The challenges and approaches to the implementation of corporate innovation: a Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

Corporate innovation entails developing fresh ideas, products, services, and processes to generate value within an organization. This process requires introducing innovative initiatives that optimize operations, enhance products and services, streamline processes, and establish new revenue streams. The objective of this literature review is to identify the challenges that emerge during the execution of corporate innovation processes and to examine the methodologies and approaches used in this context. An in-depth analysis was performed to identify recent literature on the approaches for corporate innovation. This review suggests that in-house knowledge and ambidexterity are effective approaches for executing corporate innovation. Furthermore, organizations must consider the challenges inherent in culture and governance within this context. This study contributes in theoretical insights to the literature on implementing corporate innovation and offers an understanding of challenges and approaches in this context, along with future research opportunities.

Full text

Int. J. of Business Innovation and Research, Vol. x, No. x, 1–24 1
The challenges and approaches to the implementation of
corporate innovation: a Systematic Literature Review
Renata Freire Sellaro
CESAR School,
Recife, Brazil
E-mail: rfs@cesar.org.br
Cesar França
CESAR School,
Recife, Brazil
E-mail: franssa@cesar.school
Abstract: Corporate innovation entails developingfresh ideas, products, services,
and processes to generate value within an organization. This process requires
introducing innovative initiatives that optimize operations, enhance products and
services, streamline processes, and establish new revenue streams. The objective
of this literature review is to identify the challenges that emerge during the
execution of corporate innovation processes and to examine the methodologies
and approaches used in this context. An in-depth analysis was performed to
identify recent literature on the approaches for corporate innovation. This review
suggests that in-house knowledge and ambidexterity are effective approaches for
executing corporate innovation. Furthermore, organizations must consider the
challenges inherent in culture and governance within this context. This study
contributes in theoretical insights to the literature on implementing corporate
innovation and offers an understanding of challenges and approaches in this
context, along with future research opportunities.
Keywords: Innovation; Corporate Innovation; Literature reviews; Software
Engineering.
1 Introduction
It is commonplace for traditional or consolidated organizations to desire innovation, creating
new products and services. The demand for innovation is essential for most managers
and decision-makers in these organizations. Therefore, corporate innovation is a concept
that many organizations are eager to adopt. It can be challenging to implement corporate
innovation processes due to a variety of factors. We are increasingly seeing an incessant
search for organizations to consolidate a process to include innovations in their existing
business models.
Despite market changes, organizations have sought to innovate by creating new products
and services. However, innovation is not trivial in a consolidated organizational routine.
Besides maintaining what the companies already do in their current business model,
Copyright © 201X Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

2Sellaro, R. F. and França, C.
organizations face the challenge of innovation.Furthermore, they should invest in exploring
new business models to bring new products or services. Tendayi (2020) suggests that
successful consolidated organizations find a way to search while producing. According to
O’Reilly and Tushman (2004), these organizations must stop being monolithic, with only
one business model, and instead research and innovate by creating new business models.
This work aims to provide a systematic review of the literature, understanding the
challenges faced by implementing corporate innovation processes. The challenges faced
when implementing corporate innovation processes is balancing between experimentation
and execution. Corporate innovation processes require an organization to be agile and open
to idea generation, while still executing with the necessary speed and efficiency of a larger
organization.
More then that, implementing corporate innovation processes is managing
organizational change. Across the organization, roles, responsibilities, and expectations
need to be adjusted in order to support the innovation process. The need for immersion
in this study area will motivate the proposed research, allowing us to contribute to future
researchers seeking to understand corporate innovation processes’ challenges.
In this systematic review, we examined state of the art in implementing corporate
innovation processes. We follow the research protocol proposed by Kitchenham and Stuart
(2007) and Petersen et al. (2015) to provide a valuable baseline for future research.
The rest of this article is organized as follows: Section II provides background
information on corporate innovation; Section III introduces the research methodology that
was used to conduct this systematic review; Section IV aggregates the results through a
compact overview in graphics and tables; Section V points out some future issues. Section
VI presents our conclusions.
2 Theoretical Background
2.1 Innovation
Innovation can be defined as the creation of value through converting an idea into a new
product, process, or practice, or even improvements in an existing product, process, or
practice, according to Varadajan (2018). Innovation happens when people have the proper
knowledge and resources to create value (VARADARAJAN, 2018).
Although innovation has become a popular term, several organizations need to learn
how to describe it, according to Kahn (2018). It is claimed that innovation could be realized.
Because of this, a process or mentality has changed. When someone considers innovation to
be a result, the production that is sought is emphasized, including organizational innovation
and others such as product, process, and business model innovation.
Furthermore, according to Kahn (2018), if the focus is on innovation as a process, it
meets the way, shape, or path in which innovation must be carried out so that the results can
materialize. Innovation is the creative activity and execution of new ideas to solve a problem
or improve an existing solution. Innovation often affects a component of risk-taking and
entails introducing something new that is thought to create value or produce a competitive
edge.
The concept of innovation has been the subject of discussion and analysis in various
fields of knowledge. In general, contemporary definitions of innovation are based on two
fundamental aspects: the novelty of change and its generation of value. The novelty of

The challenges and approaches to the implementation of corporate innovation 3
change can be understood as something that is new for the world, for a given context.
The generation of value, in become, refers to the ability of this change to generate new
benefits or significant improvements. (Granstrand and Holgersson, 2020) It is understood
that innovation implies the creation and program of new ideas and knowledge to improve
processes, products and services, as well as to develop new markets and expand the potential
of the economy. Innovation can be defined as the materialization of creative potential
for commercial and social purposes, through the implementation of adaptive or original
solutions, which generate value, use new technologies or inventions, and contribute to
competitive advantage and economic growth. (Singh and Aggarwal, 2022) Innovation has
been cited as the only source of competitive advantage and allows organizations to respond
creatively to threats and opportunities. Nevertheless, the innovation process has been well-
developed and understood. (Yesboah, 2023) A restricted approach to the technological field
defines only technological innovation, the result of entrepreneurship with an emphasis on
technological knowledge, unlike advances in products and processes. A broader definition
of innovation involves the creation of new products, methods, and sources of supply, as well
as the exploration of emerging markets and the creation of new business models. (Prelipcean
and Ungureanu, 2023) Innovation is a highly complex process, being better understood as
a definition when a broad view is adopted, considering its sources, the sectors in which it
occurs and its results. It can be a direct result of a process, a product, or a service. In addition,
it is defined by different concepts according to economic and cultural aspects, among others.
(Gohoungodji and Amara, 2022) The definition of innovation varies from author to author,
but everyone agrees that it is an essential process for organizations to improve their current
products, processes or services, or create new ones that are not yet known by the market.
Innovation is a means by which organizations can remain competitive and adapt to market
changes, through the creation or improvement of solutions that meet the needs of consumers.
(Keresztes and Endresz 2020) Innovation is inevitable, and this can have a gigantic impact
on a country’s ability to survive and excel. Nonetheless, without adequate improvements,
innovation capabilities and skills will deteriorate over time. (Narayanan et al. 2022) For
Robertson, Caruana, and Ferreira (2021), innovation is a decisive component that drives the
mature performance and economic growth of organizations and the wealth of countries. All
the same, for many, the formula for successful innovation remains unknown. The emergence
of major challenges requires innovations to be increasingly systematic, which implies that it
is difficult for an individual innovation to offer value to customers with systemic problems.
It is necessary to develop complementary innovations, to meet this need, new shape of
innovation have been created. (Paasi, Jaakko, et al., 2023) By definition, innovations create
value by being new to everyone and useful to some actors, but they also tend to destroy
value by being harmful to some actors. (Schumpeter, 2020)
Withal, when it comes to innovation as a mentality, Kahn (2018) understands innovation
as an integral part of the people who are part of the organization. Innovation is already
instilled and rooted in people, fostering an organizational culture that allows innovation to
flourish.
According to the Oslo Manual, innovation is defined as the implementation of a new
or significantly improved product, process, marketing method, or organizational method
in business practices. The definition of innovation provided in the Oslo Manual is perhaps
the most widely referenced definition of innovation, but it is by no means the only one.
Other definitions of innovation exist, such as relating it to creative problem-solving or
transformative potential, and we will discuss these in more detail in a future article.

4Sellaro, R. F. and França, C.
Ultimately, there is no clear consensus around a consistent definition of innovation;
rather, different definitions are best suited for different contexts and purposes, as a result,
for this paper, we are using the definition according to the Oslo Manual.
2.2 Corporate innovation
According to Gault (2018), corporate innovation is the program of a new or significantly
changed structure method in the organization’s activity. Innovation is becoming more
open in organizations, associated with greater collaboration and connection, research and
development (LIN et al., 2020). Corporate innovation is essential for future growth and
produces a competitive advantage for the company. The importance of corporate innovation
consists in its ability to innovate, and innovation is the origin of corporate development,
according to Zhuang, 2022. The endurance and most extended life of companies has always
depended on corporate innovation, according to Huang (2022).
Bahoo, Cucculelli, and Qamar (2023) define corporate innovation as the process
by which organizations implement innovation opportunities in existing business models,
adapting them to industry needs. Three main stages are associated with this process: (i)
generation and creation of ideas, involving the discovery and elaboration of new concepts;
(ii) idea generation, exploration of diverse ideas, opportunities, and solutions; and (iii) idea
implementation, the phase of evaluating and selecting ideas to offer a product or service that
modifies the organization’s business model. The concept of corporate innovation, in general,
is considered restricted, and is often associated with corporate technological innovation,
aiming to stimulate the emergence and competitiveness of new products. Furthermore, in
general terms, we see that corporate innovation is typically related to R&D investment, the
number of patents and the launch of new products (Guan et al. 2021).
Corporate innovation is a crucial factor in promoting capital market development.
In essence, corporate innovation aims to create new systems, allowing overcoming the
limitations of the organization itself and eliminating obsolete systems and methods, to
perform corporate innovation and take advantage of new opportunities today. Many of the
unexpected changes in organizations are driven by scientific and technological innovation
strategies, which make it possible to adapt to the challenging economic market (Ye and
Zhong, 2022) .According to Bai, Li and Xu (2023), currently existing studies predominantly
focus on studying the formation of corporate innovation behavior. Even so, there is still
a significant shortage of literature aimed at understanding how organizations can better
conduct innovation activities and ensure the continuity of these actions.
Innovation is fundamental for the long-term development of companies and society. At
the macro level, government police, laws, regulations, innovation subsidies and financial
market development influence innovation. At the meso level, industrial police and industry
contest are the main factors, while at the micro level, firm size, financial situation and
corporate governance are relevant. Even so, it is important to note that macro and meso
factors are not controllable for companies in development and maturity stages, making it
essential to explore factors that affect innovation dynamics at the micro level (Zeng et al.
2022).
Kuang et al. (2023), explains that digitization can positively improve corporate
performance, boosting corporate innovation. In practical analysis, the impact of digitization
on company performance is more pronounced in non-state companies and those whose
executives have a background in information technology. The choice of innovation model is
crucial for corporate innovation. Based on the mode of innovation, corporate innovation can

The challenges and approaches to the implementation of corporate innovation 5
be subdivided into “exploitation” and “exploration”, that is, ambidextrous. “Exploration” is
an innovation activity that emphasizes the complete transformation or development of new
products, services, processes. Exploitation is a continuous small-scale innovation activity
that emphasizes the improvement, adaptation, or extension of existing products, services,
and technologies (Yang, Shi, and Wu, 2022).
There is great concern in academia to discuss the financing of corporate innovation
projects and their impact on the capital structure of companies. These projects have
specific characteristics, such as high risk, generation of intangible and specific assets, high
information asymmetry between managers and investors. In addition to an elongated cash
generation profile, presenting greater difficulty in obtaining financing through external
capital, as bank credit (Jota, 2022).
2.3 State of art - on-challenges
Most academic literature has considered corporate innovation, like using digital
technologies, such as new products, processes, services, or business models. However,
advanced researchers have expanded the idea of innovation as a result of the idea of
innovation as a process involving capabilities, organizational structures, boundaries, and
technology management in organizations. New research about innovation as a process
also probes phases, underlying mechanisms, barriers, and enabling factors of the digital
transformation into the innovation process (URBINATI et al., 2021).
Corporate innovation is a way of incorporating new ideas, products, services, or
processes into an organization to improve its performance and competitiveness. It
encompasses creative work in creating different products, services or existing processes
(Tohidi and Jabbari 2012). Corporate innovation can comprise a variety of tasks, such as
research, design, project and product development, process improvement, and analysis of
business models, among others. Often, long-term investments in research are necessary for
successful corporate innovation strategies (Palazzeschi, Bucci, and Di Fabio, 2018).
Furthermore, (ZHUANG, 2022) explains, “The importance of corporate innovation is
the ability to innovate, and innovation is the origin of corporate development.” In general,
corporate innovation is creating and integrating new ideas, processes, products, or services
in a corporation to create growth or solve existing problems. Additionally, it is essential to
create and maintain a competitive edge in corporations.
According to Tendayi (2019), innovation must be part of and aligned with the company’s
strategic goals. This concept is essential when it comes to later transitioning innovation
projects into the core product portfolio. An innovation thesis sets out a company’s view of
the future and the strategic objectives of innovation.
Since the ability to stay ahead of the contest is highly unpredictable, corporations
must constantly develop new ideas to succeed in their internal workings. The concept of
ambidexterity is frequently relegated to corporate innovation in this context. Ambidexterity
explains that organizations attempting to execute both innovative (explorative and
exploitative) utilizing strategies can achieve better outcomes when compared to
organizations focusing on only one strategy (Website, [s.d.]). According to (BATT-
RAWDEN; LIEN; SLÅTTEN, 2019), companies typically conduct internal innovation
efforts within their existing R&D team, while external endeavors involve identifying and
investing in startups and other innovative external initiatives.
Corporate innovation is a growing field of research, but there are still gaps in our
understanding. By providing an overview of the existing literature and identifying areas

6Sellaro, R. F. and França, C.
where further research is needed, a systematic review can help to identify and fill these
gaps.
The literature on corporate innovation can often be regarded as inconclusive. The studies
found on corporate innovation are inconclusive. From this review, it is clear that there is
a gap in the literature on the process of implementing corporate innovation, as well as
its approaches and challenges in this process. Furthermore, it is evident that there is a
divergence of understanding about what is the definition of innovation.
3 Methods and Procedures
This section describes the methods and procedures, defining the research questions and the
systematic search protocol. We followed the guidelines proposed by Kitchenham and Stuart
(2007), Petersen et al. (2015), and brought et al. (2018). In the next section, we present the
study designate utilizing its objective, research questions, and search protocol. Furthermore,
this section brings the bibliographic sources, the keywords, and the selection criteria.
Our objective is to understand the approaches and challenges related to implementing
corporate innovation processes. A systematic review can contribute to a more profound
understanding of the state-of-art of these challenges in the collaborative innovation process.
Foremost, it is essential to highlight that systematic reviews are considered secondary
studies, with primary studies as their data source. According to Brudgen and Brereton
(2006), it is a means of identifying, evaluating and interpreting what exists and is evaluated
to some research question or topic. Brudgen and Brereton (2006) say a systematic review
has three phases: “planning the review; conducting the review; reporting the outcomes from
the review.”.
Methods for preparing systematic reviews provide some nuances. For this study, we
chose to follow a hybrid search mechanism, that is, adding manual searches with automatic
searches. In addition, as a research source, we used the multi-vocal literature review (MLR),
which includes Gray Literature and Formal Literature). Ogawa and Malen (1991) state,
“Multi-vocal literature consists of all accessible writings on a common, often contemporary
topic. The writings embody the views or voices of diverse authors (academics, practitioners,
journalists, policy centers, state offices of education, local school districts, independent
research and development firms, and others). The writings appear in a variety of forms.
They reflect different purposes, perspectives, and information bases. They address different
aspects of the topic and incorporate other research or non-research logics”. MLRs recently
started to be used in software engineering. Thus, we conducted and reported our study based
on the guidelines that Garouse et al. (2018) documented to ensure the high quality of our
MLR processes and their results. As a research criterion, we used the coverage criterion,
which seeks studies that thoroughly answer the research question, and the golden standard,
which seeks those studies that adhere to the established quality criteria.
After describing the purpose of the systematic literature review and its research
questions, we formulate the criteria and strategies of our research. The search process
was conducted automatically, and we searched for “corporate innovation”. Inclusion and
exclusion criteria will be mentioned in the following section. We researched papers from
four electronic bases: ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, ACM DL and Emerald databases, and
in the automatic search.

The challenges and approaches to the implementation of corporate innovation 7
3.1 Research questions
The following research question has conducted this systematic literature review:
• RQ1. What are the challenges for implementing corporate innovation processes?
And the secondary questions:
• RQ2: What are the methodologies or approaches used in organizations to innovate by
creating new products?
• RQ3: How does the researcher define innovation?
3.2 Search Protocol
The first author developed the search protocol described in this section, which was later
reviewed by the others. The search process was conducted automatically, and we searched
for “corporate innovation”. We researched papers from four electronic bases: ScienceDirect,
IEEE Xplore, ACM DL and Emerald databases, and in the automatic search. We performed
a search using the following base search string:
(TITLE-ABS-KEY (“corporate”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“innovation”)) AND
(LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE , “English”) )
This study searched for published articles and reviews, published in journals, or
conference proceedings, in the English language, with the given terms present in the title,
abstract, or keywords. The research returned different outputs, which covered a diverse
range of journals and conferences. ScienceDirect was chosen because it is considered one of
the most impacting peer-reviewed scholarly literature databases, with significant coverage
of subjects and high h-indexes of authors Powell and Peterson (2017). However, we extend it
to research in the IEEExplorer, ACM DL and Emerald databases. After reading the outputs,
the first author applied inclusion, and exclusion criteria are shown as follows.
3.3 Selection Strategy
We use these inclusion and exclusion criteria:
Inclusion criteria
• Related to corporate innovation or its related keywords
• Aligned to understand the implementation of corporate innovation processes
• Focusing on corporate innovation focus in the context of creating new products
and services
• All studies that bring challenges to the implementation of corporate innovation
processes
• All studies that explain methodologies or approaches used in organizations to
innovate by creating new products
Exclusion criteria
• Duplicated studies

8Sellaro, R. F. and França, C.
• Studies that do not talk about the challenges for the implementation of corporate
innovation processes
• Isn’t report the experience of in corporate innovation, using methodologies and
the respective challenges
• Studies about Research and Development (R&D) that were not declared as
corporate innovation processes
• Studies focusing on startups; patents; investment; public sector; gender; diversity;
Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG); politics; family
businesses and related.
Afterward, the selected articles titles and abstracts were carefully reviewed, and the
outcome of the criteria was 48 primary articles.
3.4 Validity Threats
In this section, we evaluated the factors that influence the obtained results and the main
limitations of this systematic review. We used four databases chosen among the leading ones
of scholarly impact, offering significant journal coverage and authors with higher h-indexes
(Powell and Peterson, 2017).
However, our review may have found only some discussions about corporate innovation
processes because some authors used other terms and did not include the more general terms
used in our search strings. It is important to note that many excluded studies cited some
innovation, but did not present proposals for improvement or modification for corporations.
We use a single data source to collect the number of citations of the mapped studies,
and then different information might be found by other scientific databases. Besides, we
recognize the potential limits of this approach because a high number of citations does not
necessarily guarantee a significant article on the subject (Fregnan et al., 2019).
Our research procedure is based on a single team’s subjective evaluation of the studies,
so it may not represent other research groups. In order to mitigate the possibilities of faults,
the group was formed by researchers from different fields of software engineering and
different kinds of corporations.
4 Results
The research started with the choice of databases: IEEE Xplore, ACM DL, Emerald, and
Science Direct. In each, corporate innovation was searched for articles written only in
English until 2018. The search result can be seen in Table1.
From this, the articles from the automatic search were filtered based on the title and
abstract; for this analysis, we used an app and web for systematic reviews1. After carrying
out the research in the four databases above, we reached a total of 1,324 individual results,
of which, after titles and abstracts, we were left with 48 articles. The search result can be
seen in Table2.
Analyzing how these 48 articles were distributed across the database, we found the
result in the table below. The result indicates that we had a very close usefulness rate in
three databases, between about 7.5% and 9.6%. However, when we looked at the Science
Direct search base, the usefulness to our criteria rate was practically 1%. The search result
can be seen in Table3.

The challenges and approaches to the implementation of corporate innovation 9
Table 1 Potentially relevant papers.
Database &Selected Articles &Unique Articles
IEEE Xplore 92 87
ACM DL 100 31
Emerald 455 396
Science Direct 810 807
Total 1457 1324
Source: self-authored
Table 2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria applied.
Studies situation Amount
Included 48
Excluded 1273
Source: self-authored
Table 3 Usefulness of database.
Database Usefulness
Emerald 7.58%
ACM 9.68%
IEEE 8.05%
Science direct 0.99%
Source: self-authored
However, once the inclusion and exclusion criteria were analyzed and applied in these
48 articles, when we read the articles this number dropped to 24. In some articles, we can see
in the title and abstract that they were unrelated to our research question. In addition, many
spoke of a context of innovation in a particular niche, such as startups, patents, investment,
public sector, gender, diversity, ESG, politics, family businesses and related, among other
subjects that were not addressed in the article on corporate innovation.
The selection criteria of inclusion that removed more articles from this list were:
• Related to corporate innovation or its related keywords.
• Aligned to understand the implementation of corporate innovation processes.
Moreover, the most used exclusion criteria were:
• Studies about R&D that were not declared as corporate innovation processes.
• Studies focusing on startups, patents, investment, public sector, gender, diversity, ESG,
politics, family businesses and related.
• Duplicated studies.
In addition, some criteria were not used currently, as we could not extract something
conclusive about it only from the titles and abstract. They were, in the inclusion criteria:
• Focusing on corporate innovation focus in the context of creating new products and
services.

10 Sellaro, R. F. and França, C.
• All studies that bring challenges to the implementation of corporate innovation
processes.
• All studies that explain methodologies or approaches used in organizations to innovate
by creating new products.
5 Research Questions
5.1 RQ1. What are the challenges for implementing corporate innovation
processes?
Based on the final articles, we can answer the first research question (RQ1. What are
the challenges for implementing corporate innovation processes?), which is about the
challenges implementing corporate innovation processes. The literature suggests that several
challenges can hinder the effectiveness and success of an innovation process in a corporation.
The challenges are to achieve organizational culture, responsibility, inconsistent internal
process, environmental uncertainty, reluctance to take risks, and a lack of knowledge and
capacities to manage change and research and development efforts.
Establishing a culture of innovation - The first challenge that must be faced is
establishing a culture of innovation. Zhuang (2022) proposes that this should involve
creating a culture that encourages risk-taking and innovation, setting rules for what is and
is not acceptable, and creating a safe environment for employees to explore and innovate.
Corporate culture can be a significant challenge, as it can cause organizations to resist
innovation projects or favor established business processes. State ownership can also lead
to bureaucratic control, preventing innovative initiatives from taking root. There are also
challenges related to resource allocation as firms may be hesitant to invest in new initiatives
that need to be adequately vetted and are unproven, according to Yafei, William and Jinping
(2022).
To explain the cultural challenge of implementing corporate innovation processes,
Zheng, Ulrich, and Sendra-García (2021) observed the difficulty in aligning innovation
strategies with the company’s mission and objectives. Companies must develop a robust
innovation culture to maximize the potential return from innovation. Therefore, corporate
innovation requires a well-structured decision-making process to select the best ideas.
Zheng, Ulrich, and Sendra-García (2021) suggest that organizational cultures must be
re-aligned to foster a creative and collaborative environment. This suggestion is especially
relevant for large organizations, as they must navigate numerous cultural tensions to ensure
that the innovation process effectively supports the company’s goals. Furthermore, there
is a need for adequate resources and incentives to encourage employees to innovate and
effective communication between stakeholders to ensure successful implementation. There
is a need for effective monitoring and evaluation systems to ensure that innovations are
implemented effectively and efficiently, explains López, García, and González-Álvarez,
(2018).
Furthermore, Zhuang (2022) says that everyone in the company should know that
innovation is highly valued and that their contributions will be heard and recognized.
According to Jiangfeng et al. (2021), companies face several challenges due to their unique
cultural and organizational context.
Responsibility for innovation (included reluctance to take risks) - A further challenge is
to establish responsibility for innovation. When generating ideas and implementing them, it

The challenges and approaches to the implementation of corporate innovation 11
is crucial to determine who will be responsible for funding and supporting their development
and who will be involved in the decision-making process. Moreover, the need for new
leadership that understands the importance and complexity of the innovation process must
be recognized and addressed (ZHUANG, 2022).
New leadership could ensure the success of corporate innovation processes. For Yafei,
William, and Jinping (2022), there is the challenge of aligning management structures
and corporate objectives with the goals of the innovation project. Who will take on these
responsibilities in the corporate will have to be determined.
Ramiz et al. (2020) explain that corporate culture must be highly supportive of
innovation, as it is essential that employees feel like they can take risks and propose new
ideas. This support requires encouraging and rewarding innovative behavior and ideas and
providing employees with the necessary resources to implement and develop their ideas.
It is also noted that a lack of shareholder engagement can limit the potential for
successful implementation of corporate innovation processes, according to Samlal (2020).
Shareholders may be reluctant to take risks that could weaken the returns they could receive.
Without an open dialogue with shareholders, it may not be easy to gain their support and
adoption of new corporate innovation processes.
Ramiz et al. (2020) argue that corporate executives need to recognize the value of
innovation and allocate appropriate resources to take responsibility for the initiatives.
Moreover, companies must ensure that ideas are shared between different departments
and that the organization can capitalize on the best ideas through effective responsibility
coordination.
For Moccia, Zhao and Flanagan (2019), the challenge is overcoming internal resistance
to change the culture. Corporate innovation processes often involve reorganizing existing
processes and structures, which can be difficult. People frequently prefer the familiar and
may resist change, so it is essential to show them the benefit of the proposed changes.
The success of the innovation processes will depend on the organization’s commitment
to fostering innovation, Sergeeva, (2019). A clear set of processes for review and analysis
must be established to ensure responsible decision-making and accountability. Furthermore,
this requires introducing innovative technologies or encouraging a risk-taking attitude across
the organization.
These include creating an environment that encourages experimentation and risk-
taking and ensures that employees have access to the necessary resources and support.
Organizations must also ensure that they can effectively measure the success of their
innovations to determine whether they are achieving their desired outcomes, according to
Russel (2019). Finally, innovation adoption may also be hindered by senior management’s
lack of resources or interest and responsibility. Without their support and commitment,
innovation initiatives are often prioritized and not given the focus or attention they need to
succeed, to Onetti (2019).
Complex process to switch from one management system to another. - According to
Yafei, William, and Jinping (2022), firms may need help implementing complex or costly
processes that require them to switch from one management system to another.
One of the main challenges of implementing corporate innovation processes is that it
requires a strategy shift, according to Dobni and Sand (2018). This shift involves developing
a more sophisticated “strategy-capability alignment process” combining strategic planning
with a “dynamic capability for innovation.”. Such an alignment would involve an
“unprecedented degree of coordination” between the fundamental components of a firm’s
strategy (values, objectives, and activities) and its culture, resources, and capabilities.

12 Sellaro, R. F. and França, C.
Therefore, it is successfully required to integrate strategic planning with the firm’s capability
for innovation, creating a significant challenge.
For Zhuang to achieve its innovation goals, it must identify the necessary steps,
resources, and materials. To track progress and ensure that goals are achieved, this should
be accompanied by measurement and feedback mechanisms. Moreover, the roles and
responsibilities of all involved in the innovation process should be clearly outlined and
communicated to all stakeholders.
For Abidi and Koichi (2019), one of the first significant challenges is the need to
design an innovation process that meets the needs of an ever-changing environment.
Some environments may need help responding quickly enough to changing requirements,
further exacerbating this challenge. Zheng, Ulrich, and Sendra-García (2021) argue that
corporations must continue to monitor their innovation processes to ensure that resources
are being used efficiently and that the latest technology is being used effectively.
Effective decision-making and a comprehensive understanding of the current landscape
are required to ensure that innovation strategies remain relevant and beneficial to the
organization. Chutivongse and Gerdsri (2019) emphasize that organizations must clearly
understand their goals and objectives to ensure that their innovations align with their
overall mission. Wan et al. (2021) suggest that some related challenges involve innovation
processes, such as large shareholders being either supportive or obstructive. It can be
challenging to manage a nonlinear influence of noncontrolling shareholders, and it can be
difficult to understand how to use shareholders’ influence and available resources effectively.
In addition, decision-makers’ ability to make informed decisions about the
implementation and direction of corporate innovation processes can be problematic in the
face of conflicting interests held by shareholders. Therefore, the ability of these shareholders
to influence corporate innovation processes can unintentionally create a disadvantage
for smaller shareholders. It is crucial to understand how to prevent shareholders from
disproportionately influencing corporate innovation processes.
Environmental uncertainty (with focus on poor external partner interactions) - The
implementation of corporate innovation processes by Cui, Dai, and Zhang (2021) has the
challenge of environmental uncertainty. This implementation includes trade friction, policy
change, and market demand. There need to be more capital resources to develop and
implement innovation.
For Jia (2019), examining the impact of corporate innovation strategy on analyst follow-
up and forecast performance, as well as its associated economic consequences, is vital. Given
the environmental uncertainty, it is vital to understand the capital market consequences
of corporate innovation strategy and the significant catalysts for stock price crash risk.
Moreover, Onetti (2019) explains that innovation processes often require the involvement of
multiple stakeholders and the coordination of their activities, a task that can be complicated
in culturally diverse organizations. Moreover, another challenge is the difficultyof attracting,
selecting, and engaging external stakeholders.
Many firms are hesitant to invest in technologies, services, and practices unfamiliar
to them and need more resources to source and review potential external partners.
Moreover, many organizations need help integrating heterogeneous products, services, and
technologies into their businesses and managing their interactions with existing internal
processes, according to Onetti (2019).
Given the need for more local innovation expertise and limited access to external experts,
it is also tricky for firms to evaluate their innovation initiatives’ potential and determine their

The challenges and approaches to the implementation of corporate innovation 13
feasibility and potential risks. This need can present a significant challenge for Jiangfeng
et al. (2021) in implementing corporate innovation processes.
Among environmental uncertainty and external partner interactions, we can cite the open
innovation configuration, which involves leveraging external sources such as universities,
research institutes, startups, and other companies to develop new products or services. This
approach requires identifying potential partners and managing collaborations with them.
There is a risk that external partners may not have the necessary expertise or resources to
deliver on their commitments, according to Kötting, Michael and Kuckertz (2019).
According to Yafei, William, and Jinping (2022), firms may need help implementing
complex or costly processes that require them to switch from one management system to
another. One of the main challenges of implementing corporate innovation processes is that it
requires a strategy shift, according to Dobni and Sand (2018). This shift involves developing
a more sophisticated “strategy-capability alignment process” combining strategic planning
with a “dynamic capability for innovation”. Such an alignment would involve an
“unprecedented degree of coordination” between the fundamental components of a firm’s
strategy (values, objectives, and activities) and its culture, resources, and capabilities.
Therefore, it is successfully required to integrate strategic planning with the firm’s capability
for innovation, creating a significant challenge.
For Zhuang to achieve its innovation goals, it must identify the necessary steps,
resources, and materials. To track progress and ensure that goals are achieved, this should
be accompanied by measurement and feedback mechanisms. Moreover, the roles and
responsibilities of all involved in the innovation process should be clearly outlined and
communicated to all stakeholders.
For Abidi and Koichi (2019), one of the first significant challenges is the need to
design an innovation process that meets the needs of an ever-changing environment.
Some environments may need help responding quickly enough to changing requirements,
further exacerbating this challenge. Zheng, Ulrich, and Sendra-García (2021) argue that
corporations must continue to monitor their innovation processes to ensure that resources
are being used efficiently and that the latest technology is being used effectively.
Effective decision-making and a comprehensive understanding of the current landscape
are required to ensure that innovation strategies remain relevant and beneficial to the
organization. Chutivongse and Gerdsri (2019) emphasize that organizations must clearly
understand their goals and objectives to ensure that their innovations align with their
overall mission. Wan et al. (2021) suggest that some related challenges involve innovation
processes, such as large shareholders being either supportive or obstructive. It can be
challenging to manage a nonlinear influence of noncontrolling shareholders, and it can be
difficult to understand how to use shareholders’ influence and available resources effectively.
In addition, decision-makers’ ability to make informed decisions about the
implementation and direction of corporate innovation processes can be problematic in the
face of conflicting interests held by shareholders. Therefore, the ability of these shareholders
to influence corporate innovation processes can unintentionally create a disadvantage
for smaller shareholders. It is crucial to understand how to prevent shareholders from
disproportionately influencing corporate innovation processes.
Knowledge and understanding - According to Onetti (2019), there needs to be more
knowledge and understanding of open innovation practices within the organization. Many
companies need to be aware of the potential benefits of open innovation and need the systems
and structures to implement and manage it effectively.

14 Sellaro, R. F. and França, C.
According to Jiangfeng et al. (2021), due to the need for established systematic methods
for collecting and evaluating information on innovation initiatives, the research found that
firms often rely heavily on personal connections and informal contacts to identify relevant
knowledge. Because of this, there may be a significant knowledge search gap and a need
for more accuracy when collecting and verifying information on innovation initiatives.
Riz and colleagues (2020) suggest that the firm needs an effective knowledge
management system to ensure that valuable knowledge is captured, stored, and shared
within the organization. This acknowledgement will facilitate the rapid transfer of relevant
knowledge to new teams and departments, helping to make the most of innovative ideas and
solutions. The emphasis here is the importance of organizational support for innovation.
In tIn terms of training and development of leadership skills, providing employees with
the right tools and resources to make the most of the innovation process, and creating
a collaborative environment to facilitate idea flow. Samlal (2020) explains the need for
sufficient knowledge regarding innovation processes, how they work, and why they benefit
companies.
According to Susanty, Yuningsih and Anggadwita (2018), the challenges include
promoting organizational learning capabilities, identifying and understanding barriers
to knowledge sharing, and adjusting the organizational structure and reward system to
support innovation. Organizations can achieve competitive advantage through innovation
knowledge, leading to improved performance and profits. These processes must be
implemented with great care and a well-structured system to meet expectations.
According to Russell (2019), one of the most enduring challenges for implementing
corporate innovation processes is the organization’s ability to identify and continually
adjust its learning processes. To maintain the balance between learning necessary to
explore new opportunities while simultaneously exploiting its existing capabilities. As a
result, organizational ambidexterity can be a difficult skill to master and create sustainable
development.
Research and development (R&D) efforts - Another challenge in corporate innovation
is focusing on internal research and development activities to develop new products or
services. It is not easy to achieve this approach without significant personnel, funding, and
infrastructure resources. Furthermore, there is a risk that the R&D may not result in any
viable products or services, according to Kötting, Michael and Kuckertz (2019)
The ability to get the resources needed to equip the R&D labs and ensure that the
innovation processes are successful is a big challenge for Markus and Swift (2019). The
corporate structure and goals may sometimes align with the innovation process, so alignment
between the corporate and the innovation process must be established.
Thus, for HSIEH, Tien-Shih et al. (2018, v. 46, n. 4, p. 32-35), “large companies that have
sufficient funding support and resources play a key role in contributing to economicgrowth
from innovation and research and development (R&D). Promoting corporate innovation to
corporate executives can be challenging because innovation activities may have significant
uncertainties, and the rewards may not be achieved in a short period. Without a supportive
or pro-innovation board of directors, corporate CEOs, even if they are technology experts,
may focus more on activities that may generate significant short-term performance with
little consideration of long-term effects. They typically focus on short-term performance to
meet their short-term goals and self-interest, such as bonus and reputation concerns.”.

The challenges and approaches to the implementation of corporate innovation 15
5.2 RQ2: What are the methodologies or approaches used in organizations to
innovate by creating new products?
The second research question (Q2: What are the methodologies or approaches used in
organizations to innovate by creating new products?) can be partially answered. Each
organization’s strategy and unique characteristics affect the methods and approaches used
to implement corporate innovation. The most common approaches relate to implementing
innovation through knowledge, education, and research and development. Many studies also
highlight open innovation, innovation programs, entrepreneurship, and intrapreneurship as
exciting approaches. For the final answer, we strongly recommend that the organization has
strong governance with ambidexterity.
Internal knowledge and education - For high innovation performance, firms are
encouraged to emphasize their intellectual resources and train their staff. Enhance their
proficiency in converting and using knowledge to achieve maximum executed innovation,
according to (“Qualitative comparative analysis: Configurational paths to innovation
performance”, 2021).
The organization must understand what knowledge is advantageous in order to
innovate. Understanding and implementing it productively and efficiently to innovate
and get an edge against competitors (QANDAH et al., 2020). Susanty, Yuningsih, and
Anggadwita (2018) bring the approaches of knowledge management practices to improve
innovation performance. Organizational learning, information management practices, and
organizational intelligence can lead to increased innovation if they focus on conscious and
systematic managerial activities for dealing with knowledge in firms.
For (SEIDLE, 2019), the methodologies or approaches used to innovate are experiential
and vicarious learning. Learning through direct experience is considered experiential, while
learning from observing others is vicarious. Those two types of organizational learning
underpin the processes of exploratory and exploitative innovation. It says that organizations
should focus on different types of organizational learning at different stages of the innovation
process to reach ambidexterity. For example, organizations should focus on experiential
learning during the exploratory phase and vicarious learning during the exploitative phase.
This approach allows organizations to balance exploration and exploitation to maximize
innovation potential.
Batt-Rawden, Lien, and Slåtten (2019) propose that team learning capability is critical in
enabling organizations to innovate and become more ambidextrous. They also recommend
that organizations create an environment where employees are encouraged to take risks
and learn from mistakes. They also recommend that organizations invest in training and
development programs to help employees develop the skills needed to be successful
innovators.
Research and development (R&D) - For Li, Mabannyele, and Sun (2022) the
proficiency in managerial research and development markedly furthers heightened output
of corporate invention. They reveal that R&D experience advances innovation, generally,
executive-level R&D practical experience produces greater innovation. (YE et al., 2021)
suggest that knowledge search strategies, such as search breadth and depth, can have a
positive impact on corporate entrepreneurship through the mediating effect of opportunity
recognition.
Knowledge, along with leveraging the Research and Development and Project offices
to promote innovative processes and practices, has become a major strength in the modern
business environment of “Industry 4.0”. When the research division takes charge in the

16 Sellaro, R. F. and França, C.
R&D department, the project office takes control in making sure the firm stays competitive,
according to Shchepkina, Krivulia, and Shtapauk (2020).
Intrapreneurship or Entrepreneurship - For Zhuang (2022) to innovate by creating
new products, it is essential to construct an entrepreneurial team. “The main body of
innovation is the entrepreneurs themselves. Entrepreneurs are the most innovative and
influential people to promote enterprise management innovation.”. For Kotting and Kuckertz
(2019), “the programs target the transformation of corporate culture and aim to shape a
culture of individual responsibility and openness toward external developments” So, the
programs intended to transform a protected realm where certain business unit members can
experiment with and explore their creative ideas over a determined time. Since the programs
do not concentrate on marketing ideas, they do not need to mirror exactly the operations of
the business division (KÖTTING; KUCKERTZ, 2019).
Entrepreneurial opportunities are defined as chances where a company can gain
income through developing new products, services, target audiences and management
methods. Organizations that spot promising enterprises can recognize alterations in
technical improvement and customer needs, thus aiding the commencement of business
ventures, according to Ye et al. (2021) Furthermore, the opportunity-based approach
focuses on identifying opportunities in the environment, such as changes in customer needs
or technological advances, and then leveraging those opportunities to create innovative
products or services (ABIDI; KOICHI, 2020). This approach is based on the idea that
organizations should be proactive in seeking new opportunities and taking advantage of
them.
Corporate governance and business innovation - For Samlal (2020), one approach to
innovating in a corporation is the use of effective corporate governance mechanisms to foster
and incubate innovation and implement best practices of corporate governance. The article
also suggests that corporate governance can positively impact organizational innovation.
Additionally, the study reveals that corporate governance can create an environment
conducive to innovation, leading to improved performance. Abidi and Koichi (2020) defend
that the administrative control approach focuses on controlling the innovation process
through rules and procedures to ensure that the organization’s resources are used efficiently.
This approach is based on the idea that organizations should be able to manage their
resources effectively in order to maximize their innovation potential. Additionally, the
article “Strategy shift: Integrating strategy and the firm’s capability to innovate”, Dobni and
Sand (2018) emphasizes the importance of top management in driving innovation, as they
are responsible for setting the tone for the organization’s culture, providing resources for
innovation initiatives, and ensuring that strategies are aligned with organizational goals.
“Corporate boards play an important role in formulating long-term strategies,
implementing short-term objectives, and monitoring various strategic decisions made by
executives. For companies with innovation as a strategic objective, it is important to identify
a board that promotes and motivates innovation. Our study shows that corporate boards
with more directors who have received a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education tend to promote more innovation activities, such as new technology invention,
patent applications, and research and development investments. Our findings provide these
innovative companies with useful information for identifying directors who may positively
impact corporate innovation.” (HSIEH et al., 2018).
Furthermore, according to Sergeeva (2019), a combination of stability and adaptability
in leadership encourages new ideas to materialize. Strong and competent proprietors are
essential in designing the corporate governance network to permit innovation by creating

The challenges and approaches to the implementation of corporate innovation 17
new products. Additionally, organizations should focus on developing strong leadership
skills to manage change and foster collaboration among team members effectively. Finally,
organizations should create an action plan outlining specific steps for implementing
innovation strategies (MOCCIA, ZHAO; FLANAGAN, 2019).
Asensio-López, Cabeza-García, and González-Álvarez (2018) note that corporate
governance is an essential factor in firm innovation and that board characteristics can
have a significant impact on innovation. They also suggest that corporate governance
dimensionssuch as boardsize,composition, and independencearerelated to firm innovation.
Additionally, they emphasize the importance of monitoring mechanisms such as audit
committees and internal control systems for promoting innovation within organizations.
Innovation ambidexterity and Open Innovation - Exploitation-oriented programs
attempt to maximize the utilization and marketing of previously existing products.
Collaboration with the business unit will permit the discovery of different innovative ways
and later promote these ideas. Generally, the prospects will be close to being ready for the
marketplace and will necessitate only a tiny amount of extra production. This development
method provides an advantage over exploration-oriented programs, which tend to comprise
more groundbreaking technologies. For a successful output, there must be unity between
innovative ideas and current products, making it apparent that defined rules and standards
must be established (KÖTTING; KUCKERTZ, 2019).
Organizations should ensure that their internal processes are conducive to open
innovation by creating a culture of experimentation and risk-taking. This can be done
through activities such as partnering with startups, engaging in research collaborations, or
investing in venture capital funds, explains (ONETTI, 2019).
According to KÖTTING and KUCKERTZ (2019), the ultimate aim of the subject
of study is to explore new ideas that may aid the innovation programs. This exploration
is undertaken in an environment that allows experimentation without the hindrance of
regulations or complex bureaucracy. By understanding the demand of the business units,
combined with the resources they supply, it is possible to explore possibilities in a
collaborative and tailored manner. To ensure that the output of the exploratory work aligns
with what is currently known within the field, the strategies for executing such initiatives
must correspond to the most recent academic literature.
For Jia (2019), additional analyses suggest that exploratory innovation positively affects
future firm performance. Moreover, stock market investors react more positively to the
announcement of exploratory projects. Chutivongse and Gerdsri (2019) explain that it
involves identifying opportunities for innovation, developing strategies to capitalize on
them, and implementing them. “It is important to note that strategic quality orientation has
a stronger impact on explorative innovation than on exploitative innovation” (HSIEH et al.,
2018).
5.3 RQ3: How does the researcher define innovation?
The third research question (RQ3: How does the researcher define innovation?) can be
answered by comparing the studies chosen for this review. Authors commonly define
innovation as an approach, process, or ability that allows organizations to improve their
solutions and create new ones. All studies agree that dealing with innovation within the
organization is strategic, necessary, and essential. Several studies discuss using innovation to
create new products and services and improve existing products and services. Furthermore,

18 Sellaro, R. F. and França, C.
they mention ambidexterity. In the final answer, the authors agree that it is an essential tool
to generate value and survive in the market.
Innovation in companies - Sergeeva (2019) defines innovation as a result of a flexible
and balanced approach to governance. Samal et al. (2021) define activities that contribute to
a company’s long-term growth. According to Qandah et al.(2020), innovation is the process
initiated and operated by managers and employees that is influenced by workers’ knowledge
infrastructure capabilities. Furthermore, Cui, Dai, and Zhang (2021) define innovation
as corporate activities that involve introducing new products or services, technological
breakthroughs, and organizational changes. “Innovation in large companies has distinct
differences from entrepreneurial innovation and is restricted by the existing business
procedures that are most likely designed to maintain and advance the existing business but
not to pursue innovation paths.” (HSIEH et al., 2022).
Innovation is identified as the invention of a unique approach aimed at instilling newness
into the economy. Innovation can be seen as a means of applying the information to generate
economic benefit (SALEHI; DASHTBAYAZ; MOGHADAM, 2018)
For Moccia et al. (2019), innovation is considered essential for success in the extensive
and global economy. "However, a common theme in the literature on corporate governance
and innovation is that R&D-based innovation involves significant risk, and good innovative
processes must tolerate some degree of failure. However, strong corporate governance
decreases the likelihood of risk-averse behavior by managers" (MARKUS; SWIFT, 2023).
Innovation can refer to altering what is present or introducing and devising something new
such as an item, an idea, a service, or a method within the organization.
“Innovation is a key source of organizational growth and profitability. Many
organizations at the front end of innovation struggle to engender an innovation approach
that is effective and lasting.” (DOBNI and SAND, 2018).
According to Onetti (2019), innovation uses internal and external knowledge transfers to
create new products, services, and processes. (CHUTIVONGSE; GERDSRI, 2019) define
innovation as the generation and introduction of novelties in activities, which leads to
continuous innovation capability. Kotting and Kuckertz (2019) define innovation as the
ability of a firm to constantly renew itself by exploiting new ideas, technologies, and business
models.
Innovation as a process - According to Zhuang (2022), innovation creates new value
by combining existing resources and knowledge. Moreover, Asensio-López et al. (2018)
defined it as introducing new products, services, or processes to the market. Moreover,
for Jia (2019), innovation is defined as creating new products, services, or processes
that are valuable to customers and organizations. In addition, Abidi and Koichi (2020)
defined it as creating value by developing new products, services, or processes. For Seidle
(2019), innovation is a process of organizational learning that involves distinct sequences
of experiential and vicarious learning.
Furthermore, Susanty et al. (2018) define innovation as the “key to success for
organizations to survive and win the competition not only in the business sector but also
in the public sector. In the business sector, innovation means developing new products or
services which directly impact increasing market share and enhancing stakeholder values.”
Innovation ambidexterity - Nevertheless, innovation should be diverse, incremental
and radical to strengthen an operating company. Studies implicate that this target can be
obtainedthrough “innovation ambidexterity”, which iswhensomeone is skilledinexploiting
and exploring intellectual activity(BATT-RAWDEN; LIEN; SLÅTTEN, 2019).

The challenges and approaches to the implementation of corporate innovation 19
6 Final Considerations
Firstly, based on the existing literature, this paper analyzes the implementations of corporate
innovation processes that require organizations to overcome the identified challenges
and methodologies. Based on the existing literature, corporate innovation is an essential
component in the long-term well-being of any organization. Additionally, the culture and
governance of an organization are two of the most enduring challenges in implementing it.
Corporate innovation processes can be a challenging and complex task. It requires
a thorough understanding of existing processes and methods and the ability to find new
and creative ways to work. It is essential to have an extensive understanding of existing
systems and tactics in discovering and out of standard approaches to working. Furthermore,
it may require careful planning of the governance and culture. To ensure the implementation
of corporate innovation, organizations should focus on building a positive organizational
culture for stable growth. In this context, the organization should promote collaboration
and encourage risk-taking while maintaining the ability to manage incremental and radical
innovation simultaneously. The results indicate that, according to previous research, internal
knowledge, education, and ambidexterity are crucial approaches to implementing corporate
innovation.
Organizations can use various methods and approaches to develop new products, but
the choice is very personal and essential for the corporate goal. In all cases, it is essential
to have solid corporate governance and business innovation, in which the corporate need
to make internal knowledge and education of innovation and correlated subjects to prepare
their employers to work in this context.
Overall, this systematic literature review has guided conducting a systematic literature
review and identified key challenges and methodologies for implementing corporate
innovation processes. We recommended that corporate innovation processes be dynamically
managed and constantly re-evaluated to remain viable and competitive.
After all, we point out some that were inferred in our literature review open issues.
Digital transformation - We defend that technological experimentation using digital
technologies to suit them to digital competencies is an essential issue in the open that can be
more studied in future researches. Digital competencies are defined in the literature as the
ability to use information technology in a specific context (URBINATI et al., 2021). This
ability is composed of knowledge, skills, and attitude to use information and communication
technologies (ICT) and digital media creatively, effectively, and responsibly.
The General Technology, Competency, and Use framework has been used to
conceptualize and measure digital competence (BASILOTTA-GÓMEZ-PABLOS et al.,
2022). While the concept of digital competence is grounded on basic ICT skills, such
as using computers to retrieve, assess, store, produce, present and exchange information
(Ilomaki, Kantosalo, and Lakkala 2011). So, technological experimentation brings different
innovation options to be built and adopted.
Impact and the process of adopting digital technologies on the proper innovation
strategy or process - The solutions need theoretically sound and empirically substantial
research to impact innovation management and strategy practice. Digital transformation in
the innovation process of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) - Studying the resource
constraints and strategies to get around them, the management of the digital technologies
innovations and processes that impact the outcome. There is research regarding the use of
digital tools in the innovation process design and their advantages to project teams (Marion
and Fixson, 2021). However, it is necessary to expand them to different branches of industry

20 Sellaro, R. F. and França, C.
in order to shape and keep collaboration between teams in a digitally transformed innovation
process.
Innovation Thesis - In this systematic literature review, we found no relevant research
on implementing corporate innovation in organizations related to innovation theses in
this context. The literature reviewed addressed other topics, such as benefits, challenges,
influences, and others.
In the grey literature, we can find more references on using the innovation thesis in
corporate implementation processes. According to Tendayi (2019), just like venture capital
investors have investment theses that specify the types of startups and markets they invest in,
every large company must have an innovation thesis. For example, an established software
company can see that driverless cars are the future and want to get into that market early.
Their innovation thesis will be that they invest primarily in new ideas that bet on that future
(i.e. software products for driverless vehicles). In this regard, an innovation thesis sets
the boundaries or guard rails concerning the company’s innovation projects or will not be
considered. In addition to this deliberate strategy, the company must also use its innovation
process as a source of emergent strategy responsive to market changes.
The lack of research on this topic indicates that there is still much to be explored
to understand the use of innovation thesis in implementing corporate innovation in
organizations. This topic requires further research to gain a better understanding of its
implications.
References
Rate Startup: how established companies can develop successful innovation ecosystems,
S.L.: Management Impact Pub, 2019.
O’ Reilly, Charles A.; Tushman, Michael L. (2004) ’The ambidextrous organization’,
Harvard business review, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp.74–83.
Lin, Han et al. (2020), ’Bridging the gaps or fecklessness? A moderated mediating
examination of intermediaries’ effects on corporate innovation’, Technovation, Vol. 94,
pp. 102018.
Gault, F. (2018), ’Defining and measuring innovation in all sectors of the economy’,
Research policy, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.617–22.
Varadarajan, R. (2018), ’Innovation, Innovation Strategy, and Strategic Innovation’,
Innovation and Strategy (Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, Emerald Publishing
Limited, Bingley, pp. 143–166.
Kahn, K. B. (2018), ’Understanding innovation’, Business Horizons, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp.453–
60.
Budgen, David and Breereton, Pearl (2006), ’Performing systematic literature reviews in
software engineering’, In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software
engineering, pp. 1051–1052.
Popa, Ioan Lala; Preda, Gheorghe; Boldea, Monica (2010), ’A theoretical approach
of the concept of innovation’, Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society,
Proceedings, pp. 151.

The challenges and approaches to the implementation of corporate innovation 21
Zhuang, Jingyao (2022), ’The Ways of Corporate Innovation: A Review Analysis’, In: 2022
8th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research. Atlantis Press,
p. 1471–1476.
Manual, Oslo (2018), ’Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation
The measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, 4th Edition, pp.
255 Available in: https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264304604-en.
Huang, Zihui, ’The Impact of Analyst Coverage on Corporate Innovation: A Literature
Review’, In: 2022 7th International Conference on Financial Innovation and Economic
Development, Atlantis Press, pp. 2443–2448.
Kitchenham, B., Stuart, C. (2007), ’Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews
in software engineering’, Tech. Rep. EBSE-2007-01, School of Computer Science and
Mathematics, Keele University, UK.
Kitchenham B, Pretorius R, Budgen D, Brereton OP, Turner M, Niazi M, Linkman S (2010)
’Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – a tertiary study’, Information and
Software Technology, 52(8): 792–805.
Petersen K, Vakkalanka S, Kuzniarz L (2015) ’Guidelines for conducting systematic
mapping studies in software engineering: An update’, Information and Software
Technology, 64: 1–18.
Powell KR, Peterson SR (2017) ’Coverage and quality: A comparison of Web of Science
and Scopus databases for reporting faculty nursing publication metrics’, Nursing Outlook,
65(5): 572–578.
Fregnan E, Baum T, Palomba F, Bacchelli A (2019) ’A survey on software coupling relations
and tools’, Information and Software Technology, 107: 159–178.
Brings J, Daun M, Kempe M, Weyer T (2018) ’On different search methods for systematic
literature reviews and maps: Experiences from a literature search on validation and
verification of emergent behavior’, in: International Conference on Evaluation and
Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 35–45.
Garousi, V., Felderer, M., and Mäntylä, M.V. (2018) ’Guidelines for including grey literature
and conducting multivocal literature reviews in software engineering’, Information and
Software Technology, pp. 1–22.
Palazzeschi, L., Bucci, O., and Di Fabio, A. (2018) ’Re-thinking innovation in organizations
in the industry 4.0 scenario: New challenges in a primary prevention perspective’,
Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 30.
Ogawa, R.T. and Malen, B. (1991) ’Towards rigor in reviews of multivocal literatures:
Applying the exploratory case study method’, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 61,
No. 3, pp. 265–286.
Spanos, G. and Angelis, L. (2016) ’The impact of information security events to the stock
market: A systematic literature review’, Computers and Security, Vol. 58, pp. 216–229.
Tohidi, H. and Jabbary, M.M. (2012) ’The important of innovation and its crucial role in
growth, survivaland success of organizations’, Procedia Technology, Vol. 1, pp. 535–538.

22 Sellaro, R. F. and França, C.
Abidi, D. and Koichi, N. (2020) ’Management approach for innovation success in
unstable and stable environments: Opportunity-based approach vs administrative control
approach’, Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1,
pp. 22–40. Available at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/CR-09-
2019-0104/full/html (Accessed: 28 Jan. 2023).
Asensio-López, D., Cabeza-García, L., and González-Álvarez, N. (2018) ’Corporate
governance and innovation: A theoretical review’, European Journal of Management and
Business Economics, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 266–284.
Batt-Rawden, V. H., Lien, G., and Slåtten, T. (2019). Team learning capability–an instrument
for innovation ambidexterity?. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences.
Seidle, R. J. (2019). Sequences of learning types for organizational ambidexterity. The
Learning Organization.
Susanty, A. I., Yuningsih, Y., and Anggadwita, G. (2019). Knowledge management practices
and innovation performance: A study at Indonesian Government apparatus research and
training center. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 10(2), 301-318.
Jia, N. (2019). The impact of accounting restatements on corporate innovation strategy.
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy.
Shchepkina, N., Krivulia, P., and Shtapa, S. (2020). Competitiveness of Research and
Development and project offices as a corporate innovative systems: Ground of new private
category of competitiveness for the conditions of new technological structure establishing.
In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Scientific Conference on Innovations in Digital
Economy: SPBPU IDE-2020.
Markus, A. and Swift, T. (2019) ’Corporate governance and the impact to the R&D lab’,
Journal of Strategy and Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 454–466.
Chutivongse, N. and Gerdstri, N. (2019) ’Creating an innovative organization: Analytical
approach to develop a strategic roadmap guiding organizational development’, Journal
of Modelling in Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 50-88.
Moccia, S., Zhao, S. and Flanagan, P. (2019) ’Innovation, dynamic capabilities, leadership,
and action plan’, Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global
Economy, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 113-127.
Kötting, M. and Kuckertz, A. (2019) ’Three configurations of corporate innovation programs
and their interplay’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.
90-113.
Sergeeva, N. (2019) ’Towards more flexible approach to governance to allow innovation:
the case of UK infrastructure’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 1–19.
Samlal, Z. (2020) ’Corporate governance and business innovation among listed Moroccan
companies’, Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, Vol. 25, No. 49,
pp. 61–72.

The challenges and approaches to the implementation of corporate innovation 23
Wan, H., Peng, Q., and Zhong, X. (2021) ’Too muchof a good thing? The nonlinear influence
of noncontrolling large shareholders on corporate innovation’, European Journal of
Innovation Management.
QANDAH, Ramiz et al. (2021) ’The impact of knowledge management capabilities
on innovation in entrepreneurial companies in Jordan’, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 989-1014.
Ye, J. et al. (2021) ’Knowledge search strategies and corporate entrepreneurship: evidence
from China’s high-tech firms’, European Journal of Innovation Management.
Onetti, A. (2019) ’Turning open innovation into practice: trends in European corporates’,
Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 51–58.
Zheng, L., Ulrich, K., and Sendra-García, J. (2021) ’Qualitative comparative analysis:
Configurational paths to innovation performance’, Journal of Business Research, Vol.
128, pp. 83-93.
Cui, H., Dai, L., and Zhang, Y. (2021) ’Organization capital and corporate innovation:
evidence from China’, Finance Research Letters, Vol. 43, p. 101956.
Li, Y., Mbanye, W., and Sun, J. (2022) ’Managerial R&D hands-on experience, state
ownership, and corporate innovation’, China Economic Review, Vol. 72, p. 101766.
Zhuang, J. (2022) ’The Ways of Corporate Innovation: A Review Analysis’, In: 2022 8th
International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2022),
Atlantis Press, pp. 1471-1476.
Ilomäki, L., Kantosalo, A., and Lakkala, M. (2011) ’What is digital competence?’, Linked
portal.
Kassotaki, O. (2022) ’Review of organizational ambidexterity research’, SAGE Open, Vol.
12, No. 1, pp. 21582440221082127.
Liu, Yipeng, et al. (2020) ’The challenges and opportunities of a global health crisis: the
management and business implications of COVID19 from an Asian perspective.’ Asian
Business & Management, vol. 19, 2020, pp. 277–297.
Granstrand, Ove, and Marcus Holgersson. (2020) ’Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual
review and a new definition.’ Technovation 90, pp. 102098.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (2020) Capitalismo, Socialismo e Democracia. Lebooks Editora.
Drucker, Peter. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Taylor & Francis.
Singh, Sanjay, and Yogita, Aggarwal. (2022) ’In search of a consensus definition of
innovation: a qualitative synthesis of 208 definitions using grounded theory approach.’
The European Journal of Social Science Research, 35 ed., no. 2, pp. 177-195.
Yeboah, Asiamah. (2023) ’Innovation process model: An integration of innovation costs,
benefits and core competence.’ Cogent Business & Management, vol. 10, no. 1.
Prelipcean, Gabriela, and Alexandra Ungureanu.(2023) ’Entrepreneurship in Emerging
Economies: The Role of Innovation and Institutions.’ 10.5772/intechopen.109893.

24 Sellaro, R. F. and França, C.
Gohoungodji, Paulin, and Nabil Amara. (2022) ’Art of innovating in the arts: definitions,
determinants, and mode of innovation in creative industries, a systematic review.’ Review
of Managerial Science, pp. 1–41.
Keresztes, Gabor, and Marcell György Endresz. (2020) ’Innovation and models of
innovation: A brief insight into the definition and different models of innovation.’ vol. 8,
no. 2, pp. 53–55.
Narayanan, Elangovan, Wan Rosmanira Ismail, and Zainol Mustafa. (2022) ’A
data-envelopment analysis-based systematic review of the literature on innovation
performance.’ Heliyon (2022): e11925.
Paasi, Jaakko, et al. (2023) ’Modeling the dynamics of innovation ecosystems.’ International
Journal of Innovation Studies 7.2, pp. 142-158.
Robertson, Jeandri, Albert Caruana, and Caitlin Ferreira. (2021) ’Innovation performance:
The effect of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities in cross-country innovation
ecosystems.’ International Business Review pp. 101866
Bahoo, Salman, Marco Cucculelli, and Dawood Qamar. (2023) ’Artificial intelligence and
corporate innovation: A review and research agenda.’ Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 188, pp. 122264.
Guan, Jialin, et al. (2021) ’Economic policy uncertainty and corporate innovation: Evidence
from China.’ Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 67, pp. 101542.
Ye, Zhilei, and Yaoyao Zhong. (2022) ’Top Executives’ Experience and Corporate
Innovation: A Literature Review.’ 2022 8th International Conference on Humanities and
Social Science Research. Atlantis Press.
Bai, Guiyu, Tinggang Li, and Peng Xu. (2023) ’Can analyst coverage enhance corporate
innovation legitimacy?——Heterogeneity analysis based on different situational
mechanisms.’ Journal of Cleaner Production (2023): 137048.
Zeng, Yongliang, et al. (2022) ’Executive pay bandwagon and corporate innovation.’
Heliyon 8.11, pp. e11755.
Kuang, Yiming, et al. (2023) ’Digitalization, financing constraints and firm performance.’
Frontiers in Environmental Science 11, pp. 324.
Yang, Yi, Shuhe Shi, and Jingjing Wu. (2022) ’Digital Financial Inclusion to Corporation
Value: The Mediating Effect of Ambidextrous Innovation.’ Sustainability 14.24, pp.
16621.
Jota, Barbara Dehon Almeida (2022) O efeito da inovação na alavancagem financeira:
estudo de caso em uma empresa brasileira de grande porte. Diss. Universidade de São
Paulo.