Sustainable Innovation Needs Collaboration, But Are We Ready to Share?

Learnings from eColabor’s Sustainability for Science 2025 Special Session

Authors:

Yasmine Bounouara (Doctoral Researcher, Tampere University)

Rosa Ballardini (Professor, University of Lapland)

Dhanay Cadillo Chandler (University Researcher, University of Lapland)

Anwar Al-Hamidi (Doctoral Researcher, University of Lapland)

Jaakko Siltaloppi (Senior Research Fellow, Tampere University)

Olena Sushch (Associate Professor, University of Lapland)

Jarmo Uusikartano (Doctoral Researcher, Tampere University)

Previously published on the eColabor project website hosted by Tampere University.

Why Collaboration Matters

Sustainability-driven innovations are pivotal in reshaping our future by offering transformative solutions to the world’s most pressing social and environmental challenges (Adams et al., 2016). To achieve long-term sustainability, such innovations require efficient and equitable structures that encourage key stakeholders to collaborate. To date, however, there are multiple challenges related to the legal, policy and innovation management structures that govern sustainability-driven innovations (Altenburg & Pegels., 2012). To overcome sustainability challenges, it is necessary to look beyond the single field-approach and embrace a holistic view to find workable solutions to the complexities related to sustainable innovations.

To this end, the interdisciplinary eColabor project team, comprising researchers from law, policy, and management, conducts research and hosts events to foster dialogue and raise awareness on these critical issues. In October 2025, the eColabor team hosted a special session at Science for Sustainability (previously: Sustainability Science Days, see University of Helsinki 2025), Finland’s largest sustainability research conference, organized by the University of Helsinki. This year’s theme focused on unfolding new perspectives for sustainability transformations. Our interactive session, Envisaging Collaboration for Sustainable Innovation: Pushing the Boundaries through Law and Governance, explored the intersections of legal frameworks, business ecosystem management, and innovation, to promote multi-stakeholder collaboration for sustainability-driven innovations. The panel session brought together diverse voices from the academia and the industry, offering both theoretical and practical insights into the challenges and opportunities of cross-sector collaboration.

Rethinking Legal Frameworks for Sustainable Innovation

On the legal side, Professor Rosa Ballardini from the University of Lapland addressed the intellectual property rights (IPR) mismatch in the context of collaboration for innovation: on the one hand, IPR are essential to incentivise innovations, while, on the other hand, the legal monopoly they give to their owners acts as an obstacle to sharing and collaboration. Companies hesitate to share and even co-create, fearing appropriation or illegitimate reuse. As Ballardini noted, this often overly protective attitude can impede the partnerships needed to develop sustainable innovation. For this reason, Rolando Tomasini, Director of Partnership Development for Europe at PATH, emphasized the central role of defining knowledge ownership modalities as a founding step to collaboration. New licensing models are emerging to address this mismatch. One example is the Environmentally Sustainable Open Source (ESOS) license (Siltaloppi & Ballardini, 2023) which aims to promote environmental sustainability by incentivizing innovators to openly license their sustainability-oriented innovations. According to Ballardini, novel licensing models like the ESOS offer promising pathways for fostering collaboration and reimagining business practices.

From a policy perspective, Marie-Elodie Bourot, Sustainability Expert, underscored the role of regulation as a potential accelerator of collaboration. However, she argued that meaningful change requires laws that are both proactive and ambitious. For instance, Directive (EU) 2022/2464 on Corporate Sustainability Reporting was once a more ambitious initiative. The directive, initially developed to standardize sustainability reporting in the EU, has recently been eroded, highlighting the need for stronger regulatory commitments to drive sustainability transformation.

Making Multi-Actor Collaboration Work in Practice

Sustainable innovation carries significant managerial implications, particularly in how collaboration is orchestrated in practice. Presenters emphasized the importance of openness, inclusivity, and active engagement with diverse stakeholders. Collaboration was framed not just as a tool, but as a catalyst for innovation. As Rolando Tomasini put it, “to innovate, you need to listen”. Marie-Elodie Bourot reinforced this by highlighting the need to define who the stakeholders are to engage them accordingly. Aligning needs and expectations is essential for sustainability-oriented innovation, providing fertile ground for long-term collaborations. 

Concrete lessons from the business side are illustrated by Jaakko Tuomainen, Programme Manager at Borealis, a company leading the SPIRIT innovation project (see SPIRIT Programme 2025). This four-year programme, partially funded by Business Finland, aims to build a collaborative ecosystem to advance sustainability in the plastics industry. While acknowledging the functional value of plastics, SPIRIT’s mission is to develop solutions to reduce their environmental impact by extending their lifecycle. The project tackles themes such as carbon-neutral production and improved recycling rates, resulting in 21 sub-projects and the involvement of over 100 organizations. Being the facilitator, Borealis must frame the goals of the collaborations while aligning individual and ecosystem interests. Tuomainen emphasized: “the leading company should take an active role in the research scope, translating the business needs”. For instance, it is important to ensure clear communication with both internal and external stakeholders, fostering alignment, and enabling frequent, meaningful interaction throughout the project.

Key Takeaways

As Jaakko Siltaloppi, Senior Research Fellow, noted, “sustainable solutions require multi-actor collaboration.” Adopting an ecosystemic, collaborative approach to innovation is therefore essential. The session brought together academic and practitioner perspectives, illuminating the dynamic interplay between law and business management in the context of sustainability-driven innovation. Three key insights emerged from the discussion on collaboration for sustainability transformations in business, each highlighting the roles of policy, legal frameworks, and management:

1. Collaboration is a driver of innovation, particularly in sustainability, and requires open dialogue and commitment.
2. Legal and policy frameworks must be designed to actively support and enable collaborative arrangements.
3. Managerial practices should align diverse interests and engage stakeholders to foster commitment.

Nevertheless, critical questions remain. Importantly, how can we balance ecosystem-level interests with individual incentives (Adner, 2017) for sustainable innovation? This persistent tension reflects the need for systemic attention from both academic and practical domains to this issue.

References

Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., & Overy, P. (2016). Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Management Reviews : IJMR, 18(2), 180–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12068.

Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451.

Altenburg, T., & Pegels, A. (2012). Sustainability-oriented innovation systems - managing the green transformation. Innovation and Development, 2(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2012.664037.

Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting.

Siltaloppi, J., & Ballardini, R. (2023). Promoting Systemic Collaboration for Sustainable Innovation through Intellectual Property Rights. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management, 11(1), Article 100200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2023.100200.

Spirit Programme (2025). https://www.spiritprogramme.com/.

University of Helsinki (2025) Science for Sustainability 2025. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/conferences/science-sustainability-2025.

The Not-Yet Economy: Sustainable Transitions, Digitalisation, and Platform Governance

Authors:

Dr Beata Mäihäniemi (University Researcher, University of Lapland)

Dr Marta Maroni (Assistant Professor, University of Maastricht)

Dr Tuomas Pöysti (Senior Counsel, Geradin Partners)

Dr Corinna Casi (Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Jyväskylä)

Pasi Takkinen (Doctoral Researcher, University of Tampere)

Dr Sanna Taskila (CEO, Carbon Wise)

On the Faculty's LOST Research group, see: https://ulapland.fi/en/faculty-of-law/research-in-law/research-group-lost/

The authors as panelists in the 2025
Science for Sustainability conference, in Helsinki

Bursting the Growth Bubble

In an era of accelerating digitalisation and mounting ecological crises, the long-standing economic dogma of perpetual growth faces unprecedented scrutiny. The “growth paradigm”—the belief that economic expansion is inherently desirable and necessary—has shaped policy, law, and societal values for decades (see e.g. Büchs & Koch 2017). Yet, as digital technologies reshape production, consumption, and governance, and as planetary boundaries are increasingly breached, this paradigm appears not only outdated but dangerously unsustainable. Hope alone will not solve the environmental crisis. In fact, hope in sustainability debates often leads to inaction (Lindroth & Sinevaara-Niskanen 2025, p. 5–6) or over-optimism, such as techno-optimism: the belief that technology can solve any problem, including climate change (see Andreessen 2023, Königs 2022).

Digital platforms exert extensive influence within the digital domain and far beyond, shaping other sectors (see de Reuver et al. 2018).  As general-purpose technologies, they disrupt business and work models across private and public sectors. Online platforms represent a rapidly expanding segment of the economy: e-commerce accounts for 10–13 % of total household consumption in the EU, with strong growth in clothing (39 % of online buyers), streaming services (18 %), food delivery, and furniture (Eurostat, n.d.). Beyond their direct footprint, platforms exert systemic influence on consumption patterns. Through algorithmic design and data-driven personalisation, they can steer users toward unsustainable choices (Calo 2014, p. 1031). At the same time, platforms hold potential to advance circular economy principles and support the ambition of a single circular market, making them pivotal actors in the twin transition toward a green and digital economy.

Could the ecological-economic perspective of “sustainable degrowth”— “a socially sustainable and equitable reduction (and eventual stabilisation) of society’s throughput” (Kallis 2011, p. 874) —be a viable option for a sustainable platform economy?

Rooting Sustainability Transitions in Ethics and Education

The concept of sustainability in Sustainable Development Goals and sustainable development warrants critique (see e.g. Biermann et al. 2022). It is often overused and reduced to greenwashing: appearing “green” without real change. We should also question the notion of a universal sustainability, which tends to reflect Western dominant perspectives and exclude marginalised voices such as indigenous peoples, the poor, and persons with disabilities for instance. Instead, we should speak of “sustainabilitieS”, in plural understood as diverse sustainabilities, situated in specific places and contexts.

In addition to that, sustainability transitions require more than technology; they need ethics and values to guide them (Horcea-Milcu et al. 2019). These principles should respect animals, plants, ecosystems, and their relations. Concepts such as planetary boundaries and “enoughness”—having enough food, clothing, and resources—should shape our choices (Hartman 2024). Furthermore, Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) offers valuable insights for addressing climate crises and critiques extractive, colonial approaches that underpin endless progress and green growth’s obsession with efficiency (UNDP 2024).

In contrast, digital platforms are designed to encourage consumption through profiling and targeted advertising, making it increasingly difficult for individuals to limit their purchases. Our reliance on big tech solutions, such as AI, digitalisation, and the rise of the platform economy, depends heavily on data and human attention. As a result, the relationship between technology use, overconsumption, and sustainability is becoming ever more blurred.

However, education is a focal point where a reflective and sustainable relationship with technology can be cultivated (Andersen et al. 2025). In today’s world of technological ubiquity, technological literacy, “the ability to use, manage, assess, and understand technological products and systems” (International Technology Education Association 2020, p. 114). Yet, digitalisation is advancing faster than educational efforts can adapt (UNESCO 2024). However, it seems that some digital trends might be simply a stronger force than education, as suggested by the recent discussion on smartphones in schools in Finland (Yle 2025). Education must go hand in hand with legislation.

Enforcement Challenges in Sustainability and Digital Regulation

EU law is highly atomistic: separate acts address individual aspects of platform ecosystems. The regulation of platforms, corporate social responsibility, and product sustainability are treated as distinct issues. While some fragmentation is inevitable, excessive inconsistencies create disproportionate implementation challenges due to administrative costs, legal uncertainty, and market fragmentation. For example, sustainability reporting requirements are significant but have clear limits.

We are moving toward platform-centric organisation, where power relations shift and new asymmetries emerge. For example, Temu became one of Europe’s fastest-growing apps shortly after entering the EU market in April 2023, yet it has already faced scrutiny under the Digital Services Act for failing to assess risks related to illegal products (European Commission 2025). Temu has been found in breach of obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA) to properly assess the risks of illegal products being disseminated on its marketplace. In addition to that, in 2026, the European Commission will propose the Digital Fairness Act (DFA) to strengthen consumer protection against dark patterns, addictive design features, and unfair personalisation. The DFA will focus on protecting children online (European Commission 2025a). However, could digital fairness also incorporate a broader approach, addressing sufficiency and moving away from mass consumerism? We cannot simply legislate “do not overconsume”; systemic linkages between business models, incentives, and regulation must be established.

The EU is currently seeking to establish its digital sovereignty that is its autonomy and independence from U.S. data-driven technologies. To achieve this, it has adopted a data-governance strategy aimed at unlocking the circulation of data to develop its computational capabilities (Maroni 2024). Yet, data centres, essential for digital operations, have massive environmental repercussions. Regulatory frameworks to make them sustainable remain rooted in ecological extractivism and law’s managerial mindset.

Addressing environmental justice under technological capitalism requires a radical shift in legal thinking. Rights-of-nature movements argue that natural entities have their own interests as living beings (Jones 2021). Recognising these rights could help reverse hierarchical dynamics between humans and nature and move toward a legal system that decentres human interests and emphasises obligations to the natural world (Weis and Mullins 2025).

Platforms can and should innovate toward circular economy models rather than linear ones. However, aligning with alternative economic models such as degrowth requires decoupling circular strategies from growth imperatives. Such a transformation demands systematic legal changes and broader societal shifts.

Conclusions

We call for a wide-scale transition to less extractive and exploitative business and societal models to move away from mass consumerism. This transition requires a new regulatory approach that integrates ethics, sufficiency, situated knowledge, political and technological realities, ecological limits, and social justice. Education must underpin this societal change, alongside incentives for innovation and support for SMEs, as highlighted by upcoming updates under the Digital Omnibus Regulation Proposal (European Commission 2025a).

Legislation can only be effective if it ceases to be atomistic. Enforcement currently relies too heavily on individuals initiating legal claims despite power asymmetries. Converging legal fields, such as administrative law, data protection, competition law, and technological regulation, must work together to constrain abuses of power, preserve freedom of choice, protect innovation, and ensure the responsible use of technology.

References

Andersen, L.B., Frydendahl, A.J., Lisborg, S. et al. (2025) ‘Technology education for sustainable development– a scoping review’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-025-10043-w

Andreessen, M. (2023) The Techno-Optimist Manifesto. Available at: https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/ (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

Biermann, F., Hickmann, T., Sénit, C.A., Beisheim, M., Bernstein, S., Chasek, P., … Wicke, B. (2022) ‘Scientific Evidence on the Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals’, Nature Sustainability. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00909-5 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

Büchs, M., Koch, M. (2017). Critiques of Growth. In: Postgrowth and Wellbeing. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59903-8_4

Calo, R. (2014) ‘Digital Market Manipulation’, George Washington Law Review, 82, pp. 995–1051.

de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C. and Basole, R.C. (2018) ‘The Digital Platform: A Research Agenda’, Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), pp.124–135. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

European Commission (2025) ‘Commission preliminarily finds Temu in breach of the Digital Services Act in relation to illegal products on its platform’, Press release, 28 July. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1913 (Accessed: 23 November 2025).

European Commission (2025a) ‘Digital Omnibus Regulation Proposal’, Shaping Europe’s Digital Future, 19 November. Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/digital-omnibus-regulation-proposal (Accessed: 23 November 2025).

Hartmann, E. (2024) ‘Sufficiency as relations of enoughness’, Sustainable Development, 32(6), pp.7201–7214. Available at https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3090 (Accessed: 23 November 2025).

Horcea-Milcu, A.I., Abson, D.J., Apetrei, C.I. et al. (2019) ‘Values in transformational sustainability science: four perspectives for change’, Sustainability Science, 14, pp.1425–1437. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00656-1 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

International Technology Education Association (2007) Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. 3rd edn. Reston, VA: ITEA. Available at: https://wwwcp.umes.edu/tech/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2021/09/xstnd.pdf (Accessed: 23 November 2025).

Jones, E. (2021) ‘Posthuman international law and the rights of nature’, in Grear, A., Boulot, E., Vargas-Roncancio, I.D. and Sterlin, J. (eds.) Posthuman Legalities: New Materialism and Law Beyond the Human. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 82–101. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802203349.00008.

Kallis, G. (2011) ‘In defence of degrowth’, Ecological Economics, 70(5), pp.873–880. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.007 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

Königs, P. (2022) ‘What is Techno-Optimism?’, Philosophy & Technology, 35, 63. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00555-x (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

Lindroth, M. and Sinevaara-Niskanen, H. (2025) ‘(Counter)productive hope: Scrutinising the role of hope in sustainability’, Futures, 174, 103706. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2025.103706 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

Maroni, M. (2024) ‘The Idea of Data and European Constitutional Imaginaries: An Immanent Critique of the Data Governance Act’, Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia del Diritto, 5(2/2024), pp. 285–315.

UNDP (2024) ‘Indigenous knowledge crucial in fight against climate change – here’s why’. Available at: https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/indigenous-knowledge-crucial-fight-against-climate-change-heres-why (Accessed: 21 November 2025).

UNESCO (2024) ‘Bridging the digital and green transitions through education’. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/bridging-digital-and-green-transitions-through-education (Accessed: 23 November 2025).

Weis, L.K. and Mullins, R. (2025) ‘Does Nature Need Rights?’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaf021 (Accessed 27 November 2025).

Yle (2025) ‘Finland bans smartphones in schools’, Yle News. Available at: https://yle.fi/a/74-20158886 (Accessed: 23 November 2025).

***

The analysis above draws on the discussion and script of the panel “Degrowth and Digitalisation: Laying Foundations for a New Regulatory Approach to the Platform Economy,” held on 2 October 2025 from 15:30 to 16:45 during the Science for Sustainability conference, in Helsinki, Finland.

Panel organiser and moderator: Dr Beata Mäihäniemi, LOST, University of Lapland

Panelists:

- Dr Corinna Casi, University of Jyväskylä

- Asst Prof Marta Maroni, Maastricht University

- Dr Tuomas Pöysti, Geradin Partners

- Pasi Takkinen, Tampere University

- Dr Sanna Taskila, Macon Oy

Maroni would like to acknowledge that this work is part of the project Ecologies of Data: A Conceptual and Regulatory Framework for Data Centres (ECODATA), funded by the University Fund Limburg (SWOL).