- Email: [email protected]
The interlinking of entrepreneurs, grassroots movements, public policy and hubs of innovation: The rise of Cleantech in New York City
Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of High Technology Management Research
The interlinking of entrepreneurs, grassroots movements, public policy and hubs of innovation: The rise of Cleantech in New York City Mel Horwitch, Bala Mulloth ⁎ Polytechnic Institute of NYU, Dept. of Technology Management, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Available online 12 March 2010 Keywords: Clean Technology Cleantech Entrepreneurship Modern innovation Cleantech innovation New York City Grassroots movements
a b s t r a c t Although increasingly complex, modern innovation is still largely viewed through the lenses of sectors and distinct venues—e.g. large corporate R&D and new product development, entrepreneurial small or new ventures, or public programs or projects. However, Cleantech innovation is different—more blended, networked and boundary spanning. Social entrepreneurship and grassroots activism are also important. To understand such innovation emerging Cleantech activity in New York City—triggered by growing environmental concerns and opportunities due to rising energy costs—is studied. At a general level, Cleantech innovation decision making is viewed as a collaborative, complex set of activities involving diverse social entrepreneurs, grassroots movements, firms, public policy actions and hubs of innovation—all encompassing varied sectors and institutions and as a whole representing diverse individual backgrounds and motivations. Three grassroots NYC-based Cleantech endeavors are contrasted: vision42—a well-defined citizen-centric effort; Green Drinks NYC—a networking endeavor with no identifiable center (resembling a “meet-up”); and GREEEN.US—a fluid movement emanating from a university-based incubator and comprising diverse entrepreneurs, community activists, faculty, corporate executives and public officials. The lessons learned for Cleantech innovation and for modern innovation generally are then developed, focusing especially on the roles of social entrepreneurship and grassroots activism. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction 1.1. The rising significance of new sources of innovation This paper deals with novel and emerging sources of innovation, and illuminates the variety and complexity characterizing modern innovation. Since innovation management became a scholarly field its diversity and complexity were acknowledged, e.g., different types of innovation (e.g., radical vs. incremental (Myers and Marquis, 1969) or product vs. process (Abernathy and Utterback, 1975)) and different types of innovation venues (e.g., large corporations, entrepreneurial start-ups and growing enterprises and governmentfunded R&D and large-scale macro-level endeavors) (Horwitch and Prahalad, 1976). Rigid distinctions and models for innovation have now blurred with growing linkages and interactions between various innovation types, incorporation of innovation management into other functions (e.g., marketing, strategy and HR) (Branscomb, 2004), (Porter, 1985), a growing number of options for implementing innovation (Sawhney et al., 2006), the increasingly global scope of innovation (The Economist, 2007), emerging-nation innovation venues (especially network-like structures), and a complex range of innovation sources (Brown and Hagel, 2008), (Von Hippel, 2006).
⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Mulloth). 1047-8310/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2010.02.004
24
M. Horwitch, B. Mulloth / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
Innovation changed with the rise of a digital environment, made possible by powerful and accessible telecommunication networks, software, appliances and computing capabilities in the 1980s and 1990s and the growth of the Internet in the 1990s. Users increasingly contributed content. Individuals became interlinked. Low-transaction-cost collaboration occurred on a worldwide basis (Tapscott and Ticoll, 2003). Digital-based innovation firms were formed, like eBay, financial services analytics boutiques, Google, Yahoo, etc. Other developments include the Open Source movement in software and even encyclopedias like Wikipedia (Schiff, 2006), user-driven content initiatives like Facebook, YouTube, and other efforts to monetize user-centric innovations (e.g., Kluster, InnoCentive, Cambrian House, and VenCorps), (Tedeschi, 2008). Also important is a growing emphasis on entrepreneurship and its changing nature. Over eighty years ago Schumpeter called attention to the necessity of entrepreneurs to unleash “creative destruction” (Schumpeter, 1934). Others have since elaborated on the shifting and important role of entrepreneurship in innovation (Freeman and Soete, 1982), (Roberts, 1991). The entrepreneur is well suited for a modern networked economy, characterized by, for example, interwoven global networks (Nijkamp, 2003). Entrepreneurs tend to seek new combinations or re-combinations. They fit in well, where speed, adaptation, flexibility and fluid restructuring are often valued (Nijkamp, 2003). A striking and fairly recent development in entrepreneurship is the rise of the social entrepreneur (Christie and Honig, 2006). It gained prominence with the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 to Mohammad Yunus for establishing the Gremeen Bank and for promoting micro-financing in Bangladesh. The social entrepreneur operates at the intersection of the market, state and civil society (Haugh, 2007). Social entrepreneurship is complex and somewhat contradictory. The term “social entrepreneurship” is somewhat difficult to comprehend. How much is “social” and how much is money-seeking “entrepreneurial”? Relevant scholarship examines the skills and beliefs of social entrepreneurs, their local environment, and the interactions and influences affecting the social entrepreneur and the external environment (Beveridge, 2005). Several types of social entrepreneurs have been identified. Some place a high premium on social goals; others on commercial exchange (Peredoa and McLean, 2006). One study provides three social enterprise forms: mission-centric, mission-related and mission unrelated, and then overlays three operational types: embedded, integrated and external (Haugh, 2007). Another attempt differentiates Cleantech social entrepreneurs, or “eco-preneurs.” It distinguishes structure (hard vs. soft) and motivations for action (primarily economic vs. primarily green aims), as seen in Fig. 1. Scholarship has generally neglected the relationship between social entrepreneurship and innovation. Is social entrepreneurship a source of innovation—a source hitherto ignored or undiscovered? There are hints, at least in some instances, that social entrepreneurship can be an important innovation source. Although social entrepreneurship may be “messy,” that very messiness can be asset in a context of rapid change, uncertainty, multiple stakeholders and changing technologies (Beveridge, 2005), (Peredoa and McLean, 2006). Vigorous social entrepreneurship is also portrayed as a much-needed source of new energy, revitalization (Beveridge, 2005), (Korosec and Berman, 2006). The venue in which social entrepreneurship and innovation occur reflects the way innovation often takes place, as an increasingly network-like, fluid, interlinked and overall ecosystem (Adner, 2006). Networks exhibit considerable variety, and span conventional sectors. Networks tend to bring together diverse interested actors. In settings characterized by many interested parties and some uncertainty, networks have the capacity for complex innovation, re-supplying of resources and revitalization (Dredge, 2006), (Gute, 2006), (Hargadan, 2003), (Roberts and Thompson, 2006). An ecosystem orientation is quite useful. Instead of a single organization as a core source of innovation, there is a shift toward using networks and leveraging external ecosystems (Adner, 2006). Attention is paid to social networking and Web 2.0 activities (Johnson, 2007). Innovation is becoming more “democratized” and “open” (Von Hippel, 2006), (Chesbrough, 2003), (Brown and Hagel, 2008). The greater the complexity of decision making, the more numerous and diverse the key participants, and the more widespread the expertise needed, the more likely that a network of relationships and organizations is useful, due, in part, to the “strength of weak ties” (Granovetter, 1973) (Granovetter, 1983). In such settings, social entrepreneurship may flourish, adapting in an ongoing way to changes and opportunities. Linking of social entrepreneurs with effective social and political movements makes sense. Efficacy in resource mobilization and taking of advantage of opportunities lead to effective innovation, to energizing an entire social environment (Benford and Snow, 2000) and to building new mutually reinforcing “organizational fields” (Bartley, 2007), (Powell et al., 2005). Effective ecosystem management practices, along with maintaining institutional diversity, require collaboration, information networks, organizational change, education and empowered individuals (Yaffee, 1996). Broad-based and multifaceted “civic engagement” also enhances citizen-centered innovation (Cooper et al., 2006).
Fig. 1. Possible types of eco-preneurs [7].
M. Horwitch, B. Mulloth / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
25
Combining social entrepreneurs and innovation can be powerful (Skoll Foundation, 2007). This was demonstrated by stimulating creative industries and urban tourism in South Africa; by reinventing knowledge-based societies in Germany and Singapore; and by establishing “network-forming and open-source communities” in Berlin (Rogerson, 2006, (Hornidge, 2007, (Louekari, 2006). Without both ingredients for innovation, stagnation can set in (Schot, 1998). The specific industrial setting chosen for this study is Cleantech. Innovation's importance in Cleantech was highlighted over a decade ago. In the so-called “greening of technology,” with the possibility of “limits to growth,” technological innovation per se, both systemic and linear, was identified as a significant factor to consider (Freeman, 1996). Cleantech is more prominent today. There are calls for a “War on Oil” (Khosla, 2007). Cleantech is portrayed as a possible catalyst for economic development, employment, new clusters of innovation and revitalization of cities (Apollo Alliance, 2008). Cleantech-associated technologies are almost always included among top prospects for major technological innovation in the near future. In one study on the “global technology revolution” in 2020, two of the top candidates cited were Cleantech technologies, cheap solar energy and hybrid vehicles (Silberglitt et al., 2006). Of the fourteen “engineering grand challenges” listed by the National Academy of Engineering in 2008, at least six deal with some aspect of Cleantech, including make solar energy economical, manage the nitrogen cycle, provide energy from fusion, provide access to clean water, provide carbon sequestration methods and restore and improve urban infrastructure (National Academy of Engineering, “Engineering Grand Challenges, 2008). Cleantech is pervasive and encompasses a variety of industries, firms, products, services, and technologies. Industry segments making up a large part of the Cleantech universe include energy generation, energy storage, energy infrastructure, energy efficiency, transportation, water and wastewater, air and environment, materials, manufacturing/industrial, agriculture, and recycling and waste.1 These diverse Cleantech activities all strive to provide superior performance at lower costs; to reduce significantly or even eliminate negative ecological impacts, and to upgrade productive and responsible use of natural resources (Cleantech, 2009). Cleantech is part of overall strategy (The Economist, 2008) for such firms as GE, IBM, Wal-Mart, GE, Google, HP, Dell, and various auto companies(Florida and Davison, 2001), (The Economist, 2007) (CNN.com, 2007). Firms act like this for varied reasons, including maintaining competitiveness, complying with regulation, laws and public expectation (called legitimation) and social responsibility (Bansal and Roth, 2000). Cleantech venture investment grew rapidly worldwide (Wall Street Journal, 2008) (Cheng, 2007), from about $714 million in 2001 to about $3.6 billion in 2006 to about $5.18 billion in 2007, a growth rate of about 43%. Cleantech energy generation deals in 2007 represented $2.75 billion worth of investment. (Cleantech Group, 2008) (LaMonica, 2008). Indicating the great interest in Cleantech by the venture community, Al Gore, winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change, announced in November 2007 that he would join the leading venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, donating 100% of his salary to an advocacy group (Richtel, 2007). In spite of the downturn, the overall mood with regard to Cleantech remains bullish (Parker, 2007)(Press Release, 2007). States are competing for Cleantech with funding and by establishing environments friendly zones. California and Massachusetts aim to be leaders in Cleantech. Silicon Valley sees Cleantech as a next wave. Cleantech represents a large percentage of new growth in that region. From 2006 to 2007, Cleantech grew in Silicon Valley by 94% (compared to 7% for the rest of California) (Harris, 2007), (Joint Venture Silicon Valley, 2008), (Nauman, 2007a),(Nauman, 2007b), (O'Brien, 2007); San Jose aims to be the “home of clean technology” (Tam and Carlton, 2007). But Boston, Massachusetts and Austin, Texas are vying for that title. Other states also investing in Cleantech include New Jersey, Ohio and Iowa (The Economist, 2008). Cleantech possesses a diverse set of actors, including social entrepreneurs and grassroots organizations, unlike stereotypical high-tech. Innovation and community action can reinforce one another, constituting two significant forces for sustainable development (Seyfang and Smith, 2007). Such forces may also help break traditional decision making logjams (Campbell, 1996) Social entrepreneurship may make a difference in promoting sustainability in cities (Dodds, 2007) (Sullivan, 2007). At least for Cleantech, grassroots movements and social entrepreneurship might represent new sources of innovation. We will now turn to three mini-case studies to explore such issues more substantively. 2. Mini-case studies 2.1. vision422 “On an increasingly populated planet, we need plans that will make our cities more livable and workable—as high-quality alternatives to urban sprawl. This is where the vision42 plan can serve as a persuasive demonstration of sustainable urban living—and a prominent affirmation of the merits of cities”–Roxanne Warren, Co-founder, vision42
1 Various industry segments include sub-segments, such as: energy generation (wind, solar, hydro/marine, biofuels, geothermal, and other); energy storage (fuel cells; advanced batteries, and hybrid systems); energy infrastructure (management and transmission); energy efficiency (lighting, buildings, glass, and others); transportation (vehicles, logistics, structures, and fuels); water and wastewater (water treatment, water conservation, and wastewater treatment); air and environment (cleanup/safety, emissions control, monitoring/compliance, and trading & offsets); materials (nano, bio, chemical, and others); manufacturing/ industrial (advanced packaging, monitoring and control, and smart production); agriculture: (natural pesticides, land management, and aquaculture); and recycling and waste (recycling and waste treatment) [17]. 2 The research for this case study was conducted by reviewing relevant and related articles and documents and the vision42 website; and by personal and phone interviews with key members of the organization.
26
M. Horwitch, B. Mulloth / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
vision42 is a citizen-centric effort that aims to transform 42nd Street in Midtown Manhattan in New York City into a pedestrian mall, served by a futuristic surface-based light rail system running river-to-river along 42nd Street within a landscaped pedestrian boulevard. Founded in July 1999, the organization is completely volunteer driven and has around 50 members in the working group at any point of time and around 10 to 15 people at the regular monthly meetings. vision42 adheres to the notion that dense urban centers with large pedestrian populations function more smoothly with restraints on motor vehicles and with the simultaneous introduction of high-quality local public transportation systems. The vision42 initiative offers a plan that provides pedestrians with space, greenery, and amenities, combined with speedy and efficient river-to-river travel via a modern, at-grade, low-floor light rail line. vision42 builds on and enhances a previous plan to reintroduce light rail on 42nd Street. This plan was advanced by the 42nd Street Development Corporation and the City's Department of Transportation, and was approved overwhelmingly in 1994 by the City Council (vision42 website, 2008). The vision is that by eliminating traffic in both directions and by incorporating substantial pedestrian amenities into the street light rail plan, New York City could finally make this transportation improvement a reality (Horwitch, 2008). The capital costs of vision42 have been estimated at between $411 million and $582 million in 2007 dollars, depending upon the extent of utility replacements and the choice of propulsion system. The annual debt service requirement for these amounts is estimated to range from $36.1 million to $51.1 million. A Transit Benefit Improvement District (TID), which incorporates existing and new developments within five blocks to the north and south of 42nd Street, is estimated to yield adequate annual revenues to retire the full debt service. New York City's 42nd Street, with its high percentage of public transit riders, its confluence of a half million people every weekday, and its rich offering of cultural, civic, commercial and entertainment facilities, is, therefore, in a unique position to demonstrate that an initiative such as vision42 offers exciting prospects for broad application in cities throughout the United States and beyond (Warren, 2005). 2.2. GREEEN.US3 “The most promising urban environmental opportunities today lie in rooftops, urban farming/gardening, alternative energy solutions, water management and related academic curriculum.”–Mr. Bruce Niswander, Director, Brooklyn Enterprise on Science and Technology (BEST), Polytechnic Institute of NYU and Principal, GREEEN.US “Politically, top–down support and leadership for CleanTech in the US has been singularly lacking. As a result, the environmental zeitgeist in New York City today is finding expression in a digitally driven cottage industry. Our own GREEEN.US is like a cyber-Little Red School House—a bottom-up movement empowered by the concerned young, handson “sustainers” and engaged educators—using the Social Networking tools of a Webware collaborative platform.–Mr. Land Grant, Team Lead, GREEEN.US GREEEN.US is a Cleantech initiative led by Polytechnic Institute of NYU in Brooklyn, NY. GREEEN stands for GReen Education, Environment & Economics Network The university is in the process of establishing GREEEN as a Social Enterprise, or earnedincome nonprofit (GREEN. US Website, 2008). This initiative is to develop a comprehensive urban rooftop solution with environmental educational and economic aims. GREEEN.US focuses on hyper-urban spaces, like rooftops. GREEEN.US helps other organizations develop more valuable and workable green environments. In order to do this, the first GREEEN project is positioning itself to be a set of research, design and development (RD&D), pilots that will address educational, environmental and economic issues, initially via school-based “green roofs” installations. These initiatives also aim to “deploy pilot green roofs on two to four appropriate and participatory K-12 public schools in New York City during the 2007–2008 school year and 2008 summer-school sessions” (GREEN. US Website, 2008). The economic viability of “green roofs” is further corroborated by the fact that leafy walls and roofs could help people turn down air conditioning on hot days, and in turn save huge amounts of energy. It could lower temperatures by up to 11C, depending on geographic location of the city (Brahic, 2007). The “green roofs” solution proposed includes the following features (Niswander, 2008): • Urban gardening/farming: A joint team of scientist and designers would create a componentized roof top garden solution that would address structural constraints, environmental concerns, and production costs in order to quickly deploy gardening/ farming installations on school roofs and eventually on all available commercial roof space. • Water management: The water management challenges of the gardening/farming effort offer the perfect catalyst for the creation of a comprehensive roof top water strategy that includes the capture (for future use), immediate analysis and treatment and eventual use in local “gray water” initiatives. • Alternative energy: The project proposed to identify the most efficient alternative energy technologies capable of being integrated into a densely populated urban environment. 3 Research on GREEEN.US and Green Drinks is based on a deep ethnographic-style study, which we are conducting on these organizations. It adheres to research practices associated with grounded theory and ethnographic methods of observation. Grounded theory could appear in various forms. “Grounded theory could be presented either as a well-codified set of propositions or in a running theoretical discussion, using conceptual categories and their properties” (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). We also met with and conducted a variety of interviews with several of the key members and participants of these organizations.
M. Horwitch, B. Mulloth / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
27
• Related academic curriculum: A comprehensive urban environment curriculum would be developed around the sciences, math, design, architecture and entrepreneuring components of the “green roof” project. The key to commercial success of the GREEEN.US effort is an ability to develop a coordinated curriculum that leverages a financially viable roof top “solution” capable of delivering gardening/farming, water and energy in a single deployable unit. The ultimate objective is to create a commercial initiative that caters to both an effective educational solution to middle school, high school and college students as well as a financially attractive real estate enhancement that would be adopted in urban environments in the United States and worldwide. 2.3. Green Drinks “Malta, an island in the Mediterranean, had their first Green Drinks six months ago and 350 people showed up. Who are these people? I love it.”–Margaret Lydecker, U.S. head and NYC founder/organizer, Green Drinks NYC (Sprig Website, 2008) “It's an environmentalism that embraces a lot more than tree-huggers. It's an environmentalism that is embracing people who are involved with making money with the green economy.”–David P. Sibek, Founder, Green Drinks Long Island, NY (Fischler, 2007). Green Drinks is an international network of social gatherings for the environmental community to meet-up over drinks and talk about “green” and environmental issues every month in chapters all over the Unites States, as well as Europe, South America, Asia and Australia. Active in over 285 member cities around the world, the networking event serves as an excellent platform for people from diverse fields and areas with a mutual interest in environmental issues to come together, cross pollinate, meet and drink in a low key social environment at a different venue every month (Lydecker, 2008). The idea was originally founded in London in 1989 by Edwin Datschefski in a small pub called ‘The Slug and Lettuce’. It started out when Datschefski and a few of his green design colleagues were having drinks at the bar. They noticed that an environmentally minded acquaintance and friends were sitting at a nearby table. The tables were soon pulled together, and the Green Drinks movement was born. Green Drinks is a very simple concept; but it has now evolved into a global phenomenon (Gershon, 2008). Local chapters of Green Drinks groups are everywhere, from Warsaw to Capetown, from Boulder to Beijing. These events are positioned as amorphous social mixers where people exchange “green” ideas and make the “green community” more connected and collaborative. Margaret Lydecker founded New York City's Green Drinks in 2002, and has watched it grow into the largest chapter. At the first NYC Green Drinks, there were just three people, Margaret Lydecker and two others. That number grew exponentially and as of November 2007 NYC green drinks had over 7000 members and between 300 and 500 attendees at each event (O'Shea-Evans, 2007). It is proposed that part of the reason for the exploding interest and fast-growing membership is due to the fact that people are increasingly being exposed to environmental issues and the dangers of global warming, peak oil and water depletion. The gathering welcomes people from all walks of life, including simply interested citizens, activists and business entrepreneurs. Green Drinks provides a way for people who normally would never meet to get together and to bond with others regardless of age or profession. The NYC event occurs every second Tuesday of the month. In order to receive periodic newsletters and announcements on the networking events, all one needs to do is send an email to [email protected] to get on the Green Drinks mailing list. The suggested donation for the event is $10, which helps support Green Drinks with such tasks as daily operations, web-hosting, managing mailing lists, publishing a monthly newsletter, customer service, finding venues and marketing (Green Drinks NYC, 2008). 3. Discussion The emergence of Cleantech has a number of implications for innovation and technology, management. As noted above, Cleantech is pervasive, affecting profoundly a vast array of industries, firms, managerial functions and corporate strategies. Cleantech is attracting venture capital, and high-tech clusters, like Silicon Valley and Boston, are aiming to maintain their leadership in innovation by betting on Cleantech for the future. Moreover, Cleantech is global, with significant activity taking place in Germany, Scandinavia, the Middle East, India and China, to name but a few regions. But comparatively neglected in all the discussion and news about Cleantech is that fact that Cleantech is also a matter of quality of life and values. Unlike many other technology regimes, which are more or less left to experts, relevant firms, interested third parties and informed individuals, Cleantech seems to belong to everyone on the planet. Indeed, all citizens believe they have a stake in Cleantech. They think about aspects of Cleantech when they build a home, pay the heating bill, buy an automobile, eat food, and consider various governmental initiatives at the Federal, State or local level. Cleantech figures into issues of war or peace. Failure in Cleantech may well lead to increasing dependence on foreign oil, and conflict over access remains a possibility. So it is not surprising that social entrepreneurship and social movements are now part of the emerging innovation pattern in Cleantech. In all probability this will continue and even grow in significance. Based on a comparative examination of the three mini-case studies in the Cleantech arena in Part II above, and informed by the relevant scholarly literature and general developments articulated in Part I above, there are already several important
28
M. Horwitch, B. Mulloth / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
observations that can be made. First, as already noted with regard to networks, social entrepreneurs and social movements generally, grassroots Cleantech movements manifest considerable variety. vision42, GREEEN.US and Green Drinks are different from each other in important ways. Perhaps most significant is to look at the type of structure and the type of mission of each of these grassroots phenomena. Although they are in the Cleantech space, they are very different in terms of structure. vision42 has a relatively well-defined structure. One can pinpoint this organization, its boundaries, its location, and its members and staff. At the opposite end of the structural spectrum is Green Drinks, which is a very loosely linked global movement, with no particular role other than to serve as a gathering point—a “meet-up”—of like-minded individuals who are involved in or interested in Cleantech in some way. The purpose of Green Drinks is simply to allow that possibility of making new contacts and perhaps to generate a useful network for a period of time. In the middle is GREEEN.US. While GREEEN.US has no permanent home, it does possess epicenters, quasi-home bases, e.g., the BEST Incubator at Polytechnic Institute of NYU, the Pratt Incubator and Land Grant's office. Also the boundaries of GREEEN.US are fuzzier than those of vision42, but less amorphous than those of Green Drinks. GREEEN.US is, in effect, a network, comprising institutions and individuals, and these linkages can be discerned and even mapped. GREEEN.US's linkages also possess varying degrees of strength, perhaps illustrating Granovetter's point about the “strength of weak ties” (Freeman, 1996) (Granovetter, 1983). The missions of each of these three grassroots movements also differ from each other. The most specific and well-defined is that of vision42, where the single-minded goal is to convert 42nd Street in Manhattan into a pedestrian-only thoroughfare (except for the building of a light rail system on that street.) The mission of Green Drinks is broad but also somewhat easy to identify, to promote networking and ease the process of making contacts related to Cleantech. While the particular type of Cleantech is not specified, the overall purpose of Green Drinks is rather clear. GREEEN.US is the least clear in terms of mission. The overall thrust seems to be educational (after all, it began at a university), but community development, substantive activities (e.g. green roofs) and real estate improvement also appear to be part of GREEEN.US's agenda. Moreover, while the focal activity appears to revolve around green roofs, even this focal point could be modified if other opportunities arose. Therefore, one can began to create a typology of grassroots Cleantech social movements along the two dimensions of structure (Focal Organization vs. Identifiable Network vs. Fluid Network) and Mission (Specific vs. Broad). The resulting matrix is provided in Fig. 2. Like social entrepreneurship generally, Cleantech social entrepreneurs similarly exhibit great variety. The leaders of vision42 are motivated by primarily “green” beliefs and by a substantive (“hard”) understanding of the needs in the relevant external environment. Thus, vision42 is a creation of visionary social entrepreneurs. Motivations associated with GREEEN.US are less easy to define. Its members exhibit varied motivations and expertise. Some are motivated by green ideals; others by economic goals; some have significant expertise in, say, green roofs; others have less experience. One challenge for the social entrepreneur in GREEEN.US is to keep all involved and to make sure that GREEEN.US fulfills in a sufficient manner the diverse expectations of its varied membership. With Green Drinks, the goal of the founder was simply to create opportunities for other social entrepreneurs and other parties. Motivation was not monetary. For those now participating in Green Drinks there is much more variety. Some take part in order to be part of a worthwhile and exciting endeavor. But for others the goal tends toward profit-seeking aspirations. Green Drinks provides an experience that fulfills both kinds of need, all in a context of covering a wide range of Cleantech endeavors. In terms of longevity, both vision42 and Green Drinks have existed for a lengthy period of time. vision42 is committed to a more or less single concrete goal, and will not rest until it succeeds in transforming 42nd Street. Green Drinks appears to be successful over the years in creating a useful environment for networking. It has developed an attractive reputation locally and worldwide. As interest in Cleantech grows, it should continue and prosper as networking becomes even more sought-after, much like various “meet-ups” in other sectors like media, software and venture capital. GREEEN.US is the youngest endeavor and is still evolving. It lacks the focus of vision42 and its lacks the long-term success and relative ease of implementation possessed by Green Drinks. GREEEN.US still has to prove its worth, both to its members and to the relevant community at large. All three organizations are made up of activists, developers and users, and the three mini-case studies are clearly just the tip of the iceberg. In New York City other grassroots. The grassroots Cleantech institutional ecology in New York City is rich, growing and widespread. Cleantech movements exist—in all five boroughs. Some are associated with schools, religious institutions and other community organizations, and others focus on specific issues, e.g. “peak oil.” Therefore, organizations like the three studied examined are participants in an increasing and evolving Cleantech innovation context. Such grassroots organizations appear helpful, perhaps necessary, for Cleantech innovation to succeed. They are engines of innovation, by developing ideas, generating
Fig. 2. Varieties of grassroots Cleantech movements.
M. Horwitch, B. Mulloth / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
29
support or directly implementing innovation. They also are the conduits for knowledge sharing, information, credibility and acceptance. 4. Conclusion This examination of a burgeoning new and diverse innovation regime, Cleantech, and its connection with the rise of equally diverse grassroots Cleantech movements located in New York City, suggests potentially important implications for the field of innovation and technology management. The role of grassroots institutional diversity in innovation needs more attention. Clearly in the case of Cleantech innovation such institutional variety is enormous. Some initiatives have specific focus, e.g. vision42. Others aim to play a broad role, like the networking found in Green Drinks. And some efforts, like GREEEN.US, are still evolving in terms of their focus. There is already increasing recognition that users and dispersed individuals can now play important roles in the modern innovation process, particularly in software, artistic content and R&D. Cleantech innovation reflects this trend and even takes it in new directions. Ultimately the success of many Cleantech initiatives may depend on how successful they are at the grassroots level. Therefore, at least for Cleantech innovation, paying attention to effective social entrepreneurs is crucial, and encouraging grassroots activism with effective leadership, structure and missions is also important for success. In this study we have seen that effective modern innovation, at least reflected in the rapid and astounding rise of Cleantech, is possibly becoming more complex, diffuse and multifaceted. Technology management has neglected this now important part of modern society—diverse kinds of grassroots social activism and social entrepreneurship. But these kinds of forces, as shown with regard to Cleantech in NYC, seem to be playing an increasingly important role in the modern innovation process. Grassroots activities can be significant for the generation of new and exciting ideas, and can represent cost-effective ways to promote innovation. A robust grassroots ecology can be important for revitalization of a region and a sector. Innovation practitioners and scholars alike should take social entrepreneurship and grassroots activism into greater account. References Abernathy, W., & Utterback, J. (1975). Dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6). Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review. Apollo Alliance (2008), New energy for cities, Retrieved 2/1/08 World Wide Web, http://www.apolloalliance.org/resources.php Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717−736. Bartley, T. (2007). How foundations shape social movements: The construction of an organizational field and the rise of forest certification. Social Problems, 54(3), 229−255. Benford, R., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611−639. Beveridge, R. (2005). The rise of the eco-preneur and the messy world of environmental innovation. Local Environment, 10(6), 665−676. Brahic, C. (2007). Greenroofs' could cool warming cities. New Scientist, 196(2624). Branscomb, L (2004). Where do high tech commercial innovations come from? Duke L &Tech Review Rev, Retrieved 9/15/06 World Wide Web, http://www.law. duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2004dltr0005.htmlwww.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2004dltr0005/html Brown, J., & Hagel, J. (2008). Creation nets: getting the most from open innovation. McKinsey Quarterly. Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, Growing cities, just cities? Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3). Cheng, J. (2007). China nurtures a ‘Clean Tech’ hub; As pollution woes weigh, industrial park seeks eco-friendly projects. Wall Street Journal (pp. B3). Chesbrough, W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Christie, M., & Honig, B. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: new research findings. Journal of World Business, 41, 1−5. Cleantech Group (2009). About us—Cleantech definition, Retrieved 8/29/09 World Wide Web, http://cleantech.com/about/cleantechdefinition.cfm Cleantech Group. (2008). Cleantech investments reach new apex of $5.18 billion over 2007 and sixth consecutive year of growth. News release. CNN.com (2007). Google pushes ‘green’ power initiative, Retrieved 12/16/07 World Wide Web, http://m.cnn.com/cnn/ne/business_tech/detail/42270/full Cooper, T., et al. (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review (pp. 6−88). December. Dodds, H. (2007). The many dimensions of sustainable development. Ecos (pp. 139). Oct–Nov. Dredge, D. (2006). Networks, conflict and collaborative communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 562−581. Fischler, M. (2007). Social groups uniting the eco-conscious. December: New York Times 9. Florida, R., & Davison, D. (2001). Gaining from green management. California Management Review, 3. (pp. 64−84). Spring. Freeman, C. (1996). The greening of technology and models of innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53, 27−39. Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (1982). The economics industrial innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gershon, J. (2008). Green partying, Retrieved 02/02/2008 World Wide Web, http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1851 Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360−1380. Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201−233. Green Drinks NYC Website (2008). Retrieved 02/20/08 World Wide Web http://www.greendrinks.org/ GREEEN.US Website (2008). Retrieved 02/14/08 World Wide Web, http://greeen.growthroots.com/pages/greeen-home Gute, M. (2006). Revitalizing neighbourhoods through sustainable brownfields redevelopment: Principles put into practice in Bridgeport, CT. Local Environment, 11(5), 537−558. Hargadan, A. (2003). How breakthroughs happen. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Harris, D (2007). Start-ups fatten up: Venture capital spigot flows freely in Q3, Mercury News, Nov 2007, Retrieved 11/11/08 World Wide Web, http://www. siliconvalley.com/ci_7428782?nclick_check=1 Haugh, H. (2007). New strategies for a sustainable society: The growing contribution of social entrepreneurship. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(4), 743−749. Hornidge, A. (2007). Re-inventing society: State concepts of knowledge in Germany and Singapore. Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 22(2), 202−229. Horwitch (2008). This information is taken from an interview conducted by Bala Mulloth with Adam Horwitch (vision42 member and volunteer) in New York City on February 22, 2008. Horwitch, M., & Prahalad, C. K. (1976). Managing technological innovation: Three ideal modes. Sloan Management Review, 17(2 winter), 77−89. Johnson, Y.(2007) Change the world one click at a time: Social sites using tools of the Internet to call for action and to unite like-minded individuals, Boston Globe, Retrieved 12/19/07 World Wide Web, http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/12/29/change_the_world_one_click_at_a_time/? page=full
30
M. Horwitch, B. Mulloth / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network (2008). “2008 Silicon Valley index”. Khosla, V. (2007). The war on oil. Wall Street Journal, A18. Korosec, R., & Berman, E. (2006). Municipal support for social entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review. LaMonica, M (2008). Clean-tech VC investing tops $3 billion, but ‘funding gap’ looms, CNET Green Tech Blog, 2008, Retrieved 2/27/08 World Wide Web, http:// www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9882103-54.html Louekari, M. (2006). The creative potential of Berlin: Creating alternative models of social, economic and cultural organization in the form of network forming and open-source communities. Planning Research & Practice, 21(4) 663–481. Lydecker (2008). This information is taken from a video posted on Margaret Lydecker, Retrieved 01/28/08 World Wide Web http://www.sprig.com/videos/meetgreen-drinker-margaret-lydecker/ Myers, S., & Marquis, D. G. (1969). Successful industrial innovation. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. National Academy of Engineering, “Engineering Grand Challenges (2008)”. Retrieved 2/29/08 World Wide Web, http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/ Nauman, M. (2007a). Going green won't hurt the economy, study finds, Mercury News, 2007, Retrieved 11/25/07 World Wide Web, http://origin.siliconvalley. com/latestheadlines/ci_7457743?nclick_check=1 Nauman, M. (2007b). ‘Green’ VC funding sets record, Mercury News, 2007, Retrieved 11/29/07 World Wide Web http://www.siliconvalley.com/venturecapital/ ci_7587942 Nijkamp, P. (2003). Entrepreneurship in a modern network economy. Regional Studies, 37(4), 395−5405. Niswander (2008). This information is taken from an interview conducted by Bala Mulloth with Mr. Bruce Niswander in Brooklyn, NY on February 6, 2008. O'Brien, C. (2007). Clean Tech paves way for new silicon valley industry, Mercury News, 2007, Retrieved 12/28/07 World Wide Web, http://www.siliconvalley. com/ci_7819074?nclick_check=1 O'Shea-Evans, K. (2007). Coming to a bar near you. National Geographic Traveler. Parker, N. (2007). Clean-Tech trend offers promise of tidy profits. Financial Times April 25 (pp. 12). Peredoa, A., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1). Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: NY, Free Press. Powell, W., et al. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1132−1205. Press Release. (2007). Jefferies survey finds cleantech investors bullish on solar power, ethanol and hybrid transportation. Jefferies & Company, Inc. Richtel, M. (2007). Gore joins venture capital firm, New York Times, 2007, Retrieved 11/12/07 World Wide Web, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/ AP-Gore-Venture-Capitalist.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin Roberts, E. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: Lessons from MIT and beyond. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Roberts, N., & Thompson, F. (2006). Netcentric’ organization. Public Administration Review (pp. 619−622). July–August. Rogerson, C.. (2006). Creative industries and urban tourism: South African perspectives. Urban Forum, 17(2), 149−166. Sawhney, M., et al. (2006). Twelve different ways for companies to innovate. Sloan Management Review, 47(3), 75−81. Schiff, S. (2006). Know it all—Can wikipedia conquer expertise. New Yorker. Schot, J. (1998). The usefulness of evolutionary models for explaining innovation: The case of the Netherlands in the nineteenth century. History and Technology, 11, 173−200. Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda.Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584−603 August. Silberglitt, R. et al. (2006), The global technology revolution: 2020, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2006, Retrieved 2/1/08 World Wide Web, http://www. rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR303/ Skoll Foundation (2007), Growing opportunity: Entrepreneurial solutions to insoluble problems, First Edition 2007, SustainAbility, Ltd, Retrieved 2/1/08 World Wide Web, http://www.sustainability.com/insight/skoll_article.asp?id=937 Sprig Website (2008). Retrieved 01/23/08 World Wide Web, http://www.sprig.com/experts/16/ Sullivan, D. (2007). Stimulating social entrepreneurship: Can support from cities make a difference? Academy of Management Perspectives (pp. 77−78). February. Tam, P., & Carlton, J. (2007). San Jose aims to be home of ‘Clean Technology’. Wall Street Journal (pp. B1). Tapscott, D., & Ticoll, D. (2003). The naked corporation: how the age of transparency will revolutionize business. New York, NY: The Free Press. Tedeschi, B. (2008). Putting innovation in the hands of a crowd. New York Time (pp. C6). March 3. The Economist (2007). The rise and fall of corporate R&D, 2007, Retrieved 9/1/07 World Wide Web, http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm? story_id=8769863 The Economist (2008). America's clean-tech clusters—Venture capitals, Retrieved 2/20/08 World Wide Web, http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory. cfm?story_id=9230363 vision42 Website (2008). Retrieved 02/12/08 World Wide Web, http://www.vision42.org/about/plan.php Von Hippel, E. (2006). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, paperback edition. Wall Street Journal. (2008). Green-technology investments rise (pp. A15). Feb 29. Warren, R. (2005). Urban model for a crowded planet—vision42. Sustainable Development and Planning II, volume 1, Wessex Institute. Yaffee, S. (1996). Ecosystem management in practice: The importance of human institutions. Ecological Applications, 6(3), 724−727.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of High Technology Management Research
The interlinking of entrepreneurs, grassroots movements, public policy and hubs of innovation: The rise of Cleantech in New York City Mel Horwitch, Bala Mulloth ⁎ Polytechnic Institute of NYU, Dept. of Technology Management, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Available online 12 March 2010 Keywords: Clean Technology Cleantech Entrepreneurship Modern innovation Cleantech innovation New York City Grassroots movements
a b s t r a c t Although increasingly complex, modern innovation is still largely viewed through the lenses of sectors and distinct venues—e.g. large corporate R&D and new product development, entrepreneurial small or new ventures, or public programs or projects. However, Cleantech innovation is different—more blended, networked and boundary spanning. Social entrepreneurship and grassroots activism are also important. To understand such innovation emerging Cleantech activity in New York City—triggered by growing environmental concerns and opportunities due to rising energy costs—is studied. At a general level, Cleantech innovation decision making is viewed as a collaborative, complex set of activities involving diverse social entrepreneurs, grassroots movements, firms, public policy actions and hubs of innovation—all encompassing varied sectors and institutions and as a whole representing diverse individual backgrounds and motivations. Three grassroots NYC-based Cleantech endeavors are contrasted: vision42—a well-defined citizen-centric effort; Green Drinks NYC—a networking endeavor with no identifiable center (resembling a “meet-up”); and GREEEN.US—a fluid movement emanating from a university-based incubator and comprising diverse entrepreneurs, community activists, faculty, corporate executives and public officials. The lessons learned for Cleantech innovation and for modern innovation generally are then developed, focusing especially on the roles of social entrepreneurship and grassroots activism. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction 1.1. The rising significance of new sources of innovation This paper deals with novel and emerging sources of innovation, and illuminates the variety and complexity characterizing modern innovation. Since innovation management became a scholarly field its diversity and complexity were acknowledged, e.g., different types of innovation (e.g., radical vs. incremental (Myers and Marquis, 1969) or product vs. process (Abernathy and Utterback, 1975)) and different types of innovation venues (e.g., large corporations, entrepreneurial start-ups and growing enterprises and governmentfunded R&D and large-scale macro-level endeavors) (Horwitch and Prahalad, 1976). Rigid distinctions and models for innovation have now blurred with growing linkages and interactions between various innovation types, incorporation of innovation management into other functions (e.g., marketing, strategy and HR) (Branscomb, 2004), (Porter, 1985), a growing number of options for implementing innovation (Sawhney et al., 2006), the increasingly global scope of innovation (The Economist, 2007), emerging-nation innovation venues (especially network-like structures), and a complex range of innovation sources (Brown and Hagel, 2008), (Von Hippel, 2006).
⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Mulloth). 1047-8310/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2010.02.004
24
M. Horwitch, B. Mulloth / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
Innovation changed with the rise of a digital environment, made possible by powerful and accessible telecommunication networks, software, appliances and computing capabilities in the 1980s and 1990s and the growth of the Internet in the 1990s. Users increasingly contributed content. Individuals became interlinked. Low-transaction-cost collaboration occurred on a worldwide basis (Tapscott and Ticoll, 2003). Digital-based innovation firms were formed, like eBay, financial services analytics boutiques, Google, Yahoo, etc. Other developments include the Open Source movement in software and even encyclopedias like Wikipedia (Schiff, 2006), user-driven content initiatives like Facebook, YouTube, and other efforts to monetize user-centric innovations (e.g., Kluster, InnoCentive, Cambrian House, and VenCorps), (Tedeschi, 2008). Also important is a growing emphasis on entrepreneurship and its changing nature. Over eighty years ago Schumpeter called attention to the necessity of entrepreneurs to unleash “creative destruction” (Schumpeter, 1934). Others have since elaborated on the shifting and important role of entrepreneurship in innovation (Freeman and Soete, 1982), (Roberts, 1991). The entrepreneur is well suited for a modern networked economy, characterized by, for example, interwoven global networks (Nijkamp, 2003). Entrepreneurs tend to seek new combinations or re-combinations. They fit in well, where speed, adaptation, flexibility and fluid restructuring are often valued (Nijkamp, 2003). A striking and fairly recent development in entrepreneurship is the rise of the social entrepreneur (Christie and Honig, 2006). It gained prominence with the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 to Mohammad Yunus for establishing the Gremeen Bank and for promoting micro-financing in Bangladesh. The social entrepreneur operates at the intersection of the market, state and civil society (Haugh, 2007). Social entrepreneurship is complex and somewhat contradictory. The term “social entrepreneurship” is somewhat difficult to comprehend. How much is “social” and how much is money-seeking “entrepreneurial”? Relevant scholarship examines the skills and beliefs of social entrepreneurs, their local environment, and the interactions and influences affecting the social entrepreneur and the external environment (Beveridge, 2005). Several types of social entrepreneurs have been identified. Some place a high premium on social goals; others on commercial exchange (Peredoa and McLean, 2006). One study provides three social enterprise forms: mission-centric, mission-related and mission unrelated, and then overlays three operational types: embedded, integrated and external (Haugh, 2007). Another attempt differentiates Cleantech social entrepreneurs, or “eco-preneurs.” It distinguishes structure (hard vs. soft) and motivations for action (primarily economic vs. primarily green aims), as seen in Fig. 1. Scholarship has generally neglected the relationship between social entrepreneurship and innovation. Is social entrepreneurship a source of innovation—a source hitherto ignored or undiscovered? There are hints, at least in some instances, that social entrepreneurship can be an important innovation source. Although social entrepreneurship may be “messy,” that very messiness can be asset in a context of rapid change, uncertainty, multiple stakeholders and changing technologies (Beveridge, 2005), (Peredoa and McLean, 2006). Vigorous social entrepreneurship is also portrayed as a much-needed source of new energy, revitalization (Beveridge, 2005), (Korosec and Berman, 2006). The venue in which social entrepreneurship and innovation occur reflects the way innovation often takes place, as an increasingly network-like, fluid, interlinked and overall ecosystem (Adner, 2006). Networks exhibit considerable variety, and span conventional sectors. Networks tend to bring together diverse interested actors. In settings characterized by many interested parties and some uncertainty, networks have the capacity for complex innovation, re-supplying of resources and revitalization (Dredge, 2006), (Gute, 2006), (Hargadan, 2003), (Roberts and Thompson, 2006). An ecosystem orientation is quite useful. Instead of a single organization as a core source of innovation, there is a shift toward using networks and leveraging external ecosystems (Adner, 2006). Attention is paid to social networking and Web 2.0 activities (Johnson, 2007). Innovation is becoming more “democratized” and “open” (Von Hippel, 2006), (Chesbrough, 2003), (Brown and Hagel, 2008). The greater the complexity of decision making, the more numerous and diverse the key participants, and the more widespread the expertise needed, the more likely that a network of relationships and organizations is useful, due, in part, to the “strength of weak ties” (Granovetter, 1973) (Granovetter, 1983). In such settings, social entrepreneurship may flourish, adapting in an ongoing way to changes and opportunities. Linking of social entrepreneurs with effective social and political movements makes sense. Efficacy in resource mobilization and taking of advantage of opportunities lead to effective innovation, to energizing an entire social environment (Benford and Snow, 2000) and to building new mutually reinforcing “organizational fields” (Bartley, 2007), (Powell et al., 2005). Effective ecosystem management practices, along with maintaining institutional diversity, require collaboration, information networks, organizational change, education and empowered individuals (Yaffee, 1996). Broad-based and multifaceted “civic engagement” also enhances citizen-centered innovation (Cooper et al., 2006).
Fig. 1. Possible types of eco-preneurs [7].
M. Horwitch, B. Mulloth / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
25
Combining social entrepreneurs and innovation can be powerful (Skoll Foundation, 2007). This was demonstrated by stimulating creative industries and urban tourism in South Africa; by reinventing knowledge-based societies in Germany and Singapore; and by establishing “network-forming and open-source communities” in Berlin (Rogerson, 2006, (Hornidge, 2007, (Louekari, 2006). Without both ingredients for innovation, stagnation can set in (Schot, 1998). The specific industrial setting chosen for this study is Cleantech. Innovation's importance in Cleantech was highlighted over a decade ago. In the so-called “greening of technology,” with the possibility of “limits to growth,” technological innovation per se, both systemic and linear, was identified as a significant factor to consider (Freeman, 1996). Cleantech is more prominent today. There are calls for a “War on Oil” (Khosla, 2007). Cleantech is portrayed as a possible catalyst for economic development, employment, new clusters of innovation and revitalization of cities (Apollo Alliance, 2008). Cleantech-associated technologies are almost always included among top prospects for major technological innovation in the near future. In one study on the “global technology revolution” in 2020, two of the top candidates cited were Cleantech technologies, cheap solar energy and hybrid vehicles (Silberglitt et al., 2006). Of the fourteen “engineering grand challenges” listed by the National Academy of Engineering in 2008, at least six deal with some aspect of Cleantech, including make solar energy economical, manage the nitrogen cycle, provide energy from fusion, provide access to clean water, provide carbon sequestration methods and restore and improve urban infrastructure (National Academy of Engineering, “Engineering Grand Challenges, 2008). Cleantech is pervasive and encompasses a variety of industries, firms, products, services, and technologies. Industry segments making up a large part of the Cleantech universe include energy generation, energy storage, energy infrastructure, energy efficiency, transportation, water and wastewater, air and environment, materials, manufacturing/industrial, agriculture, and recycling and waste.1 These diverse Cleantech activities all strive to provide superior performance at lower costs; to reduce significantly or even eliminate negative ecological impacts, and to upgrade productive and responsible use of natural resources (Cleantech, 2009). Cleantech is part of overall strategy (The Economist, 2008) for such firms as GE, IBM, Wal-Mart, GE, Google, HP, Dell, and various auto companies(Florida and Davison, 2001), (The Economist, 2007) (CNN.com, 2007). Firms act like this for varied reasons, including maintaining competitiveness, complying with regulation, laws and public expectation (called legitimation) and social responsibility (Bansal and Roth, 2000). Cleantech venture investment grew rapidly worldwide (Wall Street Journal, 2008) (Cheng, 2007), from about $714 million in 2001 to about $3.6 billion in 2006 to about $5.18 billion in 2007, a growth rate of about 43%. Cleantech energy generation deals in 2007 represented $2.75 billion worth of investment. (Cleantech Group, 2008) (LaMonica, 2008). Indicating the great interest in Cleantech by the venture community, Al Gore, winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change, announced in November 2007 that he would join the leading venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, donating 100% of his salary to an advocacy group (Richtel, 2007). In spite of the downturn, the overall mood with regard to Cleantech remains bullish (Parker, 2007)(Press Release, 2007). States are competing for Cleantech with funding and by establishing environments friendly zones. California and Massachusetts aim to be leaders in Cleantech. Silicon Valley sees Cleantech as a next wave. Cleantech represents a large percentage of new growth in that region. From 2006 to 2007, Cleantech grew in Silicon Valley by 94% (compared to 7% for the rest of California) (Harris, 2007), (Joint Venture Silicon Valley, 2008), (Nauman, 2007a),(Nauman, 2007b), (O'Brien, 2007); San Jose aims to be the “home of clean technology” (Tam and Carlton, 2007). But Boston, Massachusetts and Austin, Texas are vying for that title. Other states also investing in Cleantech include New Jersey, Ohio and Iowa (The Economist, 2008). Cleantech possesses a diverse set of actors, including social entrepreneurs and grassroots organizations, unlike stereotypical high-tech. Innovation and community action can reinforce one another, constituting two significant forces for sustainable development (Seyfang and Smith, 2007). Such forces may also help break traditional decision making logjams (Campbell, 1996) Social entrepreneurship may make a difference in promoting sustainability in cities (Dodds, 2007) (Sullivan, 2007). At least for Cleantech, grassroots movements and social entrepreneurship might represent new sources of innovation. We will now turn to three mini-case studies to explore such issues more substantively. 2. Mini-case studies 2.1. vision422 “On an increasingly populated planet, we need plans that will make our cities more livable and workable—as high-quality alternatives to urban sprawl. This is where the vision42 plan can serve as a persuasive demonstration of sustainable urban living—and a prominent affirmation of the merits of cities”–Roxanne Warren, Co-founder, vision42
1 Various industry segments include sub-segments, such as: energy generation (wind, solar, hydro/marine, biofuels, geothermal, and other); energy storage (fuel cells; advanced batteries, and hybrid systems); energy infrastructure (management and transmission); energy efficiency (lighting, buildings, glass, and others); transportation (vehicles, logistics, structures, and fuels); water and wastewater (water treatment, water conservation, and wastewater treatment); air and environment (cleanup/safety, emissions control, monitoring/compliance, and trading & offsets); materials (nano, bio, chemical, and others); manufacturing/ industrial (advanced packaging, monitoring and control, and smart production); agriculture: (natural pesticides, land management, and aquaculture); and recycling and waste (recycling and waste treatment) [17]. 2 The research for this case study was conducted by reviewing relevant and related articles and documents and the vision42 website; and by personal and phone interviews with key members of the organization.
26
M. Horwitch, B. Mulloth / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
vision42 is a citizen-centric effort that aims to transform 42nd Street in Midtown Manhattan in New York City into a pedestrian mall, served by a futuristic surface-based light rail system running river-to-river along 42nd Street within a landscaped pedestrian boulevard. Founded in July 1999, the organization is completely volunteer driven and has around 50 members in the working group at any point of time and around 10 to 15 people at the regular monthly meetings. vision42 adheres to the notion that dense urban centers with large pedestrian populations function more smoothly with restraints on motor vehicles and with the simultaneous introduction of high-quality local public transportation systems. The vision42 initiative offers a plan that provides pedestrians with space, greenery, and amenities, combined with speedy and efficient river-to-river travel via a modern, at-grade, low-floor light rail line. vision42 builds on and enhances a previous plan to reintroduce light rail on 42nd Street. This plan was advanced by the 42nd Street Development Corporation and the City's Department of Transportation, and was approved overwhelmingly in 1994 by the City Council (vision42 website, 2008). The vision is that by eliminating traffic in both directions and by incorporating substantial pedestrian amenities into the street light rail plan, New York City could finally make this transportation improvement a reality (Horwitch, 2008). The capital costs of vision42 have been estimated at between $411 million and $582 million in 2007 dollars, depending upon the extent of utility replacements and the choice of propulsion system. The annual debt service requirement for these amounts is estimated to range from $36.1 million to $51.1 million. A Transit Benefit Improvement District (TID), which incorporates existing and new developments within five blocks to the north and south of 42nd Street, is estimated to yield adequate annual revenues to retire the full debt service. New York City's 42nd Street, with its high percentage of public transit riders, its confluence of a half million people every weekday, and its rich offering of cultural, civic, commercial and entertainment facilities, is, therefore, in a unique position to demonstrate that an initiative such as vision42 offers exciting prospects for broad application in cities throughout the United States and beyond (Warren, 2005). 2.2. GREEEN.US3 “The most promising urban environmental opportunities today lie in rooftops, urban farming/gardening, alternative energy solutions, water management and related academic curriculum.”–Mr. Bruce Niswander, Director, Brooklyn Enterprise on Science and Technology (BEST), Polytechnic Institute of NYU and Principal, GREEEN.US “Politically, top–down support and leadership for CleanTech in the US has been singularly lacking. As a result, the environmental zeitgeist in New York City today is finding expression in a digitally driven cottage industry. Our own GREEEN.US is like a cyber-Little Red School House—a bottom-up movement empowered by the concerned young, handson “sustainers” and engaged educators—using the Social Networking tools of a Webware collaborative platform.–Mr. Land Grant, Team Lead, GREEEN.US GREEEN.US is a Cleantech initiative led by Polytechnic Institute of NYU in Brooklyn, NY. GREEEN stands for GReen Education, Environment & Economics Network The university is in the process of establishing GREEEN as a Social Enterprise, or earnedincome nonprofit (GREEN. US Website, 2008). This initiative is to develop a comprehensive urban rooftop solution with environmental educational and economic aims. GREEEN.US focuses on hyper-urban spaces, like rooftops. GREEEN.US helps other organizations develop more valuable and workable green environments. In order to do this, the first GREEEN project is positioning itself to be a set of research, design and development (RD&D), pilots that will address educational, environmental and economic issues, initially via school-based “green roofs” installations. These initiatives also aim to “deploy pilot green roofs on two to four appropriate and participatory K-12 public schools in New York City during the 2007–2008 school year and 2008 summer-school sessions” (GREEN. US Website, 2008). The economic viability of “green roofs” is further corroborated by the fact that leafy walls and roofs could help people turn down air conditioning on hot days, and in turn save huge amounts of energy. It could lower temperatures by up to 11C, depending on geographic location of the city (Brahic, 2007). The “green roofs” solution proposed includes the following features (Niswander, 2008): • Urban gardening/farming: A joint team of scientist and designers would create a componentized roof top garden solution that would address structural constraints, environmental concerns, and production costs in order to quickly deploy gardening/ farming installations on school roofs and eventually on all available commercial roof space. • Water management: The water management challenges of the gardening/farming effort offer the perfect catalyst for the creation of a comprehensive roof top water strategy that includes the capture (for future use), immediate analysis and treatment and eventual use in local “gray water” initiatives. • Alternative energy: The project proposed to identify the most efficient alternative energy technologies capable of being integrated into a densely populated urban environment. 3 Research on GREEEN.US and Green Drinks is based on a deep ethnographic-style study, which we are conducting on these organizations. It adheres to research practices associated with grounded theory and ethnographic methods of observation. Grounded theory could appear in various forms. “Grounded theory could be presented either as a well-codified set of propositions or in a running theoretical discussion, using conceptual categories and their properties” (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). We also met with and conducted a variety of interviews with several of the key members and participants of these organizations.
M. Horwitch, B. Mulloth / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
27
• Related academic curriculum: A comprehensive urban environment curriculum would be developed around the sciences, math, design, architecture and entrepreneuring components of the “green roof” project. The key to commercial success of the GREEEN.US effort is an ability to develop a coordinated curriculum that leverages a financially viable roof top “solution” capable of delivering gardening/farming, water and energy in a single deployable unit. The ultimate objective is to create a commercial initiative that caters to both an effective educational solution to middle school, high school and college students as well as a financially attractive real estate enhancement that would be adopted in urban environments in the United States and worldwide. 2.3. Green Drinks “Malta, an island in the Mediterranean, had their first Green Drinks six months ago and 350 people showed up. Who are these people? I love it.”–Margaret Lydecker, U.S. head and NYC founder/organizer, Green Drinks NYC (Sprig Website, 2008) “It's an environmentalism that embraces a lot more than tree-huggers. It's an environmentalism that is embracing people who are involved with making money with the green economy.”–David P. Sibek, Founder, Green Drinks Long Island, NY (Fischler, 2007). Green Drinks is an international network of social gatherings for the environmental community to meet-up over drinks and talk about “green” and environmental issues every month in chapters all over the Unites States, as well as Europe, South America, Asia and Australia. Active in over 285 member cities around the world, the networking event serves as an excellent platform for people from diverse fields and areas with a mutual interest in environmental issues to come together, cross pollinate, meet and drink in a low key social environment at a different venue every month (Lydecker, 2008). The idea was originally founded in London in 1989 by Edwin Datschefski in a small pub called ‘The Slug and Lettuce’. It started out when Datschefski and a few of his green design colleagues were having drinks at the bar. They noticed that an environmentally minded acquaintance and friends were sitting at a nearby table. The tables were soon pulled together, and the Green Drinks movement was born. Green Drinks is a very simple concept; but it has now evolved into a global phenomenon (Gershon, 2008). Local chapters of Green Drinks groups are everywhere, from Warsaw to Capetown, from Boulder to Beijing. These events are positioned as amorphous social mixers where people exchange “green” ideas and make the “green community” more connected and collaborative. Margaret Lydecker founded New York City's Green Drinks in 2002, and has watched it grow into the largest chapter. At the first NYC Green Drinks, there were just three people, Margaret Lydecker and two others. That number grew exponentially and as of November 2007 NYC green drinks had over 7000 members and between 300 and 500 attendees at each event (O'Shea-Evans, 2007). It is proposed that part of the reason for the exploding interest and fast-growing membership is due to the fact that people are increasingly being exposed to environmental issues and the dangers of global warming, peak oil and water depletion. The gathering welcomes people from all walks of life, including simply interested citizens, activists and business entrepreneurs. Green Drinks provides a way for people who normally would never meet to get together and to bond with others regardless of age or profession. The NYC event occurs every second Tuesday of the month. In order to receive periodic newsletters and announcements on the networking events, all one needs to do is send an email to [email protected] to get on the Green Drinks mailing list. The suggested donation for the event is $10, which helps support Green Drinks with such tasks as daily operations, web-hosting, managing mailing lists, publishing a monthly newsletter, customer service, finding venues and marketing (Green Drinks NYC, 2008). 3. Discussion The emergence of Cleantech has a number of implications for innovation and technology, management. As noted above, Cleantech is pervasive, affecting profoundly a vast array of industries, firms, managerial functions and corporate strategies. Cleantech is attracting venture capital, and high-tech clusters, like Silicon Valley and Boston, are aiming to maintain their leadership in innovation by betting on Cleantech for the future. Moreover, Cleantech is global, with significant activity taking place in Germany, Scandinavia, the Middle East, India and China, to name but a few regions. But comparatively neglected in all the discussion and news about Cleantech is that fact that Cleantech is also a matter of quality of life and values. Unlike many other technology regimes, which are more or less left to experts, relevant firms, interested third parties and informed individuals, Cleantech seems to belong to everyone on the planet. Indeed, all citizens believe they have a stake in Cleantech. They think about aspects of Cleantech when they build a home, pay the heating bill, buy an automobile, eat food, and consider various governmental initiatives at the Federal, State or local level. Cleantech figures into issues of war or peace. Failure in Cleantech may well lead to increasing dependence on foreign oil, and conflict over access remains a possibility. So it is not surprising that social entrepreneurship and social movements are now part of the emerging innovation pattern in Cleantech. In all probability this will continue and even grow in significance. Based on a comparative examination of the three mini-case studies in the Cleantech arena in Part II above, and informed by the relevant scholarly literature and general developments articulated in Part I above, there are already several important
28
M. Horwitch, B. Mulloth / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
observations that can be made. First, as already noted with regard to networks, social entrepreneurs and social movements generally, grassroots Cleantech movements manifest considerable variety. vision42, GREEEN.US and Green Drinks are different from each other in important ways. Perhaps most significant is to look at the type of structure and the type of mission of each of these grassroots phenomena. Although they are in the Cleantech space, they are very different in terms of structure. vision42 has a relatively well-defined structure. One can pinpoint this organization, its boundaries, its location, and its members and staff. At the opposite end of the structural spectrum is Green Drinks, which is a very loosely linked global movement, with no particular role other than to serve as a gathering point—a “meet-up”—of like-minded individuals who are involved in or interested in Cleantech in some way. The purpose of Green Drinks is simply to allow that possibility of making new contacts and perhaps to generate a useful network for a period of time. In the middle is GREEEN.US. While GREEEN.US has no permanent home, it does possess epicenters, quasi-home bases, e.g., the BEST Incubator at Polytechnic Institute of NYU, the Pratt Incubator and Land Grant's office. Also the boundaries of GREEEN.US are fuzzier than those of vision42, but less amorphous than those of Green Drinks. GREEEN.US is, in effect, a network, comprising institutions and individuals, and these linkages can be discerned and even mapped. GREEEN.US's linkages also possess varying degrees of strength, perhaps illustrating Granovetter's point about the “strength of weak ties” (Freeman, 1996) (Granovetter, 1983). The missions of each of these three grassroots movements also differ from each other. The most specific and well-defined is that of vision42, where the single-minded goal is to convert 42nd Street in Manhattan into a pedestrian-only thoroughfare (except for the building of a light rail system on that street.) The mission of Green Drinks is broad but also somewhat easy to identify, to promote networking and ease the process of making contacts related to Cleantech. While the particular type of Cleantech is not specified, the overall purpose of Green Drinks is rather clear. GREEEN.US is the least clear in terms of mission. The overall thrust seems to be educational (after all, it began at a university), but community development, substantive activities (e.g. green roofs) and real estate improvement also appear to be part of GREEEN.US's agenda. Moreover, while the focal activity appears to revolve around green roofs, even this focal point could be modified if other opportunities arose. Therefore, one can began to create a typology of grassroots Cleantech social movements along the two dimensions of structure (Focal Organization vs. Identifiable Network vs. Fluid Network) and Mission (Specific vs. Broad). The resulting matrix is provided in Fig. 2. Like social entrepreneurship generally, Cleantech social entrepreneurs similarly exhibit great variety. The leaders of vision42 are motivated by primarily “green” beliefs and by a substantive (“hard”) understanding of the needs in the relevant external environment. Thus, vision42 is a creation of visionary social entrepreneurs. Motivations associated with GREEEN.US are less easy to define. Its members exhibit varied motivations and expertise. Some are motivated by green ideals; others by economic goals; some have significant expertise in, say, green roofs; others have less experience. One challenge for the social entrepreneur in GREEEN.US is to keep all involved and to make sure that GREEEN.US fulfills in a sufficient manner the diverse expectations of its varied membership. With Green Drinks, the goal of the founder was simply to create opportunities for other social entrepreneurs and other parties. Motivation was not monetary. For those now participating in Green Drinks there is much more variety. Some take part in order to be part of a worthwhile and exciting endeavor. But for others the goal tends toward profit-seeking aspirations. Green Drinks provides an experience that fulfills both kinds of need, all in a context of covering a wide range of Cleantech endeavors. In terms of longevity, both vision42 and Green Drinks have existed for a lengthy period of time. vision42 is committed to a more or less single concrete goal, and will not rest until it succeeds in transforming 42nd Street. Green Drinks appears to be successful over the years in creating a useful environment for networking. It has developed an attractive reputation locally and worldwide. As interest in Cleantech grows, it should continue and prosper as networking becomes even more sought-after, much like various “meet-ups” in other sectors like media, software and venture capital. GREEEN.US is the youngest endeavor and is still evolving. It lacks the focus of vision42 and its lacks the long-term success and relative ease of implementation possessed by Green Drinks. GREEEN.US still has to prove its worth, both to its members and to the relevant community at large. All three organizations are made up of activists, developers and users, and the three mini-case studies are clearly just the tip of the iceberg. In New York City other grassroots. The grassroots Cleantech institutional ecology in New York City is rich, growing and widespread. Cleantech movements exist—in all five boroughs. Some are associated with schools, religious institutions and other community organizations, and others focus on specific issues, e.g. “peak oil.” Therefore, organizations like the three studied examined are participants in an increasing and evolving Cleantech innovation context. Such grassroots organizations appear helpful, perhaps necessary, for Cleantech innovation to succeed. They are engines of innovation, by developing ideas, generating
Fig. 2. Varieties of grassroots Cleantech movements.
M. Horwitch, B. Mulloth / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
29
support or directly implementing innovation. They also are the conduits for knowledge sharing, information, credibility and acceptance. 4. Conclusion This examination of a burgeoning new and diverse innovation regime, Cleantech, and its connection with the rise of equally diverse grassroots Cleantech movements located in New York City, suggests potentially important implications for the field of innovation and technology management. The role of grassroots institutional diversity in innovation needs more attention. Clearly in the case of Cleantech innovation such institutional variety is enormous. Some initiatives have specific focus, e.g. vision42. Others aim to play a broad role, like the networking found in Green Drinks. And some efforts, like GREEEN.US, are still evolving in terms of their focus. There is already increasing recognition that users and dispersed individuals can now play important roles in the modern innovation process, particularly in software, artistic content and R&D. Cleantech innovation reflects this trend and even takes it in new directions. Ultimately the success of many Cleantech initiatives may depend on how successful they are at the grassroots level. Therefore, at least for Cleantech innovation, paying attention to effective social entrepreneurs is crucial, and encouraging grassroots activism with effective leadership, structure and missions is also important for success. In this study we have seen that effective modern innovation, at least reflected in the rapid and astounding rise of Cleantech, is possibly becoming more complex, diffuse and multifaceted. Technology management has neglected this now important part of modern society—diverse kinds of grassroots social activism and social entrepreneurship. But these kinds of forces, as shown with regard to Cleantech in NYC, seem to be playing an increasingly important role in the modern innovation process. Grassroots activities can be significant for the generation of new and exciting ideas, and can represent cost-effective ways to promote innovation. A robust grassroots ecology can be important for revitalization of a region and a sector. Innovation practitioners and scholars alike should take social entrepreneurship and grassroots activism into greater account. References Abernathy, W., & Utterback, J. (1975). Dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6). Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review. Apollo Alliance (2008), New energy for cities, Retrieved 2/1/08 World Wide Web, http://www.apolloalliance.org/resources.php Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717−736. Bartley, T. (2007). How foundations shape social movements: The construction of an organizational field and the rise of forest certification. Social Problems, 54(3), 229−255. Benford, R., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611−639. Beveridge, R. (2005). The rise of the eco-preneur and the messy world of environmental innovation. Local Environment, 10(6), 665−676. Brahic, C. (2007). Greenroofs' could cool warming cities. New Scientist, 196(2624). Branscomb, L (2004). Where do high tech commercial innovations come from? Duke L &Tech Review Rev, Retrieved 9/15/06 World Wide Web, http://www.law. duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2004dltr0005.htmlwww.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2004dltr0005/html Brown, J., & Hagel, J. (2008). Creation nets: getting the most from open innovation. McKinsey Quarterly. Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, Growing cities, just cities? Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3). Cheng, J. (2007). China nurtures a ‘Clean Tech’ hub; As pollution woes weigh, industrial park seeks eco-friendly projects. Wall Street Journal (pp. B3). Chesbrough, W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Christie, M., & Honig, B. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: new research findings. Journal of World Business, 41, 1−5. Cleantech Group (2009). About us—Cleantech definition, Retrieved 8/29/09 World Wide Web, http://cleantech.com/about/cleantechdefinition.cfm Cleantech Group. (2008). Cleantech investments reach new apex of $5.18 billion over 2007 and sixth consecutive year of growth. News release. CNN.com (2007). Google pushes ‘green’ power initiative, Retrieved 12/16/07 World Wide Web, http://m.cnn.com/cnn/ne/business_tech/detail/42270/full Cooper, T., et al. (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review (pp. 6−88). December. Dodds, H. (2007). The many dimensions of sustainable development. Ecos (pp. 139). Oct–Nov. Dredge, D. (2006). Networks, conflict and collaborative communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 562−581. Fischler, M. (2007). Social groups uniting the eco-conscious. December: New York Times 9. Florida, R., & Davison, D. (2001). Gaining from green management. California Management Review, 3. (pp. 64−84). Spring. Freeman, C. (1996). The greening of technology and models of innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53, 27−39. Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (1982). The economics industrial innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gershon, J. (2008). Green partying, Retrieved 02/02/2008 World Wide Web, http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1851 Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360−1380. Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201−233. Green Drinks NYC Website (2008). Retrieved 02/20/08 World Wide Web http://www.greendrinks.org/ GREEEN.US Website (2008). Retrieved 02/14/08 World Wide Web, http://greeen.growthroots.com/pages/greeen-home Gute, M. (2006). Revitalizing neighbourhoods through sustainable brownfields redevelopment: Principles put into practice in Bridgeport, CT. Local Environment, 11(5), 537−558. Hargadan, A. (2003). How breakthroughs happen. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Harris, D (2007). Start-ups fatten up: Venture capital spigot flows freely in Q3, Mercury News, Nov 2007, Retrieved 11/11/08 World Wide Web, http://www. siliconvalley.com/ci_7428782?nclick_check=1 Haugh, H. (2007). New strategies for a sustainable society: The growing contribution of social entrepreneurship. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(4), 743−749. Hornidge, A. (2007). Re-inventing society: State concepts of knowledge in Germany and Singapore. Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 22(2), 202−229. Horwitch (2008). This information is taken from an interview conducted by Bala Mulloth with Adam Horwitch (vision42 member and volunteer) in New York City on February 22, 2008. Horwitch, M., & Prahalad, C. K. (1976). Managing technological innovation: Three ideal modes. Sloan Management Review, 17(2 winter), 77−89. Johnson, Y.(2007) Change the world one click at a time: Social sites using tools of the Internet to call for action and to unite like-minded individuals, Boston Globe, Retrieved 12/19/07 World Wide Web, http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/12/29/change_the_world_one_click_at_a_time/? page=full
30
M. Horwitch, B. Mulloth / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 23–30
Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network (2008). “2008 Silicon Valley index”. Khosla, V. (2007). The war on oil. Wall Street Journal, A18. Korosec, R., & Berman, E. (2006). Municipal support for social entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review. LaMonica, M (2008). Clean-tech VC investing tops $3 billion, but ‘funding gap’ looms, CNET Green Tech Blog, 2008, Retrieved 2/27/08 World Wide Web, http:// www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9882103-54.html Louekari, M. (2006). The creative potential of Berlin: Creating alternative models of social, economic and cultural organization in the form of network forming and open-source communities. Planning Research & Practice, 21(4) 663–481. Lydecker (2008). This information is taken from a video posted on Margaret Lydecker, Retrieved 01/28/08 World Wide Web http://www.sprig.com/videos/meetgreen-drinker-margaret-lydecker/ Myers, S., & Marquis, D. G. (1969). Successful industrial innovation. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. National Academy of Engineering, “Engineering Grand Challenges (2008)”. Retrieved 2/29/08 World Wide Web, http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/ Nauman, M. (2007a). Going green won't hurt the economy, study finds, Mercury News, 2007, Retrieved 11/25/07 World Wide Web, http://origin.siliconvalley. com/latestheadlines/ci_7457743?nclick_check=1 Nauman, M. (2007b). ‘Green’ VC funding sets record, Mercury News, 2007, Retrieved 11/29/07 World Wide Web http://www.siliconvalley.com/venturecapital/ ci_7587942 Nijkamp, P. (2003). Entrepreneurship in a modern network economy. Regional Studies, 37(4), 395−5405. Niswander (2008). This information is taken from an interview conducted by Bala Mulloth with Mr. Bruce Niswander in Brooklyn, NY on February 6, 2008. O'Brien, C. (2007). Clean Tech paves way for new silicon valley industry, Mercury News, 2007, Retrieved 12/28/07 World Wide Web, http://www.siliconvalley. com/ci_7819074?nclick_check=1 O'Shea-Evans, K. (2007). Coming to a bar near you. National Geographic Traveler. Parker, N. (2007). Clean-Tech trend offers promise of tidy profits. Financial Times April 25 (pp. 12). Peredoa, A., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1). Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: NY, Free Press. Powell, W., et al. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1132−1205. Press Release. (2007). Jefferies survey finds cleantech investors bullish on solar power, ethanol and hybrid transportation. Jefferies & Company, Inc. Richtel, M. (2007). Gore joins venture capital firm, New York Times, 2007, Retrieved 11/12/07 World Wide Web, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/ AP-Gore-Venture-Capitalist.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin Roberts, E. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: Lessons from MIT and beyond. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Roberts, N., & Thompson, F. (2006). Netcentric’ organization. Public Administration Review (pp. 619−622). July–August. Rogerson, C.. (2006). Creative industries and urban tourism: South African perspectives. Urban Forum, 17(2), 149−166. Sawhney, M., et al. (2006). Twelve different ways for companies to innovate. Sloan Management Review, 47(3), 75−81. Schiff, S. (2006). Know it all—Can wikipedia conquer expertise. New Yorker. Schot, J. (1998). The usefulness of evolutionary models for explaining innovation: The case of the Netherlands in the nineteenth century. History and Technology, 11, 173−200. Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda.Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584−603 August. Silberglitt, R. et al. (2006), The global technology revolution: 2020, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2006, Retrieved 2/1/08 World Wide Web, http://www. rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR303/ Skoll Foundation (2007), Growing opportunity: Entrepreneurial solutions to insoluble problems, First Edition 2007, SustainAbility, Ltd, Retrieved 2/1/08 World Wide Web, http://www.sustainability.com/insight/skoll_article.asp?id=937 Sprig Website (2008). Retrieved 01/23/08 World Wide Web, http://www.sprig.com/experts/16/ Sullivan, D. (2007). Stimulating social entrepreneurship: Can support from cities make a difference? Academy of Management Perspectives (pp. 77−78). February. Tam, P., & Carlton, J. (2007). San Jose aims to be home of ‘Clean Technology’. Wall Street Journal (pp. B1). Tapscott, D., & Ticoll, D. (2003). The naked corporation: how the age of transparency will revolutionize business. New York, NY: The Free Press. Tedeschi, B. (2008). Putting innovation in the hands of a crowd. New York Time (pp. C6). March 3. The Economist (2007). The rise and fall of corporate R&D, 2007, Retrieved 9/1/07 World Wide Web, http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm? story_id=8769863 The Economist (2008). America's clean-tech clusters—Venture capitals, Retrieved 2/20/08 World Wide Web, http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory. cfm?story_id=9230363 vision42 Website (2008). Retrieved 02/12/08 World Wide Web, http://www.vision42.org/about/plan.php Von Hippel, E. (2006). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, paperback edition. Wall Street Journal. (2008). Green-technology investments rise (pp. A15). Feb 29. Warren, R. (2005). Urban model for a crowded planet—vision42. Sustainable Development and Planning II, volume 1, Wessex Institute. Yaffee, S. (1996). Ecosystem management in practice: The importance of human institutions. Ecological Applications, 6(3), 724−727.