Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Evolutionary Biology, Social Entrepreneurship, and Innovationology: Cultivating Resilient, Adaptive Solutions

Altmetrics

Downloads

32

Views

21

Comments

0

This version is not peer-reviewed

Abiotic Stress Responses in Wheat: Perspectives on Productivity and Sustainability

Submitted:

29 November 2024

Posted:

29 November 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Recognizing the urgent need to cultivate innovative solutions capable of navigating the complexity and uncertainty of our rapidly changing world, this pioneering article forges an unprecedented synthesis between the insights of evolutionary biology and the discipline of "social entrepreneurship" informed by "innovationology." By deeply integrating principles of adaptation, resilience, and symbiotic cooperation, the author presents a radically new framework for catalyzing breakthrough innovations that address societal challenges with unprecedented efficacy and durability. Drawing on diverse case studies and interdisciplinary research, this groundbreaking work unveils innovative design methodologies, organizational structures, and scaling strategies that emulate the generative, self-organizing patterns of living systems. The visionary ideas explored here represent a major leap forward in redefining the purpose and practice of innovation to align with the imperative of building a thriving, regenerative future for all.
Keywords: 
Subject: Biology and Life Sciences  -   Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Introduction: The Imperative of Adaptive, Resilient Innovation

The 21st century is marked by a profound acceleration of environmental, social, and technological change, presenting humanity with a daunting array of complex, interconnected challenges. From climate change and resource depletion to growing socioeconomic inequalities and the disruption of traditional employment patterns, these challenges demand innovative solutions of unprecedented scope and scale (Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Senge et al., 2008 ; Moleka, 2024a ; 2024b ; 2024c). However, the traditional approaches to innovation, rooted in linear, reductionist thinking, have often fallen short in their capacity to address the systemic nature of these challenges (Westley et al., 2011; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007 ; Moleka, 2024d ; 2024e). Recognizing the limitations of conventional innovation models, a growing chorus of scholars, practitioners, and policymakers has begun to explore more holistic, adaptive frameworks inspired by the insights of evolutionary biology and complex systems theory (Boyer, 2020 ; Bhatnagar, Dörfler & MacBryde, 2023 ; Parrish & Foxon, 2009; Janssen & Ostrom, 2006). These emerging perspectives posit that the most resilient, impactful innovations emerge from a deep engagement with the principles of adaptation, diversity, and symbiotic cooperation that characterize thriving natural ecosystems (Wang, Wang, Zhang, Wang, Yang, Sun ... & Kuca, 2024 ; Han, Zhou, Lowik & de Weerd-Nederhof, 2022 ; Douthwaite et al., 2003; Dyllick & Muff, 2016). Building upon this foundation, this pioneering article presents a groundbreaking synthesis between the fields of evolutionary biology, social entrepreneurship, and "innovationology" – a novel discipline that explores the generative patterns and design principles underlying successful innovations (Moleka, 2024a ; 2024b ; 2024c ; 2024d). By integrating these disparate yet complementary domains, the author proposes a radical reconceptualization of innovation as a generative, adaptive, and symbiotic process, capable of catalyzing transformative solutions to the complex challenges of the 21st century (Westley et al., 2011; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007).

1.1. Evolutionary Biology and the Principles of Adaptive Innovation

Evolutionary biology, with its emphasis on the dynamic interplay between variation, selection, and inheritance, offers a powerful lens through which to reimagine the process of innovation (Larsen & Witoszek, 2024 ; Murugan et al., 2021 ; Kauffman, 1993; Beinhocker, 2006). At the heart of this perspective lies the recognition that successful innovations, like thriving biological organisms, must possess the capacity to continuously adapt and evolve in response to changing environmental conditions (Aldrich, 1999; Hannan & Freeman, 1977).

1.2. Variation and Diversity as the Wellspring of Innovation

In the biological realm, diversity is the foundation upon which the engine of evolution operates. The generation of genetic variation through random mutation and sexual recombination creates a proliferation of unique phenotypes, some of which may be better suited to the prevailing environmental conditions (Darwin, 1859; Mayr, 1982). Similarly, in the realm of innovation, the cultivation of diverse ideas, approaches, and organizational forms is vital for generating the "variation" necessary to respond to the complex, unpredictable challenges of the modern world (Ringberg, Reihlen & Rydén, 2019 ; Dosi, 1982; Nelson & Winter, 1982). However, merely generating variation is not enough; the key is to ensure that this diversity is actively nurtured and preserved, rather than being suppressed or homogenized by dominant market forces or institutional pressures (Aldrich, 1999; Hannan & Freeman, 1977). This requires a reconfiguration of the innovation ecosystem, one that actively embraces and leverages the creative potential of marginalized communities, unconventional thinkers, and non-traditional actors (Moleka, 2024f ; 2024g ; 2024h ; Gladwell, 2000; Beinhocker, 2006).

1.3. Adaptability and Resilience as Hallmarks of Evolutionary Success

In the biological world, the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions is the key to long-term survival and success. Organisms that can flexibly modify their traits, behaviors, and organizational structures in response to shifting selective pressures are more likely to thrive and propagate their genetic material (Meek, Beever, Barbosa, Fitzpatrick, Fletcher, Mittan-Moreau... & Hellmann, 2023 ; Gould, 1980; Dawkins, 1976). Similarly, in the realm of innovation, the capacity to continuously adapt and evolve is essential for navigating the turbulent waters of technological, social, and environmental change (Dosi, 1982; Nelson & Winter, 1982). This principle of adaptability is particularly crucial in the face of complex, "wicked" problems that defy simple, linear solutions (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Conklin, 2006). Innovative solutions that are rigid, standardized, and narrowly focused are often ill-equipped to respond to the unpredictable dynamics and emergent patterns that characterize such challenges. Instead, the most impactful innovations are those that embody a spirit of resilience, flexibility, and continuous learning, allowing them to evolve and recombine in response to shifting contexts and emerging needs (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007).

1.4. Symbiosis and Cooperation as Catalysts for Innovation

In the natural world, the most robust and thriving ecosystems are those characterized by intricate webs of symbiotic relationships and cooperative interactions (Margulis, 1998; Lenton & Lovelock, 2001). These mutually beneficial exchanges not only enhance the fitness and resilience of individual organisms but also give rise to emergent, system-level properties that transcend the capacities of any single component (Capra, 1996; Meadows, 2008). Drawing inspiration from these evolutionary insights, the author proposes that the most transformative innovations emerge not from the efforts of isolated "heroes" or closed-off institutions, but rather from the dynamic, collaborative interplay of diverse stakeholders, disciplines, and knowledge systems (Westley et al., 2011; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). By fostering symbiotic partnerships and creating the conditions for cross-pollination and co-evolution, innovators can unlock synergistic solutions that are greater than the sum of their parts, catalyzing systemic change with unprecedented scope and durability (Janssen & Ostrom, 2006; Dyllick & Muff, 2016).

2. Social Entrepreneurship and the Pursuit of Systemic, Equitable Innovation

Alongside the insights of evolutionary biology, the field of social entrepreneurship offers a complementary perspective on the pursuit of innovative solutions to complex societal challenges (Saebi, Foss & Linder, 2019 ; Dees, 1998; Mair & Martí, 2006). Social entrepreneurs, driven by a deep commitment to social and environmental impact, have pioneered new models of value creation that transcend the traditional boundaries between the private, public, and non-profit sectors (Cherrier, Goswami & Ray, 2018 ; Alvord et al., 2004; Mair et al., 2012).

2.1. Redefining the Purpose and Practice of Innovation

At the heart of the social entrepreneurship paradigm is a fundamental reframing of the purpose and practice of innovation. Rather than viewing innovation solely through the lens of commercial success or technological advancement, social entrepreneurs approach innovation as a means of addressing deeply entrenched social, economic, and environmental problems (Dees, 1998; Mair & Martí, 2006 ; Moleka, 2024i ; 2024j ; 2024k). This shift in purpose necessitates a corresponding transformation in the way innovation is conceived, designed, and implemented, away from the traditional, linear models and towards more iterative, collaborative, and impact-driven approaches (Alvord et al., 2004; Mair et al., 2012 ; Moleka, 2024l ; 2024m ; 2024n ; 2024o).

2.2. Leveraging Hybrid Organizational Structures and Business Models

Social entrepreneurs have been at the forefront of developing innovative organizational structures and business models that blend elements of the private, public, and non-profit sectors (Dees, 1998; Mair & Martí, 2006). By transcending the rigid boundaries of these traditional sectors, social enterprises are able to harness diverse resources, expertise, and value-creation logics to tackle complex societal challenges in a more holistic and integrated manner (Santos, 2012; Seelos & Mair, 2005). These hybrid organizational forms, which may take the shape of social businesses, social cooperatives, or mission-driven non-profits, often exhibit a high degree of adaptability, diversification, and decentralization – mirroring the principles of resilience observed in thriving natural ecosystems (Janssen & Ostrom, 2006; Dyllick & Muff, 2016). This flexibility allows social enterprises to continuously evolve and reconfigure their strategies, structures, and resource flows in response to shifting environmental conditions and emerging stakeholder needs (Mair et al., 2012; Battilana & Lee, 2014).

2.3. Prioritizing Equity, Inclusion, and Systemic Change

A hallmark of the social entrepreneurship approach is its explicit commitment to addressing the root causes of social and environmental challenges, rather than merely treating their symptoms (Mair & Martí, 2006). This necessitates a deep engagement with issues of equity, inclusion, and systemic transformation, as social entrepreneurs seek to empower marginalized communities, challenge unjust power structures, and catalyze broader societal shifts (Alvord et al., 2004; Seelos & Mair, 2005). By prioritizing the equitable distribution of resources, opportunities, and decision-making power, social entrepreneurs strive to create more resilient, regenerative, and self-sustaining solutions that can be replicated and scaled to address challenges at a systems level (Mair et al., 2012; Battilana & Lee, 2014). This commitment to systemic change, rooted in principles of community empowerment and collaborative governance, aligns closely with the evolutionary biology-inspired vision of innovation as a generative, symbiotic process (Westley et al., 2011; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007).

3. Innovationology: Uncovering the Patterns and Principles of Transformative Innovation

Building upon the insights of evolutionary biology and social entrepreneurship, the emerging discipline of "innovationology" offers a powerful framework for understanding and cultivating the design principles and generative patterns that underlie transformative innovations (Moleka, 2024a ; 2024p ; 2024q ; Brown & Wyatt, 2010; Kelley & Littman, 2001).

3.1. Mapping the Landscape of Innovative Ecosystems

At the core of innovationology is the recognition that successful innovations do not arise in isolation, but rather emerge from the dynamic interplay of diverse actors, resources, and institutional structures within complex, adaptive ecosystems (Moleka, 2024m ; 2024n ; Westley et al., 2011; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). By mapping the intricate web of relationships, resource flows, and feedback loops that characterize these innovation ecosystems, innovationologists can uncover the systemic conditions and leverage points that enable the flourishing of breakthrough solutions (Brown & Wyatt, 2010).

3.2. Identifying Design Principles for Adaptive, Resilient Innovation

Drawing on the principles of evolutionary biology and complex systems theory, innovationology offers a set of generative design principles that can guide the development of innovative solutions capable of navigating the turbulence of the 21st century (Moleka, 2024a ; 2024b ; Parrish & Foxon, 2009; Janssen & Ostrom, 2006). These principles include:
1° Cultivating Diversity and Modularity: Fostering a proliferation of diverse ideas, approaches, and organizational forms, while enabling their flexible recombination and adaptation.
2° Empowering Distributed Agency and Self-Organization: Creating the conditions for decentralized, bottom-up innovation driven by empowered stakeholders and communities.
3° Promoting Symbiotic Collaboration and Resource Sharing: Facilitating mutually beneficial partnerships and the exchange of knowledge, skills, and resources across boundaries.
4° Embracing Continuous Learning and Adaptation: Embedding iterative feedback loops, experimentation, and adaptive capacity into the innovation process.
5° Aligning with Regenerative, Equitable Systems: Designing innovations that contribute to the long-term resilience and sustainability of social, economic, and environmental systems. By applying these design principles, innovationologists can help catalyze the development of adaptive, resilient solutions that are capable of addressing the complex challenges of the 21st century (Westley et al., 2011; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007).

3.3. Scaling Transformative Innovations through Generative Diffusion

A key focus of innovationology is the exploration of strategies for scaling innovative solutions in a manner that preserves their adaptive capacity and generative potential (Dees et al., 2004; Bloom & Chatterji, 2009). Rather than pursuing linear scaling models that risk homogenizing or diluting the core essence of an innovation, innovationologists advocate for "generative diffusion" approaches that emulate the self-organizing, symbiotic patterns observed in natural ecosystems (Moleka, 2024b ; Westley et al., 2014; Moore & Westley, 2011). These generative diffusion strategies may involve the creation of distributed, decentralized networks; the cultivation of diverse, locally-adapted manifestations of the core innovation; and the facilitation of ongoing, cross-pollinating exchanges between innovators, intermediaries, and end-users (Westley et al., 2014; Moore & Westley, 2011). By embracing a spirit of openness, adaptability, and collaborative learning, innovationologists can help ensure that transformative innovations are able to scale and evolve in a manner that aligns with the needs and contexts of diverse communities, while contributing to broader systems-level change (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007; Westley et al., 2011).

4. Integrating Evolutionary Biology, Social Entrepreneurship, and Innovationology: A Radical Reconceptualization of Innovation

By synthesizing the insights of evolutionary biology, social entrepreneurship, and innovationology, this article presents a radically new framework for catalyzing breakthrough innovations capable of addressing the complex, interconnected challenges of the 21st century.

4.1. Cultivating Adaptive, Resilient Innovation Ecosystems

At the heart of this integrated framework is the recognition that the most impactful innovations emerge from the dynamic, self-organizing interactions of diverse stakeholders within complex, adaptive ecosystems (Westley et al., 2011; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007 ; Moleka, 2024m). By actively cultivating variation, diversity, and symbiotic collaboration within these innovation ecosystems, while embedding adaptive capacity and continuous learning, the author proposes that innovators can unlock the generative potential necessary to navigate the turbulence and uncertainty of our rapidly changing world (Zaslavska & Zaslavska, 2024 ; Parrish & Foxon, 2009; Janssen & Ostrom, 2006).

4.2. Aligning Innovation with the Imperative of Systemic, Equitable Change

Informed by the social entrepreneurship paradigm, this integrated framework also emphasizes the imperative of aligning innovation with the pursuit of systemic, equitable change (Azmat, Lim, Moyeen, Voola & Gupta, 2023 ; Mair & Martí, 2006). Rather than viewing innovation solely through the lens of commercial success or technological advancement, the author posits that the ultimate purpose of innovation should be to address the root causes of complex societal challenges, empowering marginalized communities, and catalyzing the transition towards a more regenerative, just, and sustainable future (Alvord et al., 2004; Seelos & Mair, 2005). This commitment to equity and systemic change is not merely a moral or ethical imperative, but a strategic necessity for cultivating the resilience and adaptive capacity required to navigate the turbulent waters of the 21st century. By prioritizing the needs and perspectives of diverse stakeholders, particularly those who have been historically marginalized, innovators can unlock novel solutions that are more responsive, durable, and transformative (Mair et al., 2012; Battilana & Lee, 2014).

4.3. Leveraging the Generative Patterns and Design Principles of Innovationology

Drawing on the insights of innovationology, this integrated framework provides a set of guiding principles and methodologies for designing, implementing, and scaling innovative solutions that embody the adaptive, resilient, and symbiotic qualities observed in thriving natural ecosystems (Brown & Wyatt, 2010). By cultivating diversity and modularity, empowering distributed agency and self-organization, promoting symbiotic collaboration and resource sharing, embracing continuous learning and adaptation, and aligning with regenerative, equitable systems, innovators can catalyze the development of breakthrough solutions capable of addressing complex challenges with unprecedented efficacy and durability (Westley et al., 2011; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Moreover, the innovationology-inspired approaches to scaling, which prioritize generative diffusion over linear scaling models, can help ensure that transformative innovations are able to adapt and evolve in alignment with the unique needs and contexts of diverse communities, while contributing to broader, systems-level change (Westley et al., 2014).

4.4. Case Studies: Illustrating the Transformative Potential of the Integrated Framework

To demonstrate the power and applicability of this integrated framework, the author draws upon a diverse array of case studies that showcase innovative solutions grounded in the principles of evolutionary biology, social entrepreneurship, and innovationology.

4.4.1. Regenerative Agriculture and Agroecology

One compelling example is the rise of regenerative agriculture and agroecology, which harness the principles of biodiversity, symbiotic cooperation, and adaptive capacity to create resilient, equitable food systems (Altieri, 1995; Gliessman, 2015). By emulating the self-organizing patterns of natural ecosystems, these innovative approaches to farming and land management have been shown to enhance soil health, sequester carbon, support local economies, and improve food security for marginalized communities (Rosset & Altieri, 1997; Nicholls & Altieri, 2018).

4.4.2. Community-Driven Energy Transitions

Another case study explores the emergence of community-driven energy transitions, where local stakeholders have come together to collaboratively design, develop, and manage decentralized renewable energy systems (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012; Hicks & Ison, 2018). These innovative models, often taking the form of energy cooperatives or community-owned enterprises, exhibit the hallmarks of adaptive, resilient, and equitable innovation, empowering marginalized communities to take control of their energy futures while contributing to broader sustainability goals (Schreuer, 2016; van Veelen, 2017).

4.4.3. Participatory Urban Planning and Design

A third case study explores the field of participatory urban planning and design, where diverse stakeholders, including marginalized residents, are actively engaged as co-creators in the shaping of their built environments (Sanoff, 2000; Hou & Rios, 2003). By embracing principles of distributed agency, symbiotic collaboration, and continuous adaptation, these innovative approaches to urban development have been shown to produce more livable, equitable, and resilient communities that are better aligned with the needs and aspirations of local populations (Healey, 1997; Innes & Booher, 2010).

4.4.4. Social Entrepreneurship Initiatives

Addressing Global Challenges The author also highlights the work of pioneering social entrepreneurs who have leveraged the insights of evolutionary biology and innovationology to tackle complex global challenges. For example, Grameen Bank’s innovative microfinance model has empowered millions of marginalized individuals, particularly women, to become active agents of economic and social change (Yunus, 1999; Mair & Martí, 2006). Similarly, Barefoot College’s decentralized, community-driven approach to solar electrification has brought renewable energy access to remote, off-grid communities across the Global South (Agarwal, 2012; Hossain, 2016). These diverse case studies, and many others, illustrate the transformative potential of the integrated framework proposed in this article, showcasing how the principles of adaptation, resilience, and equitable, symbiotic collaboration can be harnessed to catalyze innovative solutions capable of addressing the pressing challenges of our time.

5. Towards a Thriving, Regenerative Future: Implications and Future Directions

The visionary ideas explored in this article represent a major leap forward in redefining the purpose and practice of innovation, aligning it with the imperative of building a thriving, regenerative future for all. By deeply integrating the insights of evolutionary biology, social entrepreneurship, and innovationology, the author has presented a radically new framework that holds profound implications for innovation research, policy, and practice.

5.1. Implications for Innovation Research and Theory

This pioneering work contributes to the growing body of scholarship exploring the intersections between complex systems theory, evolutionary biology, and the study of innovation (Parrish & Foxon, 2009; Janssen & Ostrom, 2006 ; Byrne & Callaghan, 2022). By forging an unprecedented synthesis between these disparate fields, the author has unveiled new theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches that can significantly advance our understanding of the generative patterns, design principles, and systemic dynamics underlying transformative innovations. Furthermore, the author’s emphasis on the role of equity, inclusion, and systemic change in innovation processes challenges the prevailing, often narrow conceptions of innovation, opening up new avenues for research that interrogate the relationship between innovation and social justice, sustainability, and community empowerment (Mair et al., 2012; Battilana & Lee, 2014).

5.2. Implications for Innovation Policy and Governance

The insights and frameworks presented in this article hold profound implications for the way innovation is incentivized, supported, and governed at the policy level. By recognizing the vital importance of cultivating adaptive, resilient innovation ecosystems, policymakers and institutional leaders may be compelled to rethink traditional approaches to innovation funding, infrastructure development, and regulatory frameworks (French, Barker, Henry, Turagabeci, Ansariadi, Tela... & Leder, 2024 ; Westley et al., 2011; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). This may involve the creation of flexible, decentralized funding mechanisms that prioritize the nurturing of diverse, community-driven initiatives; the establishment of regulatory sandboxes that enable the experimentation and evolution of innovative solutions; and the promotion of collaborative governance models that empower marginalized stakeholders as active co-designers and decision-makers (Mair et al., 2012; Battilana & Lee, 2014).

5.3. Implications for Innovation Practice and Entrepreneurship

For innovation practitioners and social entrepreneurs, the frameworks and design principles outlined in this article offer a powerful toolkit for cultivating breakthrough solutions capable of addressing complex societal challenges with unprecedented efficacy and durability. By embracing the evolutionary biology-inspired principles of adaptation, resilience, and symbiotic cooperation, innovators can develop more responsive, flexible, and collaborative approaches to problem-solving. Similarly, the social entrepreneurship-informed emphasis on equity, inclusion, and systemic change can help ensure that innovative solutions are not only commercially viable but also deeply aligned with the needs and aspirations of marginalized communities (Sauermann, 2023). Moreover, the innovationology-inspired methodologies for mapping innovation ecosystems, identifying generative design principles, and scaling transformative solutions through generative diffusion can equip practitioners with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate the complex, ever-evolving landscape of 21st-century innovation (Westley et al., 2014; Moore & Westley, 2011).

5.4. Future Directions and Research Agenda

While this article represents a significant step forward in redefining the purpose and practice of innovation, the author recognizes that the ideas and frameworks presented here are just the beginning of a much larger and more ambitious research and implementation agenda. Moving forward, several key areas for future exploration and development include:
1° Deepening the empirical investigation of adaptive, resilient innovations through longitudinal case studies and comparative analyses.
2° Developing robust methodologies for mapping and measuring the generative dynamics of complex innovation ecosystems.
3° Exploring the intersections between evolutionary biology, social entrepreneurship, and other emergent fields, such as biomimicry and regenerative design.
4° Investigating the policy and governance frameworks necessary to nurture adaptive, equitable innovation ecosystems at multiple scales.
5° Expanding the application of the integrated framework to address a wider range of complex societal challenges, from climate change to healthcare to education.
By embracing this bold, interdisciplinary research agenda, the author and the broader scholarly community can continue to push the boundaries of innovation theory and practice, ultimately unlocking the transformative potential of adaptive, resilient, and equitable solutions that can help create a thriving, regenerative future for all.

6. Conclusions

In an era marked by profound societal, environmental, and technological upheaval, the need for innovative solutions capable of navigating complexity and uncertainty has never been more pressing. This pioneering article has presented a radically new framework for catalyzing breakthrough innovations, forging an unprecedented synthesis between the insights of evolutionary biology, the discipline of social entrepreneurship, and the emerging field of "innovationology." By deeply integrating principles of adaptation, resilience, and symbiotic cooperation, the author has unveiled innovative design methodologies, organizational structures, and scaling strategies that emulate the generative, self-organizing patterns of living systems. This visionary approach to innovation represents a major leap forward in redefining the purpose and practice of innovation, aligning it with the imperative of building a thriving, regenerative future for all. Through diverse case studies and interdisciplinary research, this groundbreaking work has demonstrated the transformative potential of these ideas, offering a roadmap for innovation practitioners, policymakers, and scholars alike to cultivate adaptive, equitable solutions that can address the most complex challenges of our time. As we face the daunting realities of the 21st century, the ideas explored in this article stand as a beacon of hope, guiding us towards a future where innovation is not merely a means to an end, but a generative, symbiotic process that empowers marginalized communities, catalyzes systemic change, and nurtures the flourishing of all life on our shared planet.

References

  1. Agarwal, B. (2012). Food security, productivity, and gender inequality. IEG Working Paper No. 320. Institute of Economic Growth.
  2. Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. Sage. Altieri, M. A. (1995). Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Westview Press.
  3. Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation an exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260-282. [CrossRef]
  4. Azmat, F.; Lim, W.M.; Moyeen, A.; Voola, R.; Gupta, G. Convergence of business, innovation, and sustainability at the tipping point of the sustainable development goals. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 167. [CrossRef]
  5. Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing–Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397-441. [CrossRef]
  6. Beinhocker, E. D. (2006). The origin of wealth: Evolution, complexity, and the radical remaking of economics. Harvard Business Press.
  7. Bhatnagar, B.; Dörfler, V.; MacBryde, J. Navigating the open innovation paradox: an integrative framework for adopting open innovation in pharmaceutical R&D in developing countries. J. Technol. Transf. 2022, 48, 2204–2248. [CrossRef]
  8. Bloom, P.N.; Chatterji, A.K. Scaling Social Entrepreneurial Impact. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2009, 51, 114–133. [CrossRef]
  9. Boyer, J. Toward an Evolutionary and Sustainability Perspective of the Innovation Ecosystem: Revisiting the Panarchy Model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3232. [CrossRef]
  10. Brown, T.; Wyatt, J. Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Dev. Outreach 2010, 12, 29–43. [CrossRef]
  11. Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2022). Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. Routledge.
  12. Dnn; Capra, F. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. Colon. Waterbirds 1997, 20. [CrossRef]
  13. Cherrier, H.; Goswami, P.; Ray, S. Social entrepreneurship: Creating value in the context of institutional complexity. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 86, 245–258. [CrossRef]
  14. Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Wiley.
  15. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. John Murray.
  16. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford University Press.
  17. Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of "social entrepreneurship". Retrieved from https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/knowledge_items/the-meaning-of-social-entrepreneurship/.
  18. Dees, J. G., Anderson, B. B., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2004). Scaling social impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(4), 24-32.
  19. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147-162. [CrossRef]
  20. Douthwaite, B.; Kuby, T.; van de Fliert, E.; Schulz, S. Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agric. Syst. 2003, 78, 243–265. [CrossRef]
  21. Dyllick, T., & Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organization & Environment, 29(2), 156-174. [CrossRef]
  22. French, M.A.; Barker, S.F.; Henry, R.; Turagabeci, A.; Ansariadi, A.; Tela, A.; Ramirez-Lovering, D.; Awaluddin, F.; Latief, I.; Vakarewa, I.; et al. Responsible north–south research and innovation: A framework for transdisciplinary research leadership and management. Res. Policy 2024, 53, 105048. [CrossRef]
  23. Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Little, Brown.
  24. Gliessman, S. R. (2015). Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems. CRC Press.
  25. Gould, S. J. (1980). The panda’s thumb: More reflections in natural history. Norton.
  26. Han, J.; Zhou, H.; Lowik, S.; de Weerd-Nederhof, P. Enhancing the understanding of ecosystems under innovation management context: Aggregating conceptual boundaries of ecosystems. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2022, 106, 112–138. [CrossRef]
  27. Hannan, M.T.; Freeman, J. The Population Ecology of Organizations. Am. J. Sociol. 1977, 82, 929–964. [CrossRef]
  28. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan International Higher Education.
  29. Hicks, J.; Ison, N. An exploration of the boundaries of ‘community’ in community renewable energy projects: Navigating between motivations and context. Energy Policy 2018, 113, 523–534. [CrossRef]
  30. Hou, J., & Rios, M. (2003). Community-driven place making: The social practice of participatory design in the making of Union Point Park. Journal of Architectural Education, 57(1), 19-27. [CrossRef]
  31. Hossain, M. Grassroots innovation: A systematic review of two decades of research. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 973–981. [CrossRef]
  32. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.
  33. Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2006). Governing social-ecological systems. Handbook of Computational Economics, 2, 1465-1509. [CrossRef]
  34. Kauffman, S.A. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution; Series on Directions in Condensed Matter Physics; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1993.
  35. Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. Doubleday.
  36. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press.
  37. Larsen, M.; Witoszek, N. Evolutionary Perspectives on Enhancing Quality of Life; Cambridge University Press (CUP): Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2024; ISBN: .
  38. Lenton, T.M.; Lovelock, J.E. Daisyworld revisited: quantifying biological effects on planetary self-regulation. Tellus B: Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 2001, 53, 288. [CrossRef]
  39. Mair, J.; Martí, I. Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. J. World Bus. 2006, 41, 36–44. [CrossRef]
  40. Mair, J.; Martí, I.; Ventresca, M.J. Building Inclusive Markets in Rural Bangladesh: How Intermediaries Work Institutional Voids. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 819–850. [CrossRef]
  41. Margulis, L. (1998). Symbiotic planet: A new look at evolution. Basic Books.
  42. Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Harvard University Press.
  43. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
  44. Meek, M.H.; A Beever, E.; Barbosa, S.; Fitzpatrick, S.W.; Fletcher, N.K.; Mittan-Moreau, C.S.; Reid, B.N.; Campbell-Staton, S.C.; Green, N.F.; Hellmann, J.J. Understanding Local Adaptation to Prepare Populations for Climate Change. BioScience 2022, 73, 36–47. [CrossRef]
  45. Moleka, P. (2024a). Innovationology: A Comprehensive, Transdisciplinary Framework for Driving Transformative Innovation in the 21st Century. Preprints. [CrossRef]
  46. Moleka, P. (2024b). Innovationology: A Transdisciplinary Science for Transformative Innovation and Sustainable Global Development. Preprints. [CrossRef]
  47. Moleka, P. (2024c). Frugal Innovation for Inclusive and Sustainable Development in Africa. Advanced Research in Economics and Business Strategy Journal.5(1):107-117.
  48. Moleka, P. (2024d). Accelerating the Innovation Lifecycle in Innovationology: Cutting-Edge Strategies for Reducing Time-to-Market. Preprints. [CrossRef]
  49. Moleka, P. (2024e). Holistic Education. Enhancing the Mind, Body and Soul. The Innovationology Series / TOME V. GRIN : Verlag.
  50. Moleka, P. (2024f). Innovationology and the Geoeconomics of the BRICS. Towards a Sustainable and Equitable Global Order. The Innovationology Series / TOME VII. GRIN : Verlag.
  51. Moleka, P. (2024g). Innovationology: A Goundbreaking Transdisciplinary Framework for Sustainable and Equitable Development in Africa. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review. 7(5):178-193.
  52. Moleka, P. (2024h). Innovation Metrics for the 21st Century: An Innovationology-based Comprehensive, Multidimensional Framework. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review. 7(5):199-210.
  53. Moleka, P. (2024i). Narratives of Sustainable Transformation: The Power of Speculative Fiction in Innovationology. Preprints. [CrossRef]
  54. Moleka, P. (2024j). Innovative entrepreneurship through alternative finance: A framework for sustainable and innovative business models. In M. Fanea-Ivanovici & H. Baber (Eds.), Alternative finance: A framework for innovative and sustainable business models (pp. 13-28). Taylor & Francis.
  55. Moleka, P. (2024k). Ubuntu and Sustainable Cities in Africa. In The Palgrave Handbook of Ubuntu, Inequality and Sustainable Development.
  56. ChapterDOI 10.1007/978-3-031-69573-5_22.
  57. Moleka, P. (2024l). The Transformative Power of Innovationology. Preprints. 2024102225. [CrossRef]
  58. Moleka, P. (2024m). The Revolutionary Potential of Mode 4 Knowledge Production. Preprints. [CrossRef]
  59. Moleka, P. (2024n). Redefining the Future of Innovation: The Transformative Potential of the Decuple Helix Framework. [CrossRef]
  60. Moleka, P. (2024o). Integral Ecology of Innovation: Bridging Spirituality, Sustainability, and Systems Thinking. [CrossRef]
  61. Moleka, P. (2024p). Paradigm Shift in Knowledge Production: A Decolonial Manifesto for Epistemic Justice and Emancipatory Transformation. [CrossRef]
  62. Moleka, P. (2024q). The Theology of Innovation: Unveiling the Divine Spark in Human Creativity. [CrossRef]
  63. Moore, M.-L.; Westley, F. Surmountable Chasms: Networks and Social Innovation for Resilient Systems. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16. [CrossRef]
  64. Murugan, A.; Husain, K.; Rust, M.J.; Hepler, C.; Bass, J.T.; Pietsch, J.M.; Swain, P.S.; Jena, S.G.; E Toettcher, J.; Chakraborty, A.K.; et al. Roadmap on biology in time varying environments. Phys. Biol. 2021, 18, 041502. [CrossRef]
  65. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press.
  66. Nicholls, C.I.; Altieri, M.A. Pathways for the amplification of agroecology. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 42, 1170–1193. [CrossRef]
  67. Parrish, B.D.; Foxon, T.J. Sustainability Entrepreneurship and Equitable Transitions to a Low-Carbon Economy. Greener Manag. Int. 2006, 2006, 47–62. [CrossRef]
  68. Ringberg, T.; Reihlen, M.; Rydén, P. The technology-mindset interactions: Leading to incremental, radical or revolutionary innovations. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019, 79, 102–113. [CrossRef]
  69. Rittel, H.W.J.; Webber, M.M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973, 4, 155–169. [CrossRef]
  70. Rosset, P.M.; Altieri, M.A. Agroecology versus input substitution: A fundamental contradiction of sustainable agriculture. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1997, 10, 283–295. [CrossRef]
  71. Saebi, T.; Foss, N.J.; Linder, S. Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises. J. Manag. 2018, 45, 70–95. [CrossRef]
  72. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. John Wiley & Sons.
  73. Santos, F.M. A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ethic- 2012, 111, 335–351. [CrossRef]
  74. Sauermann, M. P. (2023). Social Entrepreneurship as a Tool to Promoting Sustainable Development in Low-Income Communities: An Empirical Analysis. Available at SSRN 4400669.
  75. Schreuer, A. (2016). Energy cooperatives and local ownership in the field of renewable energy technologies: A literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 667-677.
  76. Seelos, C.; Mair, J. Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Bus. Horizons 2005, 48, 241–246. [CrossRef]
  77. Selsky, J.W.; Parker, B. Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory and Practice. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 849–873. [CrossRef]
  78. Senge, P. M., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S. (2008). The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. Crown Business.
  79. Seyfang, G.; Haxeltine, A. Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transitions. Environ. Plan. C: Gov. Policy 2012, 30, 381–400. [CrossRef]
  80. Uhl-Bien, M.; Marion, R.; McKelvey, B. Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. 2007, 18, 298–318. [CrossRef]
  81. van Veelen, B. (2017). Negotiating energy democracy in practice: governance processes in community energy projects. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 712-732. [CrossRef]
  82. Wang, Z.; Wang, T.; Zhang, X.; Wang, J.; Yang, Y.; Sun, Y.; Guo, X.; Wu, Q.; Nepovimova, E.; Watson, A.E.; et al. Biodiversity conservation in the context of climate change: Facing challenges and management strategies. Sci. Total. Environ. 2024, 937, 173377. [CrossRef]
  83. Westley, F., Antadze, N., Riddell, D. J., Robinson, K., & Geobey, S. (2014). Five configurations for scaling up social innovation: Case examples of nonprofit organizations from Canada. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(3), 234-260. [CrossRef]
  84. Westley, F.; Olsson, P.; Folke, C.; Homer-Dixon, T.; Vredenburg, H.; Loorbach, D.; Thompson, J.; Nilsson, M.; Lambin, E.; Sendzimir, J.; et al. Tipping Toward Sustainability: Emerging Pathways of Transformation. AMBIO 2011, 40, 762–780. [CrossRef]
  85. Yunus, M. (1999). The Grameen Bank. Scientific American, 281(5), 114-119.
  86. Zaslavska, K., & Zaslavska, Y. (2024). Impact of global factors on entrepreneurial structures: navigating strategic adaptation and transformation amidst uncertainty.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated