Business and Regional Innovation Culture: An Overview of the Conceptualization of Innovation Culture

Abstract

The primary aim of this paper is to identify key similarities and differences in the conceptualization of culture across the major theories of regional socioeconomic science, including economic, business, administrative, social, cultural and political dimensions acting at the regional and local scales. The second goal is to present an overview of the knowledge base and third to cohesively examine and partially recreate the topic using the semi-systematic review method. The final objective of examining the aforementioned issues is to clarify the dynamic correlation in the structuring of business and innovation culture, as well as to identify the characteristics that contribute to the sustainable culture of business and regional innovation systems, including long-term sustainable development. The research shows that the coexistence and combination of innovative culture at the business and regional levels should be perceived as a dynamic and co-evolutionary process involving a variety of factors. Local organizations and institutes that foster entrepreneurship are among the elements that enhance the innovation culture; however, having all of the resources in isolation is insufficient for an efficient ecosystem. This study proposes the establishment of a framework that will enhance the growth of innovation, cultural evolution and regional ecosystem performance. The Institutes of Local Development and Innovation (ILDI) are a policy idea that might give effective micro–meso-level solutions for the region. These policy proposals will diagnose the regional business culture under the prism of strategy, technology, and management levels. The specific investigation attempted in this paper demonstrates that several converging fruitful paths have already been created in the relative international literature. These paths could be combined and deepened further by studying the close evolutionary interconnection between business and regional innovation culture as it emerges at a global scale in the present.

Full text

Citation: Katimertzopoulos, Fotios,
Charis Vlados, and Theodore
Koutroukis. 2023. Business and
Regional Innovation Culture: An
Overview of the Conceptualization of
Innovation Culture. Administrative
Sciences 13: 237. https://doi.org/
10.3390/admsci13110237
Received: 26 September 2023
Revised: 18 October 2023
Accepted: 31 October 2023
Published: 3 November 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
administrative
sciences
Article
Business and Regional Innovation Culture: An Overview of the
Conceptualization of Innovation Culture
Fotios Katimertzopoulos 1, Charis Vlados 1,2 and Theodore Koutroukis 1,3,4,*
1Department of Economics, University of Thrace, 69100 Komotini, Greece; fkatimer@econ.duth.gr (F.K.);
cvlados@econ.duth.gr (C.V.)
2School of Business, University of Nicosia, Nicosia 2417, Cyprus
3School of Social Sciences, Business & Organisation Administration, Hellenic Open University,
Par. Aristotelous 18, 26335 Patras, Greece
4Department of Organization Management, Marketing and Tourism, School of Economics and Management,
International Hellenic University, Thessaloniki Campus, 17 Km Thessaloniki-Sindos,
57400 Thessaloniki, Greece
*Correspondence: tkoutro@econ.duth.gr
Abstract:
The primary aim of this paper is to identify key similarities and differences in the conceptu-
alization of culture across the major theories of regional socioeconomic science, including economic,
business, administrative, social, cultural and political dimensions acting at the regional and local
scales. The second goal is to present an overview of the knowledge base and third to cohesively
examine and partially recreate the topic using the semi-systematic review method. The final objective
of examining the aforementioned issues is to clarify the dynamic correlation in the structuring of busi-
ness and innovation culture, as well as to identify the characteristics that contribute to the sustainable
culture of business and regional innovation systems, including long-term sustainable development.
The research shows that the coexistence and combination of innovative culture at the business and
regional levels should be perceived as a dynamic and co-evolutionary process involving a variety of
factors. Local organizations and institutes that foster entrepreneurship are among the elements that
enhance the innovation culture; however, having all of the resources in isolation is insufficient for
an efficient ecosystem. This study proposes the establishment of a framework that will enhance the
growth of innovation, cultural evolution and regional ecosystem performance. The Institutes of Local
Development and Innovation (ILDI) are a policy idea that might give effective micro–meso-level
solutions for the region. These policy proposals will diagnose the regional business culture under the
prism of strategy, technology, and management levels. The specific investigation attempted in this
paper demonstrates that several converging fruitful paths have already been created in the relative
international literature. These paths could be combined and deepened further by studying the close
evolutionary interconnection between business and regional innovation culture as it emerges at a
global scale in the present.
Keywords:
business culture; regional culture; innovation culture; regional development; regional
innovation system; Stra.Tech.Man Innovation approach; Institutes of Local Development and Innovation
(ILDI)
1. Introduction
Culture driven by innovation can be defined as the need to bring out the maximum
number of innovative ideas and practices in a given period of time. Innovative culture is
essentially a way of thinking and behaving—a philosophy and procedure at the same time—
that, within a business, including any organization in general terms, generates, develops
and establishes values and attitudes. This fact can enhance, facilitate and support ideas
and changes that lead to improved business performance and efficiency, although these
Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13110237 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 2 of 17
changes may cause conflicts with traditional and conventional behaviors and methods
(Alvesson 2013;Henrich 2001).
Research on the organizational features that contribute to innovation does not ade-
quately address the challenges faced in specific business ecosystems and tends to refer to
regional innovation culture by simply treating innovation as an aggregate dimension of the
different operating business cultures. However, a number of significant research studies
have been identified in exploring this relationship, with a focus on the relationship between
the external and internal business environments in defining its innovative dynamics.
More specifically, Woodman et al. (1993) suggested that organizational culture, re-
wards, and resources are determinants of creative behavior. Similarly, Amabile et al. (1996)
found that the level of innovational activities in organizations is affected by perceptual
ability in the working environment.
In a background study of organizational innovation, Damanpour (1991) found that
managerial attitudes towards change, as well as their internal and external communica-
tional abilities, are positively linked to innovation. Factors influencing the effectiveness of
innovation can also be distinguished as the following (Wzi ˛atek-Kubiak et al. 2009):
a.
Human capital (especially regarding skills, level of training, qualifications, and knowl-
edge of employees, and leadership skills of managers).
b. Accumulated knowledge (calculated on the basis of research costs).
c.
Material and financial resources (machinery, equipment, buildings, licenses and
patents).
d.
Organizational resources (company size, vision, motivation and dynamics of innovation).
According to West (2000), organizational culture prevents or facilitates the develop-
ment, implementation and preservation of the innovational capability of the organization.
Whenever the organization’s culture manages to adapt to the new circumstances faced
by the ever-changing external environment, the organization’s efficiency is improved
(Leskovar-Spacapan and Bastic 2007). According to Leskovar-Spacapan and Bastic (2007),
open organizational cultures, mainly found in market and innovation-oriented organi-
zations, have a positive impact on business performance. Maher (2014) also argues that
organizational culture, which is created by the co-evolution of internal and external organi-
zational environments, is a vital factor influencing the speed and frequency of innovation.
As such, at a regional level, an important part of the external environment that directly
affects the innovative culture of an organization, or a local ecosystem as a whole, is the
culture of innovation of the specific region (Qian 2018).
When examining the impact of culture on the development of regional innovation
capability, existing research shows that there is a causal relationship, directly or indirectly,
between organizational culture and regional innovation performances (Qian 2018). In this
academic debate, major issues include and combine:
i. Cultural diversity (Mallol et al. 2007),
ii. Networking culture (Prud’homme van Reine 2015),
iii.
Academic culture in organizations (Pablo-Hernando 2015),
iv.
Entrepreneurial culture (Lombardi et al. 2017), and
v. Organizational culture (Galán-Muros et al. 2017).
In recent years, by adding the variable of ecosystems as a factor-mechanism for linking
businesses with regional economies, there has been considerable research interest in the
role of culture in the economic vitality and dynamics of innovation of regional economies
(Klaerding 2009). Cultural, structural and social factors are highlighted previously in
the literature on industrial districts as important assets for regional economic develop-
ment (Asheim 2000;Amin 1999) and on innovative milieux (Kebir and Crevoisier 2007;
Crevoisier 2004).
These crucial factors as assets have been valorized in various studies and academic
concepts such as

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 3 of 17
(a)
High technology clusters or knowledge-intensive industries and high-tech clusters
(Cooke 2002;Keeble and Wilkinson 2017),
(b)
Creative class approach (Florida 2005),
(c)
Learning regions (Boekema et al. 2000;Lagendijk 2000),
(d)
Regional innovation systems (Tödtling and Trippl 2005;Cooke et al. 2004), and
(e)
Creation of a ‘knowledge economy’ (Cooke 2001).
On the other hand, this “cultural turn” option in regional science has raised many
debates and has received criticism for a variety of reasons such as the “instrumentalist”
understanding of culture and institutions (Moulaert and Sekia 2003) and the problems
of conceptualizing and analyzing cultural factors empirically (Martin and Sunley 2003;
Rodríguez-Pose 2001). Nevertheless, culture, institutions and social capital still remain
important factors at the top of research agendas. There is also important literature on the
role of culture in business innovation, often offering lessons learned from the success stories
of innovative companies (Ahmed 1998).
According to the above, it becomes evident that that the relationship between busi-
ness and regional culture has not already been clearly defined or framed. To leverage
a broader base of talent and R&D outcomes, businesses need to have the capacity to
leverage regional cultures in order to build the foundation to thrive in a global market.
Katimertzopoulos et al. (2020
) support that this interaction between markets and regional
culture is likely to be a two-way dialectical process.
Based on all the dimensions approached in this section, the central objective of the
present study is to comprehensively investigate the dynamic interconnection between the
business and regional innovation culture factors, as reflected in the currently available
literature, critically examining the points at which further theoretical compositions could
be made. In this sense, the current study attempts to fill a research gap caused by the
fact that the existing literature has no yet to comprehensively examine the co-evolving
dimensions, in micro (businesses) and meso (region and local systems) terms, within a
single and cohesive theoretical framework, thereby enriching our understanding of how
we could effectively manage their innovative process on a unified and unifying basis.
By examining various literature strands and analyzing their contributions on regional
and business innovation culture, this study intends to identify key commonalities and
differences with regard to the conceptualization of culture in the main theories of regional
socioeconomic science. Finally, the goal of this research is to investigate and analyze the
following academic questions as they emerge from the evolution of existing literature:
•
What is the influence of culture on regional and business development and innovation?
•
What are the sense and perception of the culture of innovation at the business and
regional levels?
•
How is the culture of innovation described and conceptualized by the overall regional
culture?
•
To what extent does the interaction of business and regional cultures lead to the
development of innovation cultures?
•
Are there any policy proposals that can contribute effectively to the development and
continuation of a culture of regional and business innovation?
2. Design and Structure
As an instrument of analysis in economic and social development research, the litera-
ture review is often indefinite in analytical terms and it is carried out without a specific
methodology rather than following a particular approach (Snyder 2019;Torraco 2005).
However, despite its fragmented and interdisciplinary nature, knowledge production is
experiencing an increased interest and proliferous production throughout the field of busi-
ness research. It is therefore difficult to keep up with all the latest trends and to review
cumulative knowledge in a given field of regional socioeconomic science.
It seems that all attempts to approach the concept of organizational culture theoretically
have one thing in common: researchers in the field converge on the fact that it is possible to

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 4 of 17
analyze organizational culture at different sublevels and as an organic evolutive system.
A level is defined as the degree to which a phenomenon becomes visible to the observer.
They are typically very visible, clear and tangible elements, easily observed in most cases.
However, in some cases, these levels can become mixed, overlapping and difficult to
distinguish in analytical terms. Structural components that affect organizational culture
include values, different beliefs and rules of conduct used by the members of a team. These
elements are deeply rooted and determine the essence of the culture in a every organization
(Kunda 1992).
In this area of research, two types of literature reviews appear to be preferred and
regularly used (Snyder 2019): semi-systematic and integrative reviews. The semi-systematic
and integrative approach requires each research to carry out a qualifying study and to
raise wider questions for the development of a new theoretical framework. One important
feature that distinguishes the semi-systemic approach from the integrative one is that it
may include research elements from both books and other published documents, instead
of just academic papers.
By using the semi-systematic review method, the purpose of this study is to present
an overview of the knowledge base and to objectively examine and partially recreate
the topic as it progresses. The ultimate goal is to recognize the factors that could en-
hance the sustainable culture of business and regional innovation and long-term steady
growth (such as strategy, technology and management). In this structural context, as
examined below, the possible mechanisms that can help the more sustainable develop-
ment of the innovation culture, both at the regional (meso) and business (micro) levels,
can be found in the form of the Institutes of Local Development and Innovation (ILDI)
(Katimertzopoulos and Vlados 2017).
Overall, this academic paper is a conceptual study that conducts a literature review
of a number of field-based studies in regional innovation systems and businesses, with
the overall objective of defining core analytical dimensions and variables that could lead
to an effective regional and business innovation culture and long-term stable growth and
development.
3. Literature Review
Through an examination of the literature, this section will identify how business
culture influences and is influenced by innovation. It will also serve as a preliminary
inquiry of how regional culture and innovation develop, as well as how they affect regional
ecosystems and businesses.
3.1. Business Culture and Innovation
Within the relevant literature, it is now clear that positive cultural characteristics
provide the necessary ingredients to create effective innovation (Ahmed 1998). Cul-
ture has many elements and dimensions that can serve to strengthen or curb the ten-
dency for innovation. It has been demonstrated that small businesses have a strong posi-
tive relationship between participatory management practices and an innovative culture
(
Gudmundson et al. 2003
). At the same time, Wang et al. (2010) also support the crucial
role that a culture of innovation can play in enhancing the ability of a business to innovate.
Loewe and Dominiquini (2006) believe that organizational culture and values are one
of the four key areas of effective innovation implementation (in addition to leadership
attitudes, management processes, people and skills). Based on these areas, long-term
innovative capacity is built and developed within the business. However, these acknowl-
edgments raise the question on what are precisely those characteristics and values of
organizational culture that are purely oriented towards business innovation?
Innovation, in the organizational environment, is the tangible action or result of
activities that allow for the improvement of organizational performance (Martins and
Terblanche 2003). Some standard options are the following:

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 5 of 17
•
Implementation of ideas relating to new products/services or changes to existing ones
(product or market focus),
•Unique employee behaviors,
•Organizational responses to opportunities,
•Restructuring or saving costs,
•Improving communications and process-related staffing plans, and
•New technologies coming from research and development.
An innovation-oriented culture values and encourages behaviors such as risk-taking,
change, experimentation, innovation, uncertainty tolerance, and opportunity exploitation
(O’Reilly et al. 1991). Some researchers have also identified that an innovation-oriented
culture consists of a coherent and integrated presence of values and rules that promote
“fresh” thinking and rapid execution (Wang et al. 2010). These values and rules are also
strengthened by motivation, socialization, role modeling and localism (regional system) for
information exchange (Wang et al. 2010).
Therefore, organizational culture can function effectively by motivating or hindering
collaboration, knowledge exchange, experiences and ideas. The open culture promotes
participation, while encouraging employees to take initiatives. On the other hand, a
business culture that is based on strong control over management does not favor creativity
and innovation. Dynamism, flexibility, rapid adaptation to changing conditions and
finding non-stereotypical solutions characterize cultures that aim to develop innovation.
Excessive standardization and bureaucracy, as well as extensive control structures, do not
favor innovation, but rather delay decision-making processes and inhibit the creativity of
employees (Loewe and Dominiquini 2006).
Overall, it is clear that the existing literature appears to be paying increasing attention
to the dimension of business culture and its continuous cultivation on behalf of various
forms of organizations, perceiving this dimension as the fundamental cradle for the ar-
ticulation of every innovative effort, deeper than any partial strategic, technological, or
managerial initiative taken by an organization (Joly 2022).
3.2. Regional Culture and Innovation
The topic of regional innovation culture is high on the agenda of the current debates
on the foundations of the fast and sustainable development and prosperity of regional
economies. Having presented the concept of culture and innovation, and their dynamics
in the context of an organization, we now focus on the concept of overall innovation
culture at the regional (meso) level. To start with, it is important to note that culture is not
always introduced as an explicit element in the analysis of regional development (Pilon
and DeBresson 2003). This claim also applies to regional and corporate cultures; and,
consequently, there is a need to seek an implicit understanding of the role of cultural actors
in the various bodies of theory.
The approach to regional innovation systems (RIS) (Asheim and Gertler 2005;Doloreux
and Parto 2005;Cooke et al. 2004) enables exploring the relationship between regional
culture and innovation. Typically, a regional innovation system is designed to consist
of these mechanisms of knowledge generation and dissemination (i.e., the knowledge
infrastructure of a region), including a knowledge application and exploitation subsystem
that incorporates any business located in a region (Autio 1998).
Furthermore, interactive relations between regional organizations in the field of inno-
vation systems, which contribute to an intensive flow of knowledge, resources and human
capital and promote systemic innovation activities, are considered to be of central impor-
tance (Autio 1998). In this context, Autio (1998) argued that the regional socioeconomic
and cultural environment had a strong impact on the region’s innovative activities, thus
emphasizing the specificity of the context and the culturally embedded and path-dependent
character of regional innovation. Moreover, Cooke et al. (2000) argued that regions differ in
their capacity to develop a strong regional system of innovation and promote the activities
of systemic innovation. In this context, the factors of culture are very significant. The

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 6 of 17
capacity of a regional innovation framework depends, according to Cooke et al. (2000),
on infrastructural and super-structural features, including the institutional, business, and
policy dimension.
A crucial feature of the literature on the innovation mechanism includes the inter-
connection between two subsystems: the information and distribution subsystem, on one
hand, and the knowledge application and utilization subsystem, on the other hand. In
terms of partnerships with businesses, these mechanisms are impacted by the traditions
of knowledge generation institutes and universities. Among other things, the pattern of
interaction with companies commercializing knowledge and scientific expertise depends
heavily on a number of factors (Lundvall and Maskell 2000;Whitley 1999;Nelson 1993;
Lundvall 1992), especially:
(a)
Academic practices,
(b)
Organizational laws,
(c)
Incentives and attitudes, and
(d)
Relations and cooperation (patenting, publishing, etc.).
These factors may differ from region to region and from country to country, high-
lighting the importance of specific institutional frameworks of national innovation sys-
tems (Lundvall and Maskell 2000;Nelson 1993;Lundvall 1992) and business systems
(
Whitley 1999
). Regarding the latter, a distinction was made between a business model
(which could be found in the US and the UK) and a cooperative or associative model (which
applies, for example, in the Nordic countries, Germany and Austria) (Cooke et al. 2004;
Whitley 2000). It is worth mentioning that these models present a strong variation between
the institutions and the organizations that are engaged with knowledge generation and
diffusion. This variation is extended to the perception of “cultures” (such as codes, norms,
habits and behaviors) of knowledge that are linked with the industry sector. There are
also strong differences in relation to university–industry ties with respect to spin-offs and
collaborative trends (Johansson et al. 2005).
Regional innovation can be viewed as a multifaceted concept. In essence, as has been
made clear so far, “regional cultures” are interpreted in a multidimensional way in most
regional innovation schools, consisting of numerous factors (Trippl and Toedtling 2008).
The following aspects are the most important results of the literature review on regional
cultures and their conceptualization in various bodies of work:
•
The behavioral routines of companies, organizations and policy actors are another
component of regional culture. These routines mitigate uncertainty, help in decision
making, and thus contribute to the creation of new technical routes. They also af-
fect the desire and willingness to take on new businesses undertake risks start new
businesses, etc.
•
Regional cultures are often emphasized as facilitating the building of trust that is
recognized as a facilitator or even a prerequisite for the successful exchange of infor-
mation, cooperation between enterprises, inter-organizational networking and mutual
learning.
•
Regional culture also to some extent guides the behavior of actors in certain directions
through the influence of codes of conduct and informal rules.
•
Regional cultures are viewed as a collection of traditions, shared perceptions, values
and rules, and a common language that promotes communication with others.
As a result, regional innovation cultures are a multifaceted phenomenon consisting of
different elements and evolutive dimensions that, in different ways, contribute directly and
indirectly to the creative dynamics of regional economies. In regional innovation cultures,
there are both positive and negative aspects. Many studies of industrial districts, innovative
ecosystems, knowledge intensive clusters, regional innovation structures, and learning re-
gions consider the local culture of collective learning, confidence, and innovation routines to
be positive elements for regional development, growth, and innovation. In the other hand,
regional practices can become conservative, networks can become very strong and closed,

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 7 of 17
and change can be systematically blocked. In the latter case, the area and its businesses have
become “locked in their specific trajectories”, with regional culture serving as a significant
impediment to effective adaptation and innovation (Katimertzopoulos et al. 2020).
Finally, there is the enhancement of regional innovation cultures. In the literature, the
expediency of modifying and manipulating the cultural conditions that favor innovation
remains highly questionable. There seems to be no consensus on the degree to which policy
makers should alter cultural patterns. It is uncertain if cultural lock-in situations can be
broken up and whether it is possible to ‘enable’ culture and confidence in areas that lack
cultural ingredients for effective innovation. Several scholars have reacted to this positively,
arguing culture changes arise through the interaction between businesses, organizations
and policy makers (Storper 2002;Morgan 1997;Powell 1996). Among others, the following
variables have been identified as key factors shaping the Regional Innovation Policy:
•Regional investment in R&D (Li 2009),
•Technology intermediaries (Wu and Xu 2013),
•Industrial structure and firm ownership (Li et al. 2014),
•Science parks (Gkypali et al. 2016), and
•Absorptive capacity (Lau and Lo 2015).
But what happens when the culture of innovation faces a slow development because
of the setbacks found in a less developed region environment in which it tries to evolve?
In these types of regions, dependence generally occurs on the activities of the primary
sector. Furthermore, since research and development activities can be limited, there is
no highly established local and interregional infrastructure, as well as a lack of influence
over larger political governance systems (local or regional) (Katimertzopoulos et al. 2020).
Studies in this field have also shown that a number of political, economic and social factors
can affect the capacity of a region to transform its investments into prosperity, economic
activity and innovation (Bilbao-Osorio and Rodriguez-Pose 2004). These evolutionary
factors include (Roper et al. 2004;Rodríguez-Pose 1998):
•The manufacturing potential;
•The economic structure of the region;
•The size and age of businesses;
•Current business partnerships;
•The political characteristics of the region;
•The local labor market and local entrepreneurs;
•The cultural characteristics of the local labor force.
In this setting, it is therefore not clear how innovative culture will flourish and act as a
driving force for development. Based on the information provided in this section, it is clear
that cultural development at the regional and business levels is triggered by the interaction
of both factors (regional socioeconomic system and business) either directly or indirectly.
But how does this relationship develop, and what are the implications for culture and
innovation in micro- and medium-sized environments? How can the development of less
developed regions and their market ecosystems be improved, based on the best practices
of developed environments, keeping at the same time their peripheral adaptation to a
local culture that lacks possibilities but has enough virtues to establish a global network of
innovation?
Overall, the above questions appear to be part of a newly emerging research trend
that better understands the concept of building regional innovation systems, emphasizing
the evolutionary dimensions as they are articulated simultaneously at the micro- and meso-
levels. This study focuses on the processes of business cooperation because the individual
organizational cultures of the participants are critical in the formation of specific business
ecosystems’ innovative dynamic (Della Corte 2018;Mason and Brown 2014).

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 8 of 17
4. Discussion: The Dynamic Interaction between Corporate and Regional Culture and
the Stra.Tech.Man Approach
This part sheds light on and brings to the surface responses regarding:
(a)
Which factors lead to the relationship between corporate and regional cultures in
developing an innovation culture?
(b)
How and to what degree does regional culture enable and promote businesses to
benefit from and contribute to their area in terms of innovation?
(c)
Which policy proposals can effectively contribute to the development and continu-
ation of a culture of regional and business innovation between the region and the
business?
The study of these mechanisms of cultural exchange is a challenging task. Culture
needs to be studied at various levels, from practice to meaning. It is important to study and
understand the cultural similarities and differences between the different levels (corporate,
regional) and the cultural complexities. One way to begin with is by defining cultural
values and their significance at regional and business levels. The understanding of how
they communicate and engage at both levels will deducted through the application of the
dilemma methodology.
The application of the dilemma methodology to cross-cultural management issues
(Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars 2000) indicates that contradictory values can be con-
verted into complementary values by integrating apparently opposing cultural values. In
the context of this problem, cultures are not assessed as a fixed set of value orientations
but as a cultural process which may simultaneously follow paradoxical standards. Among
contrasting principles, some cultures are expected to be favored compared to others, but
those others cannot be ignored or not considered measurable.
Developing effective strategies for creating and maintaining an innovative culture
requires addressing these dilemmas. This can be seen as an ongoing process of striking
a balance between competing values (Quinn 2011). The patterns of cultural meaning can
then be represented by the pattern of relations between different value orientations, such
as global standardization versus local adaptation, orientation of people versus orientation
of achievement, rapid decision making versus finding consensus, focusing on cooperation
versus focusing on competition. Companies have the potential to develop their ability to
combine these principles, such as by learning to collaborate through networks to increase
their performance.
Similar methodologies have been used to define the dilemmas of transition in corporate
culture and to develop regional innovation programs (Hampden-Turner and Tan 2002).
“Regional innovation cultures” are focused on a relatively secure local identity but can
only promote innovation if they are open to global developments (in terms of customers,
technology and human talent). As a result, businesses and regions face similar dilemmas in
evolving their innovative culture. The dilemma approach can be used to study the change
in corporate culture, the change in regional culture and the interaction between them.
At this point the dilemma approach to the culture of innovation is applied on top of
some fundamental dilemmas in this area of research (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars
2000). These dilemmas will be examined under the light of the theoretical methodology
Stra.Tech.Man Innovation approach (Vlados et al. 2018). This methodology proposes
an exploratory way of developing these interactions and connecting the «neurons» of
companies and regions at the level of an innovative culture. As a living system, the region
and business are perceived as a living organism that grows, innovates and develops into
three essential pillars: Strategy, Technology and Management.
A few years ago, Vlados et al. (2018) further developed the Stra.Tech.Man. Innovation
Theory, through which they suggest that a system, whether a business, an incubator, or a
region, should understand its own culture based on these three evolutionary pillars (Strat-
egy, Technology and Management). The understating of its culture will reflect attitudes
and methods of implementing innovation, as well as give answers on how a business
should develop internally (at organizational level) and externally (in relation to the market),

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 9 of 17
including its ecosystem and the region in terms of a culture of innovation. Any innovation,
according to the Stra.Tech.Man analysis, is always and inevitably defined by an endogenous
triangle which must constantly respond adaptively to changes in the external environment
of the organization. All innovations, invariably and continuously, necessitate a component
of Strategy, a component of Technology, and a component of Management. There are no
innovations that can happen or be successful unless the three inner Stra.Tech.Man domains
of the socioeconomic organism are changed conjointly at the same time. As a result, ev-
ery type of invention falls under the purview of Stra.Tech.Man. In reality, while it may
appear that innovation comes from at least one of the Stra.Tech.Man spheres, focused on a
particular region, in the long term, every innovation needs simultaneous relocations and
re-adjustments for the whole organization.
As such the three components of the Stra.Tech.Man theory are further analyzed in the
following part.
Strategy prism: When it comes to strategy, the dilemma competition versus co-
operation describes the conflict between a competitive orientation with an emphasis on
internal R&D spending and a cooperative culture that relies more on external sources
of ideas, i.e., ‘open innovation’ (Chesbrough 2003;Chesbrough and Schwartz 2007). The
importance of cooperation and trust-based relationships is emphasized by most books on re-
gional innovation structures, while research studies on regional clusters tend to emphasize
the importance of competition in the region (Porter 1998). However, the balance between
competition and cooperation, as Heidenreich (2004) has pointed out, is central to flexible
cooperation and competition strategies. Saxenian’s empirical study of Silicon Valley con-
firms that innovation can thrive when highly competitive conditions go hand in hand with
collaborative behaviors. Competition calls for continuous innovation, which in turn calls
for cooperation between companies (Saxenian 1996). In these terms, the approach of coope-
tition (competition simultaneously with cooperation) (
Nalebuff and Brandenburger 1997
)
appears to retain its analytical interest.
Technology Prism: From a technical standpoint, the issue of technology push versus
market pull is brought to the forefront. In terms of corporate culture, there is tension
between concentrating on developing new products/services based on internal technologi-
cal potential versus focusing on developing creative solutions by cooperating to supplier
and consumer perceptions and identifying market opportunities (Katimertzopoulos and
Vlados 2017). The parallel skepticism in terms of regional culture is expressed in the conflict
between:
•
Regional innovation systems driven by research institutes, universities and transfer
institutions of technology, versus
•
Regional innovation systems driven by entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and ‘lead
users’.
Management prism: From the management perspective, the dilemma arises in terms
of corporate culture between company-wide formalized processes and structures focused
on incremental innovation. This process is essential to continue previously effective prod-
uct/service lines, with the much-needed autonomy to inspire ambitious individuals and
enthusiastic entrepreneurs to seek transformative progress with an innovative mindset.
At the regional culture level, there is the dilemma between continuing previously success-
ful regional development paths by providing systems, regulations and sustaining large
‘anchor’ firms in the region (Agrawal and Cockburn 2003), versus providing room for
entrepreneurship to explore new fields and opportunities and creating faster-moving new
(and most probably small) firms (Florida and Tinagli 2004).
The dilemma «Directive versus Participative leadership» is also discussed from a
managerial point of view. This problem illustrates various leadership standards in different
organizational cultures: leadership in the role of authority versus leadership in the role of
motivation coach (providing a vision and creating an environment in which creative ideas
are easily expressed and accepted). At the regional level, the problem explains the possible

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 10 of 17
contradictions and synergies between strong regional policy leadership and the need for
public engagement in decision making (Van Reine and Dankbaar 2011).
This dilemma also reflects the debate between the ‘dirigiste’ (top-down initiatives)
versus ‘grassroots’ (locally organized processes) approaches that express different visions
to regional governance in promoting innovation (Cooke et al. 2004). The strengths and
weaknesses of the ‘dirigiste’ system (decisive actions versus lack of consensus) are the exact
mirror of the ‘grassroots’ system (consensus in decision making versus lack of decisiveness).
Saxenian (1996) examines the division between Silicon Valley’s egalitarian society and
Boston’s bureaucratic and authoritarian practices, drawing some important conclusions
that are discussed further below.
Lundvall (1985), who argued that users with spatial proximity could enhance the
efficiency of innovation systems, stressed the value of user-driven innovation. The involve-
ment of ‘lead users’ and’ customer-innovators were addressed by Thomke and Von Hippel
(2002) by providing users with the tools to design and create innovative custom products
that really meet their needs. Chen (2008) has shown that the presence of an advanced user
pool is extremely necessary for the location of global player innovation centers in Shanghai
and Beijing.
So it seems that to successfully create an innovative culture, businesses and regions
have to face each of the innovation dilemmas. It can be said that each dilemma also
represents an area of interaction between corporate and regional cultures. But under what
circumstances does the interaction of corporate and regional cultures contribute to the
creation of an innovation culture?
There is no question that corporate and regional cultures cannot be seen as existing
and changing independently of each other. The position of corporate cultures, however,
is not clear if it is taken into account in most regional innovation schools. Therefore, it is
important to further examine the question of how corporate culture and regional culture
interact evolutionarily and the degree to which businesses shape the innovation culture of
a region and vice versa.
Corporate cultures are understood as collections of social norms that regulate social
interactions within companies (laws of conduct, customs, rules of the game, etc.). In
addition, attention is paid to the ties between these contracts and the underlying core values
(ideologies) which provide general guidance in shaping behavioral standards within the
organization. In his model, applied at the regional level, James (2005) argues that a regional
culture hierarchy consists of individual corporate cultures, a regional industrial culture,
and a wider regional culture in which they are established. A sound conceptualization of
the cultural integration of companies in the area is possible by concentrating on overlaps
between the different levels of the hierarchy. Regional cultural systems of common values,
philosophies and conventions are ‘imported’ into companies’ cultural centers, influencing
their governance systems, control and decision-making processes. As such, regional
cultures are inflected by corporate behavior and vice versa.
This concept was the starting point for a project on the relationship between regional
culture and corporate culture (CURE-Corporate Culture and Regional Embeddedness)
under the European 6th Framework Programme (Dörhöfer and Minnig 2018). The culture
of companies influenced by regional culture was highlighted as a potential strength. This re-
gional culture needs to be enabled and it can only be fully realized through communication
with regional businesses. In this area, there are few systematic empirical studies to date.
Empirical outcomes that stress the significance of regional culture have been examined in
regional science.
One of the first examples of the effect of regional culture on business activity is the
comparative study of Silicon Valley and Route 128 (Saxenian 1996). In the 1970s, both
Route 128 (in Boston) and Silicon Valley were hotspots of high-tech activity. However, just
10 years later, the Route 128 region faced a serious stagnation, while Silicon Valley has
risen to become the undisputed global leader in the high-tech industry. This paper points
out that the difference in the two areas was not in their resources or location but mostly

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 11 of 17
in their commercial culture. Silicon Valley firms were open and connected by social and
economic networks, allowing them a good adaptability to the eventual market shifts. At
Route 128 firms, on the other hand, business was conducted in a conventional manner and
the innovation culture tended to be more insular and proprietary. In a similar pattern, the
divergent growth patterns of the Swiss and French Jura Alps were investigated, showing
that popular culture and practices, regional consensus and mutual future visions have a
strong effect on the pattern of business activity and on the region’s degree of adaptability
and innovation (Maillat et al. 1996).
Observing the company’s relationship with the area in which it operates will aid even
further in the analysis of the phenomenon. The business-place relationship is a core theme
in the fields of regional economics and economic geography. While older location theories
see the decision-making process as a “cost-cutting exercise” putting special attention on
transportation costs, more recent contributions emphasize the relationship between busi-
nesses and regional actors that contributes extensively in the overall productive potential
of the region. In addition, a series of academic theories such as the economic perspective,
institutional approach (Barnes and Gertler 2002;Hayter 1997) and behavioral approach
(Pred 1969) have also enhanced our understanding of the interdependence of regional
cultures and businesses.
Storper (1986) emphasized the ability of emerging companies associated with inno-
vative products and process technology to capitalize on “location opportunity windows”
because they were less dependent on traditional local actors. Because of their strong market
place, these companies will shape the region through their demand for unique inputs,
research and training activities, and the emergence of specific industrial cultures. The
Industrial District Approach and the Innovative Milieux Approach, on the other hand,
emphasize the importance of agglomeration of companies within regions that produce
externalities (Brusco 1996;Becattini 1978), as well as the impact of social and cultural
environments on the generation of innovation (Camagni 1991). Although new technol-
ogy drives the development of new industrial spaces, old industrial regions are far from
stagnant. Traditional manufacturing processes are continuously repeated and subjected
to gradual change as a result of business activities (Katimertzopoulos and Vlados 2017).
However, gradual change is well known in the literature to establish specific development
pathways in certain situations, which often contribute to negative lock-in, as has been
already seen in less developed and remote peripheral ecosystems (Grabher 1993).
Furthermore, according to Gertler (2003), businesses are influenced in a great extent by
strong cultures and good practices which are shaped by national and regional institutions
(Gertler 2003). Specifically, Dicken (2003) argues that in an era of economic globalization
and transnational companies, the relationship between business and the region is becoming
increasingly complex. Transnational corporations reflect their home economies’ corporate
cultures and institutional habits when learning new strategies in host economies (Majek
and Hayter 2008).
Along the previously examined theoretical perspectives, it appears that new paths
are gradually opening that bring the concepts of business and regional culture analytically
closer together, making the two-way relationship between individual business cultures
and specific regional innovation systems mutually acceptable, thereby creating additional
opportunities for a new holistic and interdisciplinary approach to the innovative dynamic
phenomenon at an interspatial level. On this premise, new routes appear to be opening up
in comprehending, articulating, and implementing more cohesive enhancing policies at
the regional and local levels, as we shall critically investigate in the following section of
this paper.
5. Conclusions
Based on what was examined and discussed in this research study, it appears that
the coexistence of innovative culture at the business and regional levels is perceived as a
dynamic and evolutionary process with multiples variables. In this context, an obvious

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 12 of 17
question is raised: what are the appropriate frameworks for cultural exchange that should
be established between regions and businesses in order to contribute effectively to the
development of regional cultures of innovation?
Several attempts have been made to date to envision a viable regional business envi-
ronment in the view of adopting a more collaborative approach (Mason and Brown 2014).
Though opinions on specific ecosystem components may differ, the elements and actors can
be generally classified as material, social, and cultural. In this way, a positive culture can
be seen as promoting business and contributing to the region’s sustainability (Spigel 2017;
Fritsch and Storey 2014). Similarly, Spigel (2017) defines social tools as “talents, dealmakers,
venture capital, mentorship and network”.
The material elements that can promote the innovation culture consist of local orga-
nizations and institutes that support entrepreneurship (e.g., incubators or accelerators,
universities, infrastructure). However, having all of the resources in isolation is insufficient
for an efficient ecosystem (Mack and Mayer 2016). All actors in the ecosystem should work
together to carry out and encourage business activities. As such, by developing an efficient
facilitator, this collaboration can be achieved.
The above conclusions lead the authors of this paper to rethink and enrich the proposal
to establish a framework that can contribute to the growth of innovation, cultural evolution
and regional ecosystem performance. According to Katimertzopoulos and Vlados (2017),
a policy proposal that could provide valuable solutions, at the micro–meso-levels for the
region, is the Institutes of Local Growth and Innovation (ILDI). The aim of this policy
proposal is to create “clinical hubs for companies” that can diagnose the culture of these
regional businesses at the strategy, technology, and management levels (Stra.Tech.Man
approach). The ILDI are, in essence, structures for the growth, organization, extraction,
and dissemination of information and modern business knowledge, with an emphasis on
promoting creative entrepreneurship and the extroversion of locally developed businesses.
As previously mentioned, these organizations are still somewhat uncoordinated. As a
result, this paper proposes the development of an ILDI framework at the level of regional
business ecosystems to connect all institutions that can strengthen local entrepreneurship.
The following steps can be followed by the particular mechanism,
(1)
Diagnosis of the local ecosystem companies’ skills and prospects,
(2)
Input on investment opportunities to regional players,
(3)
Collect and synthesize relevant information,
(4)
Seek out possibilities for educational and consulting interventions within businesses
and the region, and
(5)
Dissemination of gained knowledge.
The ILDIs are mechanisms that have not been completely implemented in an area;
only certain aspects have been studied. As an example, based on the research of Katimert-
zopoulos and Vlados (2017), in the less developed region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace
in Greece, it has been found that the establishment of such a structure is an essential mech-
anism for the region. In fact, there are many regions with similar strengths and weaknesses
within and outside the borders. In future studies, it will be critical to investigate how these
structures are developed and implemented in other regions, using the appropriate configu-
rations and adaptations of the ILDI model. The strategic, technological, and managerial
capacity and adaptability of various local businesses that could participate as “patients
in need of therapy” could then be further investigated in an analysis. This ongoing cycle
could be restarted by keeping track of the developmental outcomes at the regional and
business levels.
Regional engagement at the company level can also be part of the day-to-day business
operations and strategic business activities of a company. Day-to-day business activities
are described as an enterprise’s operational functions and they include the actual process of
production, employment and management of the activities of the enterprise. These business
activities are an essential element of the region’s development, the provision of employment
to the regional workforce, the demand for regional products and the payment of corporate

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 13 of 17
taxes. Strategic operations identify behaviors that are long term, growth oriented and
closely associated with the production process of the business. Such related activities in-
clude participation in special advanced training, conducting collaborative research projects
or the implementation of energy efficient measures (Katimertzopoulos et al. 2020).
Finally, from a rather different perspective, there are several research studies that
investigate important aspects of regional integration in relation to social capital. The
analysis has found that social capital is an important element of regional development and
innovation (Doh and Acs 2010;Cooke and Clifton 2005). In contrast, the accumulation
of social capital calls for transcending regional boundaries and requires openness to all
actors at the national and international levels. Information transfer is facilitated by social
capital, especially regarding the sharing of tacit knowledge, which remains a largely
localized phenomenon. The innovative potential of regional economies and businesses is
thus reinforced by social capital. Saxenian (1989) has shown that during the cluster life
cycle, various types of social capital are significant. Deep bonding social capital seems
to be critical for the initial implementation of game-changing technology, while a more
consolidated information ecosystem requires transparency and hence an increasing share
of bridging social capital.
The implementation and development of ILDIs, as discussed above, can serve as a
social capital assistant and a starting point for the development of an entity that unites
regions and businesses in a structural context in which the innovation culture can develop
and evolve dynamically on both axes (region and businesses).
Based on the analysis of the literature review, it becomes clear that particular attention
should be paid to future research in relation to organizational structure, culture, strategy,
and processes in innovation at the business and regional levels. In addition, it is important
to analyze in detail the correct balance between shared values, understanding, and consen-
sus on the one hand and diversity, openness, and conflicts on the other hand. The optimal
combination of such homogeneous and heterogeneous elements depends on the type of
region in question. For example, the “institutional thinness” found in many peripheral
regions requires a strong building of trust, networks and mutual understanding. In con-
trast, the challenge in old industrial regions is to transcend old views and routines and to
break existing relationships. By examining the overall feasibility of the Institutes of Local
Development and Innovation, future research should focus on how, in what form, and
under which circumstances those mechanisms can be successfully established regionally.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, F.K. and C.V.; methodology, F.K.; formal analysis, F.K.;
investigation, F.K.; resources, F.K.; data curation F.K.; writing-original draft preparation, F.K.; writing—
review and editing, F.K., C.V. and T.K; supervision, F.K., C.V. and T.K.; project administration, F.K.
and T.K.; funding acquisition, T.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Agrawal, Ajay, and Iain Cockburn. 2003. The anchor tenant hypothesis: Exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in
regional innovation systems. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21: 1227–53. [CrossRef]
Ahmed, Pervaiz K. 1998. Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 1: 30–43. [CrossRef]
Alvesson, Mats. 2013. The Triumph of Emptiness: Consumption, Higher Education, and Work Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Amabile, Teresa M., Regina Conti, Heather Coon, Jeffrey Lazenby, and Michael Herron. 1996. Assessing the Work Environment for
Creativity. The Academy of Management Journal 39: 1154–84. [CrossRef]

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 14 of 17
Amin, Ash. 1999. Industrial Districts. In A Companion to Economic Geography. Edited by Sheppard Eric and J. Barnes Trevor. Hoboken:
Blackwell Publishers.
Asheim, Bjorn T. 2000. Industrial districts: The contributions of Marshall and beyond. In The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography.
Edited by Gordon Clark, Maryann Feldman and Meric S. Gertler. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Asheim, Bjorn T., and Meric S. Gertler. 2005. The Geography of Innovation. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Edited by Jan
Fagerberg, David Mowery and Richard Nelson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 291–317.
Autio, Erkko. 1998. Evaluation of RTD in Regional Systems of Innovation. European Planning Studies 6: 131–40. [CrossRef]
Barnes, Trevor, and Meric S. Gertler. 2002. The New Industrial Geography: Regions, Regulation and Institutions. New Work: Routledge.
Becattini, Giacomo. 1978. The Development of Light Industry in Tuscany: An Interpretation. Economic Notes 2: 107–23.
Bilbao-Osorio, Benat, and Andres Rodriguez-Pose. 2004. From R&D to Innovation and Economic Growth in the EU. Growth and Change
35: 434–55. [CrossRef]
Boekema, Frans, Kevin Morgan, Silvia Bakkers, and Roel Rutten. 2000. Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Growth. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Brusco, Sandro. 1996. Bankruptcy, Takeovers, and Wage Contracts. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 5: 515–34. [CrossRef]
Camagni, Roberto. 1991. Introduction: From the local ‘milieu’ to innovation through cooperation networks. In Innovation Networks.
Edited by Roberto Camagni. London: Belhaven Press, pp. 1–9.
Chen, Yun-Chung. 2008. Why do multinational corporations locate their advanced R&D centres in Beijing? The Journal of Development
Studies 44: 622–44. [CrossRef]
Chesbrough, Henry, and Kevin Schwartz. 2007. Innovating Business Models with Co-Development Partnerships. Research-Technology
Management 50: 55–59. [CrossRef]
Chesbrough, Henry William. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard
Business Press.
Cooke, Philip. 2001. Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change 10: 945–74.
[CrossRef]
Cooke, Philip. 2002. Knowledge Economies. Clusters, Learning and Cooperative Advantage. London: Routledge.
Cooke, Philip, and Nick Clifton. 2005. Visionary, precautionary and constrained ‘varieties of devolution’ in the economic governance
of the devolved UK territories. Regional Studies 39: 437–51. [CrossRef]
Cooke, Philip, Martin Heidenreich, and Hans-Joachim Braczyk. 2004. Regional Innovation Systems, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Cooke, Philip, Patries Boekholt, and Franz Todtling. 2000. The Governance of Innovation in Europe. London: Pinter.
Crevoisier, Olivier. 2004. The innovative milieus approach: Toward a territorialized understanding of the economy? Economic Geography
80: 367–79. [CrossRef]
Damanpour, Fariborz. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of
Management Journal 34: 555–90. [CrossRef]
Della Corte, Valentina. 2018. Innovation through coopetition: Future directions and new challenges. Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity (JOItmC) 4: 47. [CrossRef]
Dicken, Peter. 2003. Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic Map in the 21st Century, 4th ed. New York: Sage Publication.
Doh, Soogwan, and Zoltan J. Acs. 2010. Innovation and Social Capital: A Cross-Country Investigation. Industry and Innovation 17:
241–62. [CrossRef]
Doloreux, David, and Saeed Parto. 2005. Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues. Technology in Society
27: 133–53. [CrossRef]
Dörhöfer, Steffen, and Christoph Minnig. 2018. CURE: Corporate Culture and Regional Embeddedness. Available online: https:
//irf.fhnw.ch/handle/11654/29117 (accessed on 10 May 2021).
Florida, Richard. 2005. Cities and the Creative Class. London: Routledge.
Florida, Richard, and Irene Tinagli. 2004. Europe in the Creative Age. London: DEMOS.
Fritsch, Michael, and David J. Storey. 2014. Entrepreneurship in a Regional Context: Historical Roots, Recent Developments and Future
Challenges. Regional Studies 48: 939–54. [CrossRef]
Galán-Muros, Victoria, Peter van der Sijde, Peter Groenewegen, and Thomas Baaken. 2017. Nurture over nature: How do European
universities support their collaboration with business? The Journal of Technology Transfer 42: 184–205. [CrossRef]
Gertler, Meric S. 2003. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of
Economic Geography 3: 75–99. [CrossRef]
Gkypali, Areti, Vasileios Kokkinos, Christos Bouras, and Kostas Tsekouras. 2016. Science parks and regional innovation performance
in fiscal austerity era: Less is more? Small Business Economics 47: 313–30. [CrossRef]
Grabher, Gernot. 1993. The weakness of strong ties: The lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr-area. In The Embedded Firm: On
the Socioeconomics of Industrial Networks. Edited by Gernot Grabher. London: T.J. Press, pp. 255–78.
Gudmundson, Donald, C. Burk Tower, and E. Alan Hartman. 2003. Innovation in small business: Culture and ownership structure
do matter. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 8: 1–17. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=Innovation+in+small+businesses:+Culture+and+ownership+structure+do+matter&author=Gudmundson,+D.&author=
Tower,+C.B.&author=Hartman,+E.A.&publication_year=2003&journal=J.+Dev.+Entrep.&volume=8&pages=1%E2%80%9317
(accessed on 15 October 2021).

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 15 of 17
Hampden-Turner, Charles, and Teng-Kee Tan. 2002. Six Dilemmas of Entrepreneurship: Can Singapore Transform itself to Become an
Innovative Economy. Nanyang Business Review 1: 79–97.
Hampden-Turner, Charles M., and Fons Trompenaars. 2000. Building Cross-Cultural Competence: How to Create Wealth from Conflicting
Values. Chichester: Wiley.
Hayter, Roger. 1997. The Dynamics of Industrial Location: The Factory, the Firm and the Production System. New York: Wiley.
Heidenreich, Martin. 2004. Knowledge-based work: An international comparison. Management International 8: 65–80. Available online:
http://www.sozialstruktur.uni-oldenburg.de/dokumente/knowledgework.pdf (accessed on 4 November 2021).
Henrich, Joseph. 2001. Cultural transmission and the diffusion of innovations: Adoption dynamics indicate that biased cultural
transmission is the predominate force in behavioral change. American Anthropologist 103: 992–1013. [CrossRef]
James, Al. 2005. Demystifying the Role of Culture in Innovative Regional Economies. Regional Studies 39: 1197–216. [CrossRef]
Johansson, Mattias, Merle Jacob, and Tomas Hellström. 2005. The Strength of Strong Ties: University Spin-offs and the Significance of
Historical Relations. The Journal of Technology Transfer 30: 271–86. [CrossRef]
Joly, Hubert. 2022. Does Your Company’s Culture Reinforce Its Strategy and Purpose. Harvard Business Review, June 10, 1–24.
Katimertzopoulos, Fotios, and Charis Vlados. 2017. Local support mechanisms for entrepreneurship: The approach of local develop-
ment and innovation institutions. International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research 10: 30–41. [CrossRef]
Katimertzopoulos, Fotios, Charis Vlados, and Theodore Koutroukis. 2020. Regional Innovation Systems and Less Developed Business
Ecosystems: Fundamental Concepts and Theoretical Trends. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research 4:
137–56.
Kebir, Leila, and Olivier Crevoisier. 2007. Resources development and actors coordination: What role for innovative milieus?
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 7: 204–22. [CrossRef]
Keeble, David, and Frank Wilkinson. 2017. High-Technology Clusters, Networking and Collective Learning in Europe. London: Routledge.
Klaerding, Claudia. 2009. Understanding Remigration and Innovation—An Appeal for a Cultural Economic Geography. Geography
Compass 3: 1732–43. [CrossRef]
Kunda, Gideon. 1992. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lagendijk, Arnoud. 2000. Learning in non-core regions: Towards’ intelligent clusters’ addressing business and regional needs. In
Learning Regions, Theory, Policy and Practice. Edited by Frans Boekema, Kevin Morgan and Silvia Bakkers. Aldershot: Edward
Elgar, pp. 165–91.
Lau, Antonio K.W., and William Lo. 2015. Regional innovation system, absorptive capacity and innovation performance: An empirical
study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 92: 99–114. [CrossRef]
Leskovar-Spacapan, Gabrijela, and Majda Bastic. 2007. Differences in organizations’ innovation capability in transition economy:
Internal aspect of the organizations’ strategic orientation. Technovation 27: 533–46. [CrossRef]
Li, Jian, Dylan Sutherland, Lutao Ning, and Yuandi Wang. 2014. Firm ownership, industrial structure, and regional innovation
performance in China’s provinces. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 26: 1001–22. [CrossRef]
Li, Xibao. 2009. China’s regional innovation capacity in transition: An empirical approach. Research Policy 38: 338–57. [CrossRef]
Loewe, Pierre, and Jennifer Dominiquini. 2006. Overcoming the barriers to effective innovation. Strategy & Leadership 34: 24–31.
[CrossRef]
Lombardi, Rosa, Alessandra Lardo, Benedetta Cuozzo, and Raffaele Trequattrini. 2017. Emerging trends in entrepreneurial universities
within Mediterranean regions: An international comparison. EuroMed Journal of Business 12: 130–45. [CrossRef]
Lundvall, Bengt-Åke. 1985. The Learning Economy and the Economics of Hope. London: Anthem Press.
Lundvall, Bengt-Åke. 1992. Introduction. In National Systems of Innovation—Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Edited
by Bengt-Åke Lundvall. London: Pinter Publishers, pp. 1–19.
Lundvall, Bengt-Åke, and Peter Maskell. 2000. Nation states and economic development—From national systems of production to
national systems of knowledge creation and learning. In The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography. Edited by Gordon Clark,
Maryann P. Feldman and Meric S. Gertler. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 353–72.
Mack, Elizabeth, and Heike Mayer. 2016. The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Urban Studies 53: 2118–33.
[CrossRef]
Maher, Lynne. 2014. Building a culture for innovation: A leadership challenge. World Hospitals and Health Services 50: 4–6. [PubMed]
Maillat, Denis, Gilles Léchot, Bruno Lecoq, and Marc Pfister. 1996. Comparative Analysis of the Structural Development of Milieux:
The Example of the Watch Industry in the Swizz and French Jura Arc. Working Paper 96-07. Neuchatel: Institut de Recherches
Économiques et Régionales, Universitéde Neuchatel. Available online: http://www.unine.ch/irer/wp9607.doc (accessed on 20
October 2021).
Majek, Tomasz, and Roger Hayter. 2008. Hybrid Branch Plants: Japanese Lean Production in Poland’s Automobile Industry. Economic
Geography 84: 333–58. [CrossRef]
Mallol, Carlos M., Brooks C. Holtom, and Thomas W. Lee. 2007. Job embeddedness in a culturally diverse environment. Journal of
Business and Psychology 22: 35–44. [CrossRef]
Martin, Ron, and Peter Sunley. 2003. Deconstructing clusters: Chaotic concept or policy panacea? Journal of Economic Geography 3: 5–35.
[CrossRef]
Martins, Ellen-Caroline, and Fransie Terblanche. 2003. Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation.
European Journal of Innovation Management 6: 64–74. [CrossRef]

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 16 of 17
Mason, Colin, and Ross Brown. 2014. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship. Final Report to OECD. Paris:
OECD, vol. 30, pp. 77–102.
Morgan, Kevin. 1997. The learning regions: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional Studies 31: 491–503. [CrossRef]
Moulaert, Frank, and Farid Sekia. 2003. Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey. Regional Studies 37: 289–302. [CrossRef]
Nalebuff, Barry J., and Adam M. Brandenburger. 1997. Co-opetition: Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital
economy. Strategy & Leadership 25: 28–33.
Nelson, Richard R. 1993. National Innovation Systems—A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Reilly, Charles A., III, Jennifer Chatman, and David F. Caldwell. 1991. People and organizational culture: A profile comparison
approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal 34: 487–516. [CrossRef]
Pablo-Hernando, Susana. 2015. Transfering knowledge: PhD holders employed in Spanish technology centres. International Journal of
Technology Management 68: 228–54. [CrossRef]
Pilon, Sylvianne, and Chris DeBresson. 2003. Local Culture and Regional Innovation Networks: Some Propositions. In Cooperation,
Networks and Institutions in Regional Innovation Systems. Edited by Dirk Fornahl and Thomas Brenner. Cheltehan: Edward Elgar,
pp. 15–37.
Porter, Michael E. 1998. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review 76: 77–90. [PubMed]
Powell, Walter W. 1996. Trust-Based Forms of Governance. In Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Edited by Roderick
M. Kramer and Tom R. Tyler. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 61–67.
Pred, Allan Richard. 1969. Behavior and location: Foundations for a geographic and dynamic location theory. Lund Studies in Geography
28: 152.
Prud’homme van Reine, P. 2015. A networking culture to benefit from open innovation. Journal of Innovation Management 3: 71–105.
[CrossRef]
Qian, Haifeng. 2018. Knowledge-Based Regional Economic Development: A Synthetic Review of Knowledge Spillovers, Entrepreneur-
ship, and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Economic Development Quarterly 32: 163–76. [CrossRef]
Quinn, Robert E. 2011. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Hoboken: John Wiley
& Sons.
Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés. 1998. Dynamics of Regional Growth in Europe: Social and Political Factors. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés. 2001. Killing Economic Geography with a “Cultural Turn” Overdose. Antipode 33: 176–82. [CrossRef]
Roper, Stephen, Nola Hewitt-Dundas, and James H. Love. 2004. An ex ante evaluation framework for the regional benefits of publicly
supported R&D projects. Research Policy 33: 487–509. [CrossRef]
Saxenian, AnnaLee. 1989. The Cheshire cats grin—Innovation, regional-development and the Cambridge case. Economy and Society 18:
448–77. [CrossRef]
Saxenian, AnnaLee. 1996. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Snyder, Hannah. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104:
333–39. [CrossRef]
Spigel, Ben. 2017. Bourdieu, culture, and the economic geography of practice: Entrepreneurial mentorship in Ottawa and Waterloo,
Canada. Journal of Economic Geography 17: 287–310. [CrossRef]
Storper, Michael. 1986. Technology and new regional growth complexes: The economics of discontinuous spatial development. In
Technological Change, Employment and Spatial Dynamics. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 46–75. [CrossRef]
Storper, Michael. 2002. Institutions of the Learning Economy. In Innovation and Social Learning. Edited by Meric S. Gertler and David A.
Wolfe. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 135–58.
Thomke, Stefan, and Eric Von Hippel. 2002. Customers as innovators: A new way to create value. Harvard Business Review 80: 74–81.
Tödtling, Franz, and Michaela Trippl. 2005. One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research
Policy 34: 1023–209. [CrossRef]
Torraco, Richard J. 2005. Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review 4: 356–67.
[CrossRef]
Trippl, Michaela, and Franz Toedtling. 2008. Regional innovation cultures. Paper presented at the Conference on Entrepreneurship and
Innovation-Organizations, Institutions, Systems and Regions, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 17–20.
Van Reine, Peter Prud’Homme, and Ben Dankbaar. 2011. The dynamic interaction between corporate and regional cultures: The case
of southeast netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 102: 532–47. [CrossRef]
Vlados, Charis, Fotios Katimertzopoulos, and Ioannis Blatsos. 2018. Innovation in Stra.Tech.Man (Strategy—Technology—
Management). Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation 5: 1–26. [CrossRef]
Wang, Sheng, Rebecca M. Guidice, Judith W. Tansky, and Zhong-Ming Wang. 2010. When R&D spending is not enough: The critical
role of culture when you really want to innovate. Human Resource Management 49: 767–92. [CrossRef]
West, Michael A. 2000. Rozwijanie kreatywno´sci wewn ˛atrz organizacji. Warszawa: PWN.
Whitley, Richard. 1999. Divergent Capitalism—The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whitley, Richard. 2000. The institutional structuring of innovation strategies: Business systems, firm types and patterns of technical
change in different market economies. Organization Studies 21: 855–86. [CrossRef]

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 237 17 of 17
Woodman, Richard W., John E. Sawyer, and Ricky W. Griffin. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management
Journal 18: 293–321. [CrossRef]
Wu, Jiebing, and Mengzhou Xu. 2013. Technology intermediaries and regional innovation performance: An empirical study in China.
Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 21: 7–19. [CrossRef]
Wzi ˛atek-Kubiak, Anna, Ewa Balcerowicz, and Marek P˛eczkowski. 2009. Differentiation of Innovation Behavior of Manufacturing
Firms in the New Member States: Cluster Analysis on Firm-Level Data. CASE Network Studies and Analyses. Available online:
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/128199/1/616083491.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2021).
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.