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.

Sustainability of the Law, a LOST Cause?

Author: Rob van den Hoven van Genderen

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

Rob van den Hoven
van Genderen

The call for sustainability does not just concern the environment. It concerns the whole of human society and development. A less accentuated part, although very important aspect in the strive for sustainability, concerns the basis of society, the law.

How sustainable is the law when one sees that the rule of law is crumbling, the Geneva Conventions and treaties on human rights are trampled upon in illegal wars? How sustainable are treaties and conventions on climate control and environmental sustainability if major states resist following the rules?  On a national and international level there seems to be a receding respect for the rule of law, trust in the objectivity of legislature, judiciary and doubts about executing institutes as well as the objectivity of media and science.

These developments create uncertainty within civil societies and distrust in the credibility of international relations, resulting in a volatile world economy and political instability. Legal and political uncertainty is also the result as well as the cause of polarization on national and international level. Instead of cooperation there is an increasing inclination toward conflict. The application of laws and treaties, as well as the application of justice is disturbed by interpretation based on this polarized difference in perception and maintenance of the law and the legal system.

Because of differences in political stances and opinions, laws and treaties seem increasingly sensitive to multi-interpretability. This opens the way to an increasing difference in perception of the meaning of those rules, creating disturbance, open discretionary powers, conflicts and even misuse of the law, bypassing the original purpose of the law.  For a stable society, it is of the utmost importance to have a transparent, credible, trustworthy set of rules to create legal certainty. Further, laws must represent the current values that are respected and followed by all.

This leads to another aspect of the quality and credibility of the law.

Laws can create uncertainty because rules are not well defined. For example, the European AI Act involves uncertain definitions and risk-based classification of applications (and even uncertainty of permitted systems) that can be adapted on short notice by the law-making institutions. Such laws create an invitation for conflict and polarization between parties with different goals.

From a perspective of legal certainty, there are two levels of requirements that determine the gradient of the sustainability and resilience of the law.

Firstly, there is the access, understandability and transparency of the law itself: clear wordings in language and unilateral interpretability of the definitions and explanation of the purpose of the law to the legal subjects, the people, as well as the states and institutions and other legal persons. It must also be clear what the effects of the law are, and its contents, motivation and applicability must be consistent to make it trustworthy and predictable in the effects on the subjects and society.

Secondly, the application of laws and legal rules, its interpretation and maintenance, must be trustworthy. One must be confident that authorities as well as the other actors of the judicial system, legislature, executive and justice abide by the laws as they are meant to be. 

Laws and the legal system are only credible and trustworthy when they are created based on the rule of law, followed on all levels, by states, judicial and executive institutions and the people without abstention.

This creates legal sustainability of the law as it should be. The problem is that the state of the world is moving away from legal sustainability on national and international level.

Mission Impossible: The Judge’s Role in Defining the RTBF regarding AI Applications

Author: Fouad Abdelrazek (LLD Candidate)

Research Group: Law, Technology and Design Thinking

Fouad Abdelrazek

Nowadays, the economic growth and prosperity of nations are increasingly linked to the deployment and efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI). The effectiveness of AI is directly proportional to the volume and quality of data available to it. As such, the more personal data that is fed into an AI system, the greater its accuracy and efficiency.[1]

Thus, the deletion of such data could significantly impact the efficiency and effectiveness of AI models. Accordingly, it could have severe implications for the economy in the long run.[2]

On the other hand, the issue of protecting personal data is a matter of utmost importance, as it is considered a fundamental human right.[3] Hence, the regulation of technology is a crucial aspect to ensure the protection of individuals. Nevertheless, it is important to guarantee that such regulations do not become an obstacle to development but rather support it.

Achieving the balance between these two interests is a complex matter that requires careful consideration and implementation of appropriate policies and regulations.

In my opinion, it also relies on the role of judges in interpreting the text of regulations. This ensures that regulations can be effectively applied to emerging technologies while also providing a level of flexibility necessary to promote innovation and development.

This significant role clearly appears in interpreting the right to be forgotten (RTBF), especially regarding AI applications. The RTBF is one of the most powerful rights that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has given under the name of the right to erasure (Article 17). This right gives EU and EEA residents the power to control their personal data.[4]

However, the concept of the RTBF presents a significant challenge in terms of its definition and implementation in relation to AI applications. This is because the requirement for data deletion, which is a fundamental aspect of the RTBF, is not easily applicable to AI systems. Unlike humans, AI systems and applications do not “forget” data in the same way, and the data deletion process in AI contexts is far more complex.[5] As a result, various conflicts and debates have emerged concerning the interpretation of the RTBF in the context of AI, making it a topic of significant academic interest.

There is an ongoing debate about interpreting “erasing” data differently, each with varying levels of difficulty to implement. A strict interpretation would demand erasing all copies of the data and removing them from any derived or aggregated representations to the extent that it is impossible to recover the data by any known technical means. This may not be feasible with some technologies. A more nuanced and pragmatic interpretation could permit encrypted data copies to persist as long as they remain indecipherable to unauthorized parties. A gentler and even more pragmatic interpretation could permit unencrypted data copies to last as long as they are no longer publicly visible in indices, database queries, or search engine results.[6]

Here, the judges have an essential role in interpreting the definition of the RTBF and directing the organization about how it should execute the verdict. This interpretation will directly impact AI.[7]

Roughly speaking, there are two methods of interpreting a legal text: the first is textualism, and the second is purposivism. Textualism is to stick to the statute's text in interpretation, whereas purposivism (or intentionalism) considers text-external purposes and legislator intentions.[8]

In this context, can judges’ emotional bias affect their interpretation of the RTBF to either decrease or increase the deletion of personal data to improve the economy?

People might unconsciously favour evidence that aligns with their existing viewpoints while disregarding or devaluing evidence that contradicts them.[9] From a classical legal realist perspective, the judge's decision can be biased without the judge knowing.[10] Despite judges' claims that their emotions do not impact their decisions,[11] it's unlikely that emotions cease to exist when they act in court. Emotions are a significant source of intuition, and their impact on decision-making is robust and valuable.[12] One judge has expressively stated, "Judges, being flesh and blood, are subject to the same emotions and human frailties as affect other members of the species."[13]

Hence, the issue of how judges interpret the RTBF in the context of AI is a complex and multifaceted one. The judgment of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) Google Spain case (C‑131/12) suggests that each case of the RTBF should be interpreted in its own context (judgement addressing Question 3, para. 99). This provides judges with much interpretive leeway in determining the meaning of the RTBF in the context of every case. However, this leeway may lead to different interpretations in similar cases.

Judges have to emphasize either of the two methods of interpreting a legal text to define the RTBF. However, interpretations of these two methods will raise different challenges for implementing the RTBF regarding AI.

On the one hand, under textualism, where the judge must adhere strictly to the statute's text, the text unequivocally calls for the erasure of the individual’s personal data. This may seem to have a harmful impact on the economy. It may lead to the erasure of a massive amount of data, which AI depends on in its efficiency, which will significantly impact the economy. However, are such verdicts technically executable in the first place? In some cases, it is very difficult to ensure that the personal data is erased from the model.[14] However, naturally, such an interpretation will increase trust in the judicial system, encouraging individuals, in turn, to give their personal data to these organizations.

On the other hand, a purposive interpretation might lead to a very broad interpretation of the text, which may negatively impact the trust between individuals and the judicial system. Through the lens of purposive interpretation, the RTBF may be interpreted such that data is not necessarily physically destroyed or overwritten; rather, it is merely made inaccessible or not readily retrievable through normal means. This could imply that, in practical terms, data marked for deletion in databases may still exist in some form and is merely concealed, awaiting potential overwriting in the future.[15] This will not lead to the actual erasure of personal data. Consequently, this will make individuals more reluctant to give their personal data to these organizations, which will affect the efficiency and accuracy of AI and also negatively impact the economy.

In conclusion, implementing the RTBF in the context of AI requires a nuanced and balanced approach. Considering this challenge, it would be useful if the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) established clearer guiding criteria for judges to follow when interpreting the RTBF and its implementation, aiming to reach a balance between people's interests and the economy, especially in the context of AI. Although the ECJ presented its opinion, in practice, it is still debatable whether it was right or not. From this perspective, the lack of clear criteria for the RTBF, coupled with the rising number of cases and varying circuits that handle them, will result in a significant difference in interpretations of the RTBF in similar cases.

The existence of clear criteria would ensure that judgments are unified and consistent, ensuring trust and fairness, and avoiding conflicts and negative economic impacts.

---

[1] Mangini, V., Tal, I., & Moldovan, A. N. (2020, August). An empirical study on the impact of GDPR and right to be forgotten  organisations and users perspective. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on availability, reliability and security (pp. 1–9).

[2] Salami, E. (2023). Artificial Intelligence: The end of Legal Protection of Personal Data and Intellectual Property?: Research on the countering effects of data protection and IPR on the regulation of Artificial Intelligence systems.

[3] Rodotà, S. (2009). Data protection as a fundamental right. In Reinventing data protection? (pp. 77–82). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

[4] Post, R. C. (2017). Data privacy and dignitary privacy: Google Spain, the right to be forgotten, and the construction of the public sphere. Duke LJ, 67, 981.

[5] Villaronga, E. F., Kieseberg, P., & Li, T. (2018). Humans forget, machines remember: Artificial intelligence and the right to be forgotten. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), 304–313.

[6] Sandra, I. A. The enforcement of right to be forgotten at the EU level by using search engines.

[7]Aghion, P., Jones, B. F., & Jones, C. I. (2018). Artificial intelligence and economic growth. In The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda (pp. 237–282). University of Chicago Press. It is stated on the business Bank of America site that “AI will contribute more than $15 trillion to the global economy by 2030” https://business.bofa.com/en-us/content/economic-impact-of-ai.html#

[8] Aalto-Heinilä, M. (2016). Fairness in statutory interpretation: Text, purpose or intention?. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 1(1), 193–211.

[9] Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of general psychology, 2(2), 175–220.

[10] Wistrich, A.J. and Rachlinski, J.J., 2017. Implicit bias in judicial decision making how it affects judgment and what judges can do about it. Chapter, 5, pp.17–16; Epstein, D.Z., 2014. Rationality, legitimacy, & the law. Wash. U. Jurisprudence Rev., 7, p.1.

[11] Maroney, T. A. (2011). Emotional regulation and judicial behavior. Calif. L. Rev., 99, 1485.

[12] Wistrich, A. J., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2017). Implicit bias in judicial decision making how it affects judgment and what judges can do about it. Chapter, 5, pp. 17–16

[13] Maroney, T. (2016). The emotionally intelligent judge: A new (and realistic) ideal. Revista Forumul Judecatorilor, 61.

[14] Graves, L., Nagisetty, V., & Ganesh, V. (2020). Does AI Remember? Neural Networks and the Right to be Forgotten.

[15] Villaronga, E. F., Kieseberg, P., & Li, T. (2018). Humans forget, machines remember: Artificial intelligence and the right to be forgotten. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), 304-313.