural industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 606-616.
    19. Blind, Knut & Edler, Jakob & Frietsch, Rainer & Schmoch, Ulrich, 2006. "Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 655-672, June.
    20. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 2008. "Introduction to Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk," Introductory Chapters, in: Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton University Press.
    21. Lucy Norris, 2019. "Urban prototypes: Growing local circular cloth economies," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(1), pages 205-224, January.
    22. Nancy T. Gallini, 2002. "The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 131-154, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Capponi, Giovanna & Criscuolo, Paola & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2019. "Profiting from innovation: Evidence from a survey of Queen's Awards winners," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 155-169.
    2. Bronwyn H. Hall & Vania Sena, 2017. "Appropriability mechanisms, innovation, and productivity: evidence from the UK," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 42-62, February.
    3. Barros, Henrique M., 2021. "Neither at the cutting edge nor in a patent-friendly environment: Appropriating the returns from innovation in a less developed economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    4. Joseph Amankwah-Amoah & Stephen Kehinde Medase, 2024. "Extracting Innovation Value from Intellectual Property: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(2), pages 8933-8967, June.
    5. Marcel Seip & Carolina Castaldi & Meindert Flikkema & Ard-Pieter de Man, 2019. "A taxonomy of firm-level IPR application practices to inform policy debates," LEM Papers Series 2019/03, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    6. Yang, Jialei & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia, 2022. "Evolving appropriability – Variation in the relevance of appropriability mechanisms across industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    7. Flikkema, Meindert & Castaldi, Carolina & de Man, Ard-Pieter & Seip, Marcel, 2019. "Trademarks’ relatedness to product and service innovation: A branding strategy approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1340-1353.
    8. Martine Gadille & Juan Ramón Gallego-Bono, 2021. "Rebuilding a Cluster While Protecting Knowledge within Low-Medium-Tech Supplier SMEs: A Spanish and French Comparison," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-35, October.
    9. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    10. Insu Cho & Heejun Park & Joseph Kim, 2012. "The moderating effect of innovation protection mechanisms on the competitiveness of service firms," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 6(3), pages 369-386, September.
    11. Francesco Chirico & Giuseppe Criaco & Massimo Baù & Lucia Naldi & Luis R. Gomez-Mejia & Josip Kotlar, 2020. "To patent or not to patent: That is the question. Intellectual property protection in family firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(2), pages 339-367, March.
    12. Marco Grazzi & Chiara Piccardo & Cecilia Vergari, 2020. "Concordance and complementarity in IP instruments," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(7), pages 756-788, August.
    13. Bos, Brenda & Broekhuizen, Thijs L.J. & de Faria, Pedro, 2015. "A dynamic view on secrecy management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2619-2627.
    14. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    15. Langlois, Jonathan & BenMahmoud-Jouini, Sihem & Servajean-Hilst, Romaric, 2023. "Practicing secrecy in open innovation – The case of a military firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    16. Carolina Castaldi, 2024. "The geography of urban innovation beyond patents only: New evidence on large and secondary cities in the United States," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 61(7), pages 1248-1272, May.
    17. Dosi, Giovanni & Palagi, Elisa & Roventini, Andrea & Russo, Emanuele, 2023. "Do patents really foster innovation in the pharmaceutical sector? Results from an evolutionary, agent-based model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 564-589.
    18. Long, Vicky, 2019. "IPRs and Appropriability in the Digital Era: Evidence from the Swedish Video (Computer) Games Industry," Ratio Working Papers 329, The Ratio Institute.
    19. Astrid Heidemann Lassen & Daniel Ljungberg & Maureen McKelvey, 2020. "Promoting Future Sustainable Transition by Overcoming the Openness Paradox in KIE Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-14, December.
    20. Thomä, Jörg & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-49.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Sustainability; innovation; intellectual property rights.;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2021/11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/labssit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.