111 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 2 / 1 6 Abstract European Trends in Business Incubation Through Open Innovation Approach http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.1.16.31635 Iveta Cirule BIORGANIK5 Ltd, Latvia Inga Uvarova ArtSmart ltd.; BA School of Business and Finance of Latvia Ginta Caune RISEBA University, Latvia European Integration Studies No. 16 / 2022, pp. 111-124 doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.0.16.31635 Submitted 05/2022 Accepted for publication 06/2022 European Trends in Business Incubation Through Open Innovation Approach EIS 16/2022 The open innovation (OI) is the actual framework for exploiting external resources and wider networks in doing innovation instead of just operating with in-house resources. Business incubators ensure networking and facilitate OI collaborations both inside the incubator among entrepreneurs and outside with external stakeholders. The purpose of the qualitative study is to identify the European trends in business incubation through OI approach by setting two main tasks – 1) identify business incubation trends and 2) validate these theoretical findings by conducting the empirical study in Latvia business incubators and 3) draw the conclusions for business incubation practitioners in order to improve business incubation from OI perspective. The qualitative research methods applied – 1) literature review on business incubation trends, OI approach in business incubation such as service provision, online and onsite incubation, tenant OI competences and strategies, co-creation and collaboration and 2) the empirical qualitative research in Latvia business incu- bators by conducting incubator management (13) interviews. The results proved that the main national trends dominant and present in Latvian business incubation are corresponding to the European trends, namely, 1) incubators are serving as OI partners and are recognized by tenants as access providers to external resources ands networks; 2) networking as facilitating activity of the inside-out and outside-in OI strategies; 3) tenants’ OI strategies and motivation as well as variety of OI partners (experts, mentors, clients, companies, researchers, universities) promote the better incubation results in terms of ideas validated, product developed, companies created and innovation implemented. These results are in line with the main findings on European trends from a literature review perspective. This article provides national findings on OI application in business incubation as the empirical novelty for business incubation practitioners, academia, entrepreneurship support policy makers and tenants interna- tionally detecting the crucial role of OI activities applied in business incubation and incubators as OI part- ners. Business incubation trend analysis through Open innovation approach is a novelty of this research. KEYWORDS: open innovation, open innovation strategies, business incubator, business incubation trends, value co-creation. E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 2 / 1 6 112 Introduction The open innovation (OI) is the actual framework for exploiting external resources and wider networks in doing innovation instead of just operating with in-house resources (Vanhaverbeke et al., 2018). Instead of playing a mere passive role, incubators now facilitate OI for their inhabit- ants by providing relevant services (Grama-Vigouroux and Royer, 2020). New business creation is frequently related to innovation and business incubators have a unique position of knowledge transfers in this innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem (Mian et al., 2016). The OI theory addressing business incubation has been popular since 2015. OI is the new model of doing inno- vation (Chesbrough, 2003) and it includes specific strategies (such as inside-out and outside-in activities) (Gassmann & Enkel, 2004). In order to use these strategies, a nascent entrepreneur needs specific competencies, named OI competencies (Du Chatenier et al., 2010), (Fukugawa, 2013) motivation and partners. The purpose of the qualitative study is to identify the European trends in business incubation through OI approach by setting two main tasks – 1) identify business incubation trends; 2) vali- date these theoretical findings by conducting the empirical study in Latvia business incubators and 3) draw the conclusions for business incubation practitioners in order to improve business incubation through OI perspective. Business incubation trend analysis through Open innovation approach is a novelty of this qualitative research. The two research questions are proposed: » RQ1: Are national business incubation trends corresponding to European trends in business incubation through the Open Innovation approach? » RQ2: Is the Open Innovation approach present in the national business incubation trends? The qualitative research methods applied – 1) literature review on business incubation trends, OI approach in business incubation such as service provision, online and onsite incubation, tenant OI competences and strategies, co-creation and collaboration and 2) the empirical qualitative research in Latvia business incubators by conduction incubator management (14) interviews in 1) Latvia Investment and Development Agency incubators funded by national Business Incuba- tion programme and 2) University-led incubators funded by public and private higher education Figure 1 Methodological roadmap of the research tasks and results Source: Authors 113 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 2 / 1 6 Literature review establishments. The key results proved that the main national trends dominant and present in Latvian business incubation are corresponding to the European trends, namely, 1) incubators are serving as OI partners and are recognized by tenants as access providers to external resources ands networks; 2) networking as facilitating activity of the inside-out and outside-in OI strate- gies; 3) tenants’ OI strategies and motivation as well as variety of OI partners (experts, mentors, clients, companies, researchers, universities) promote the better incubation results in terms of ideas validated, product developed, companies created and innovation implemented. These re- sults are in line with the main findings on European trends from a literature review perspective. This article provides national findings on OI application in business incubation as the empirical novelty for business incubation practitioners, academia, entrepreneurship support policy makers and tenants internationally detecting the crucial role of OI activities applied in business incubation and incubators as OI partners. The literature review reveals the main findings about actual trends in business incubation through the Open innovation approach, which is a novelty of this research. The following Euro- pean trends are identified - 1) incubators as OI Partners (e.g., Grama-Vigouroux & Royer, 2020; Carayannis et al., 2021; 2) networking as important inside-out and outside-in OI strategies (e.g., Klofsten et al., 2020; Barile et.al., 2020); 3) tenant OI competences, motivation, partners, difficul- ties (e.g., Vanhaverbeke et al., 2018; Bøllingtoft, 2012; Du Chatenier, et al., 2010); 4) Globalization and Internationalization facilitated by OI strategies/ activities/ actors/ artifacts (Tsai et.al., 2009; Zykienė et.al., 2021); 5) Sustainability and shared value creation promoted through OI (e.g., Hull et al., 2021; Barile et.al., 2020), particularly recently promoted by the green course of EU agenda (European Commission, 2019) and Sustainable Development Goals globally (UN, 2021; Halkos & Gkampoura, 2021). The concept of OI offers new strategies and practices for using not only in-house resources in the innovation process, but also to gain knowledge, new ideas and expertise from outside in order to advance in the innovation (outside-in), or to share ideas and knowledge with others (inside-out). Both outside-in and inside-out OI activities contribute to advance in the value cre- ation and capturing (Chesbrough, 2006). OI practice envisages the creation of new knowledge and ideas in the collaboration with other stakeholders, for instance, government organizations, consultants, research centers and universities, customers, society and non-governmental or- ganizations or other private companies considered as the triple, quadruples and Penta helix cooperation (Carayannis et al., 2021; Uvarova et al., 2021). Currently the concept of Living Labs combines the OI framework (Lapointe & Guimont, 2015), which should be considered in further development of incubators. OI requires the specific strategies, such as inside-out and outside-in activities, but also some coupled activities, which suppose a combination of those two (Cirule et.al, 2017). Outside-in ac- tivities are supposed to involve external and internal parties of the business to accelerate internal innovation. Inside-out activities include new ways of commercializing the unused technology and patents. The outbound dimension of OI refers to “earning profits by bringing ideas to market, sell- ing IP, and multiplying technology by transferring ideas to the outside environment”. It focuses on external paths to commercialize innovations that have been developed internally (Vanhaverbeke et al. 2018). Scholars previously have proved that “innovation capabilities might not reside exclusively inside firms, but could be co-created relationally with other parties in the business ecosystem” (Giudici et.al, 2018 - p.1369). This is an important conclusion which motivates the investigation of the future perspective and trends of the adaptation of the open innovation approach within the busi- E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 2 / 1 6 114 ness incubators. In total 1214 publications were selected in the SCOPUS database using key- words “business incubation” or “business incubator”. Using the VOSviewer, the content analysis was conducted within the selected publications to identify main keywords or phrases that appear with the highest frequency within these scientific publications. Given keywords or phrases, show the main research trends of scholars regarding the business incubation (See Figure 2). The size of the keywords or phrases reflect the frequency of co-occurrence of these words within the scientific publications. The content analyses do not recognize the open innovation concept in this field of research, but there are some other important keywords associated with the open innova- tion, such as collaboration, clusters, university business incubators, spinoffs. This initial content analysis proves the novelty of the business incubator development using an open innovation approach. Figure 2 The network visualization of co-occurrence of keywords “business incubator” or “business incubation” based on articles of the SCOPUS database Source: Authors After the initial content analysis, we conducted a more detailed search of the literature and se- lected within the SCOPUS database the scientific publications with more narrow focus using keywords (“business incubators” OR “business incubation” AND “open innovation”). In total 94 publications were collected and their abstracts analyzed to identify most relevant publications for the detailed analyses. Furthermore after the abstract analyses 54 publications were kept for the more detailed analyses of the full text of publications. During the detailed literature review 115 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 2 / 1 6 additional information sources were added using the reverse selection of already cited sources within the previously selected articles. Researchers have defined in the past that accelerators, living labs, open labs and other similar forms of cooperation and value co-creation are essential initiatives for promoting open innova- tion, not only in business sectors, but also in different non-commercial and social spheres (De Silva & Wright, 2019). Within such collaboration forms actors may create business model inno- vations, but also other ideas for the sustainable transition. This is previously defined by scholars as the shared value which requires the development of the business model in the way that it combines the business needs (profit making) with the positive social and environmental impact (Porter, 2021). Addressing sustainability issues is an essential issue not only for the govern- ments and policy makers, but also for the business society. Thus it influences as well the role and functions of business incubators to facilitate the pro-environmental and sustainable behavior among start-ups and entrepreneurs, also stimulating the creation of sustainable business ideas and business models (Theodoraki et.al., 2018). During the last 10 years the scholar community has been increasingly discussing the promotion of the sustainable and circular business model innovations and new ventures (Geissdoerfer et.al., 2017). Some researchers have investigated the circular economy or green business incubators that recently are seen as important contributors to the sustainable transition and achievement of the sustainable development goals (Hull et.al., 2021). The Table 1 “Business Incubation Trends through OI approach” demonstrates the main literature review findings and respective scholars in this field. Table 1 Business Incubation Trends through OI approach Trend code Business Incubation Trend through Open Innovation (OI) approach, label title Literature review, authors T1 Incubators as OI partners: » Incubators as value co-creation spaces and plat- forms » Incubators as access to networks » Customer or user-centric innovation » Living labs, Do-it-yourself labs, Open labs Grama-Vigouroux & Royer, 2020; Carayannis et al., 2021; Claussen and Rasmussen, 2011; Lapointe & Guimont, 2015; Klofsten et al., 2020; Barile et.al., 2020; De Silva & Wright, 2019; Ngongoni & Grobbelaar, 2017 T2 Networking as inside-out and outside-in Open Innovation strategies » From infrastructure to networking » Growing importance of networking » Networking services in BI promoting outside-in Open Innovation activities such as knowledge at- traction from mentors, experts, researchers » OI Inside -out strategy » OI Outside-in strategy Theodorakopoulos et al., 2014; Hausberg & Korreck, 2020; Bank et al., 2017; Mian, et al., 2016; Giudici et.al, 2018; Vanhaverbeke et al., 2018 T3 Tenant OI competences, motivation, partners, difficulties » OI Partners (experts, crowd, clients, universities, co-opetitors instead of competitors) » OI Competences Chesbrough et.al., 2018; Vanhaverbeke et al., 2018; Bøllingtoft, 2012; Du Chatenier, et al., 2010; Fukugawa, 2013; Grama & Royer, 2013; Grama- Vigouroux & Royer, 2020 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 2 / 1 6 116 Summarizing the main findings from the literature review, the conclusions are: 1 Business incubators are important OI partners as the value co-creation spaces and platforms providing access to networks and external resources; 2 Networking as inside-out and outside-in Open Innovation strategies manifestation; 3 Tenants possessing the OI competences and motivation could improve innovation capacity and performance by choosing co-opetition instead of competition; 4 Globalization and internationalization expande industrial and geographical borders of co- operation among business incubators, business incubation tenants and other stakeholders, particularly facilitated by hackathons and cross-border entrepreneurial activities; 5 The promotion of sustainability and value co-creation in business modeling facilitate the tran- sition to sustainability and contribution to SDGs achievement. Trend code Business Incubation Trend through Open Innovation (OI) approach, label title Literature review, authors T4 Globalization and Internationalization facilitated by OI strategies/ activities/ actors/ artifacts Expanding industrial and geographical borders of cooperation between business incubators, business incubation tenants and other stakeholders » hackathons combining international teams » cross border teams » virtual incubation Tsai et.al., 2009; Zykienė et.el., 2021; Gao et.al, 2021; Musteen et.al., 2014 T5 Sustainability and shared value creation » Shared value creation within the business model » Facilitation to the sustainable transition and con- tribution to SDGs Hull et al., 2021; Barile et.al., 2020; Del Vecchio et al., 2018; Fichter & Hurrelmann, 2021; Porter, 2021; Klofsten & Bienkowska, 2021 Source: Authors Empirical research method and design The main aim of the empirical research was to validate the findings from literature review on busi- ness incubation trends’ analyses through Open Innovation approach by conducting the empirical qualitative research in Latvia business incubators with incubator top management - Heads of in- cubators, in total 13 interviews in a year 2020. The research environment - 1) Latvia Investment and Development Agency (LIDA) incubators, funded by national Business Incubation programme, total 11 interviews, and 2) University-led incubators funded by public and private higher education establishments, total 2 interviews. The sample size of LIDA business incubators in this time period was 11 regional business incubators and 1 Creative and Culture Industry incubator in the capital city Riga (total 12) and 4 University-led incubators. The interviews were conducted remotely, reaching 11 out of 12 LIDA Heads of incubators (91,6%) and 2 out of 4 University incubator Heads (50%), representing the majority of business incubation top managers nationally. The authors have set geographical and professional competence limitations - the research was conducted nationally in Latvia business incubators by interviewing only top managers (Heads of in- cubator) as the main interview expert selection criteria. These incubation professionals have been working in national incubation for a certain period (at least 5 years) and are well-recognized profes- sionals. The interview sample size of a total 16 national top managers in a country is an objective limitation of research. 117 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 2 / 1 6 Trend code Question OI Outside-in (inbound) strategy OI Inside -out (outbound) strategy OI competences and motivation OI partners OI difficulties Type T1 What are the current trends and challenges in business incubators? X X X X X Open T2 How could you improve your job as an incubator manager? X X X Open T3 What improvements would you like to see in the operation of the incubator? X X X X X Open T4 What other services would you like to see in incubators (tangible / intangible)? X X X X Open T1 How do you think it would be possible to run the incubator more conveniently / agilely? X X X Open T1 How do you think public, university and industry / private incubators differ? X X X X X Open T3 To what extent do incubated companies use the networking services provided by incubators? X X X X Enough Not enough T2 What is the role and importance of mentors / business coaches, consultants? X Important Partly important Not important T3 Does physical space matter to achieve a faster result? X X X X Yes No Partly T4 What, in your opinion, is the motivation of the incubated tenants? X X Open T4 What difficulties do you think incubated companies face during incubation and after leaving the incubator program? X Open Table 2 Business incubator managers’ interview structure Source: Authors E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 2 / 1 6 118 The interview questions were structured to answer the two main research questions: 1 Are national business incubation trends corresponding to European trends in business incu- bation through the Open Innovation approach? 2 Are national business incubation trends revealing the Open Innovation approach? The interview questions were structured in three main scales – 1) the current situation analyses, 2) future improvements and 3) tenants’ and management OI competences, strategies. motivation, partners and difficulties. The main aim of interview questions was to detect the presence of the current trends in business incubation through OI perspective. The table below demonstrates the in- terview structure - trend label from literature review identified by the authors, questions created by the authors, correspondence to the OI dimensions (strategies, competences, motivation, partners, difficulties), answer type – open or structured. The interview results were structured to answer the two main research questions: RQ1: Are national business incubation trends corresponding to European trends in business incubation through the Open Innovation approach? RQ2: Is the Open Innovation approach present in the national business incubation trends? The Tables 3 and 4 below demonstrate the main interview results. Majority of BI managers ad- mitted the presence of three (T1, T2, T3) European trends in the the national BI, namely, 1) incu- bators are serving as OI partners and are recognized by tenants as access providers to external resources ands networks (T1, total 12 managers); 2) networking as facilitating activity of the in- side-out and outside-in OI strategies (T2, 13 managers); 3) tenants’ OI strategies and motivation Results and discussion Table 3 European BI trends in the national BI, interview results Trend code Business Incubation Trend through Open Innovation (OI) approach, label title RQ1: European BI trends in the national BI Numeric results (No of interviews, total 13) T1 Incubators as OI Partners 12 T2 Networking as inside-out and outside-in OI strategies 13 T3 Tenant OI competences, motivation, partners, difficulties 10 T4 Globalization and internationalization facilitated by OI strategies/ activities/ actors/ artifacts 7 T5 Sustainability and shared value creation promoted through OI 4 as well as variety of OI partners (experts, mentors, clients, companies, researchers, universities) promote the better incubation results in terms of ideas validated, products developed, compa- nies created and innovation implemented (T3, 10 managers). These results corresponds with the the main findings from literature review such as Grama-Vig- ouroux & Royer, 2020 and Carayannis et al., 2021 on OI partners; Vanhaberke, 2018 and Hausberg & Korreck, 2020 on networking; Du Chatenier, et al., 2010 and Bøllingtoft, 2012 on OI competenc- es and motivation. The results on the trend T4 Globalization and Internationalization facilitated by OI strategies/ activities/ actors/ artifacts (T4, 7 managers) and trend T5 Sustainability and shared value creation promoted through OI (T5, 4 managers) revealed the weak presence of these European trends in the national BI. This could be explained by the recent appearance of 119 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 2 / 1 6 RQ2: OI approach presence in the national BI trends Numeric results OI approach presence (No of interviews, total 13) OI outside-in (inbound) strategy 13 OI inside -out (outbound) strategy 11 Tenants’ OI competences 10 Tenants’ OI motivation 11 OI partners 12 OI difficulties, mainly, tenants do not recognize the OI approach 13 Table 4 OI approach presence in the national BI trends Source: Authors sustainability and SDGs related issues on the national entrepreneurship support system agenda after European Green Deal introduction in 2020 and a new EU funding planning period priorities of 2021 -2027 (EC, 2019). The Table 4 below demonstrates the results of interviews regarding the second research ques- tion. The majority (at least 10 of 13) incubator managers agreed that the OI outside-in approach as defined by OI researchers is dominant. This corresponds with Markovic et al., 2020 stating that in the current, highly competitive business environment, outside-in OI has become a popular phenomenon. Outside-in OI consists of purposefully bringing external knowledge (i.e., insights and ideas of external partners) into internal innovation processes (Vanhaverbeke et al., 2020). OI outside-in approach is mainly promoted through business consultancy and infrastructure ser- vice, whereas, inside-out approach is observed through networking services. The interviews prove that the OI approach is applied and utilized in BI but not fully recognized by tenants. Tenants mostly do not value the networking, co-creation and collaboration as the OI manifestation as all 13 managers stressed this as the main OI difficulty. Finally, analyzing the development trends of the business incubators in the context of open inno- vation from the literature review perspective, it can be seen that incubation functions, meaning and even the way incubators operate are changing. Although they are characterized by artifacts associated with open innovation, for instance, collaboration, societal involvement, user perspec- tive, co-creation, involvement of users and others, there are various designations and names used recently. The analysis highlights two major development trends in the evolution of business incubators in the context of the open innovation approach. One of the directions within this evolution is the traditional development and operational model, where incubators focus on the continuation of the provision of the pre-incubation, incubation and post-incubation services, just adapting the particular services according to actual needs of the tenants of business incubators. In such, the business incubator continues to play an important role within the innovation and start-up eco- systems. Such business incubators are mostly managed by e.g. national or regional business support agencies, also, financed or supervised by public bodies. The other pattern of the transformation of business incubators puts them outside of the tra- ditionally used operation models and responsibilities. In this development model of business incubators, the open innovation is accumulated not only between tenants but also actively used in the business incubator management. This model requires adaptation of the open innovation approach as an important part of the business incubator strategy, requiring wide collaboration with various stakeholders beyond the start-up ecosystem. In such a role business incubators E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 2 / 1 6 120 become the important actors of development of a particular city, region or rural communities. Business incubators are participating in the development of a given area. ess models. Business incubators facilitate the development initiatives to address various socio-economic challeng- es by stimulating the creation of new businesses in these areas. Within the collaboration with Types Main characteristics and services Authors Open Labs and community based “do it your-self” labs facilitate the development, testing, adoption of new technologies Services: laboratory equipment, order-ready materials, accessible scientific or professional knowledge or consultations Characterized with: the open cooperation beyond the boundaries of particular public, scientific and business organizations Associated with co-working spaces, sand box, hack labs Aiming at: improving collaboration, transdisciplinary knowledge sharing and social communication within the laboratory work in order to discover and create innovative solutions In Europe the major geographical locations: in United Kingdom, Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Austria and Spain Novelty: Stimulates public engagement within R&D, open science and technological development Sarpong et.al., 2020 You et.al., 2020 DIYbiosphere (n.d.) Do Nascimento et.al., 2014 Living Labs facilitate interaction between different stakeholders, customers and users in order to identify their needs and behaviors Services: co-creation at the early stage of the product, process, technological, organizational and other innovation Characterized with: social innovation space, collaborative platforms for sustainable and smart transition, physical or virtual collaborative ideation workshops Aiming at: interaction between different stakeholders and users for ideating, prototyping, validating and assessing complex solutions or products. In Europe the major geographical locations: mostly in western European countries in the southern, central and northern part of Europe. Less recognised within eastern european countries, but already have some signs of such initiatives. Novelty: the societal involvement, the user-centric participatory approach and OI. Exploiting quadruplex helix collaboration model Dell‘Era & Landoni, 2014 Edwards‐Schachter& Alcántara, 2012 Vallance et.al., 2020 Hasche et.al., 2020 Zavratnik et.al., 2019 ENoLL (n.d.) Hackathons eventual activities for fast idea generation, verification, prototyping and presentation Services: forming teams (also international) for the co- creation of business ideas, business models or business solutions. Characterized with: time limitations (usually non-stop 24h, 48h or other); intensive and well structured work to set-up teams, generate a number of new ideas or solutions, as well as stimulate their commercialisation. Hackathons are designed to offer financial or non-financial incentives in order to stimulate teams to innovate multiple new ideas or solutions. In Europe the major geographical locations: throughout Europe Novelty: Within the OI context civic engagement and cooperation between various stakeholders is an important issue, also known as entrepreneurial citizenship. Johnson& Robinson, 2014 Irani, 2015 Zukin & Papadantonakis, 2017 Table 5 The Open Innovation initiatives that could be adopted within business incubators Source: Authors 121 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 2 / 1 6 various stakeholders business incubators promote the co-creation of the shared value with the economic, social and environmental impact. These can be private or community lead business incubators or university business incubators. It can be observed that such factors as the legal status and ownership of the business incubator, financial sources (private or public) can influence the transformation of business incubators. The autonomy of the business incubator management to make decisions and lead changes, as well as dynamic capabilities of the business incubator managers may influence the ability to assume and adopt the open innovation approach. Further research should be carried out on the causal relationship between these factors men- tioned above and the ability to adopt open innovation strategies within the business incubation management. The analysis shows that the transformation of business incubators is inevitable towards more open collaboration within and beyond the boundaries of the business start-up ecosystem. The following table shows three types of initiatives that can already be used as a basis for further development of business incubators using the OI approach. The results of this study revealed that: » The main national trends dominant and present in Latvian business incubation are corre- sponding to the European trends, namely, 1) incubators are serving as OI partners and are recognized by tenants as access providers to external resources ands networks; 2) network- ing as facilitating activity of the inside-out and outside-in OI strategies; 3) tenants’ OI strate- gies and motivation as well as variety of OI partners (experts, mentors, clients, companies, researchers, universities) promote the better incubation results in terms of ideas validated, product developed, companies created and innovation implemented. The recommendation for BI managers and tenants is to promote practical OI activities in BI, such as involving customers directly in the innovation process, indirectly by using third parties to intercept cre- ativity and knowledge from the Internet; actively participating in other innovation projects. Tenants may be more aware of the OI‘s nature, as well as the benefits of co-creation and collaboration, as a result of the practical OI activities. » Networking as an inside-out and outside-in OI strategies tool is dominant in Latvian busi- ness incubation. The OI outside-in approach - purposefully bringing external knowledge into internal innovation processes, is particularly dominant in national business incubation. The recommendation for BI managers and tenants is to exploit also the inside-out strategy or knowledge sharing by tenants and teams with external partners, e.g., participation in others’ innovation projects and sharing or selling innovation invented inside team, which will not not be implemented due to some obstacles, like, lack of resources (time, finance, human capital). » The literature review highlights the new perspective of business incubators facilitating the development initiatives to address various socio-economic challenges by stimulating the creation of new businesses and business in these areas; in cooperation with various stake- holders business incubators promote the co-creation of the shared value with the economic, social and environmental impact. The recommendation for national BI policy makers is to support the Open Labs and community based “do it-your-self” labs in order to facilitate the development, testing, and adoption of new technologies. The results of the present research are supporting the latest theoretical findings regarding the trends in business incubation through OI approach. It is also notable that two trends - Globali- zation and Internationalization facilitated by OI strategies/ activities/ actors/ artifacts, and Sus- Conclusions and recommendations E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 2 / 1 6 122 Bank, N., Fichter, K., & Klofsten, M. (2017). Sustain- ability-profiled incubators and securing the inflow of tenants-The case of Green Garage Berlin. Jour- nal of Cleaner Production, 157, 76-83. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.123 Barile, S., Grimaldi, M., Loia, F., & Sirianni, C. A. (2020). Technology, value Co-Creation and innovation in ser- vice ecosystems: Toward sustainable Co-Innovation. Sustainability, 12(7), 2759. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12072759 Bøllingtoft, A. (2012). The bottom-up business incu- bator: Leverage to networking and cooperation prac- tices in a self-generated, entrepreneurial-enabled en- vironment. Technovation, 32(5), 304-315. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.11.005 Carayannis, E. G., Campbell, D. F., & Grigoroudis, E. (2021). Helix trilogy: The triple, quadruple, and quintu- ple innovation helices from a theory, policy, and prac- tice set of perspectives. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132- 021-00813-x Chesbrough, H. (2003). The logic of open inno- vation: managing intellectual property. Califor- nia management review, 45(3), 33-58. https://doi. org/10.1177/000812560304500301 Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). The era of open innovation. Managing innovation and change, 127(3), 34-41 Chesbrough, H., Lettl, C., & Ritter, T. (2018). Value cre- ation and value capture in open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(6), 930-938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12471 Cirule, I., Maria Grama, S. A., Ludviga, I., & Kreituss, I. (2017). Open Innovation Strategies and Business In- cubation Service Impact on the Success of Incubation. In Economic Science for Rural Development Confer- ence Proceedings, No. 44, p36-43. 8p. Clausen, T., & Rasmussen, E. (2011). Open innovation policy through intermediaries: the industry incubator programme in Norway. Technology Analysis & Stra- tegic Management, 23(1), 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1 080/09537325.2011.537109 Dell‘Era, C., & Landoni, P. (2014). Living Lab: A meth- odology between user‐centred design and participa- tory design. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(2), 137-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12061 De Silva, M., & Wright, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial co‐creation: societal impact through open innova- tion. R&D Management, 49(3), 318-342. https://doi. org/10.1111/radm.12362 DIYbiosphere (n.d.). DIYbiosphere initiatives browse by location. Retrieved May 16, 2022, from https://sphere. diybio.org Do Nascimento S., F., Angela, M. & Alessia, G. (2014). From Citizen Science to Do It Yourself Science An annotated account of an on-going movement, Pub- lications Office of the European Union. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from https://policycommons.net/arti- facts/2162933/from-citizen-science-to-do-it-your- self-science-an-annotated-account-of-an-on-go- ing-movement/2918591 Du Chatenier, E., Verstegen, J. A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Omta, O. S. F. (2010). Identification of competencies for professionals in open innovation teams. R&d Management, 40(3), 271-280. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00590.x Edwards‐Schachter, M. E., Matti, C. E., & Alcántara, E. (2012). Fostering quality of life through social in- novation: A living lab methodology study case. Re- References tainability and shared value creation, revealed the weak presence of these European trends in the national BI. The authors are aware of this study having a geographical limitation - the research was con- ducted nationally in Latvia business incubators by interviewing only top managers (Heads of incubator) as the main interview expert selection criteria, even though authors have reached the valid sample size (91%), the certain number of incubators on the national scale and limited number of top managers are reality in Latvia. The enlarged and diversified sample of incubator management representatives from the duty perspective, e.g., mentors, business coaches, ex- ternal experts, may create new findings in the future research. Authors hope that this empirical research in Latvia business incubators would contribute to the current international business incubation research scene focusing on the Open Innovation approach. Acknowledgements This research was conducted within the project “Open Innovation, No1.1.1.2/VIAA/3/19/426” funded by the Postdoctoral Research Support Aid programme of Latvia. 123 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 2 / 1 6 view of policy research, 29(6), 672-692. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2012.00588.x ENoLL (n.d.). European Network of Living Labs - Discover Living Labs. Retrieved May 17, 2022, from https://enoll.org/network/living-labs/ EC (European Commission). (2019). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Com- mittee and the Committee of the Regions. The Euro- pean Green Deal. Brussels, 11.12.2019 Fukugawa, N. (2013). Which factors do affect success of business incubators. Journal of Advanced Manage- ment Science, 1(1), 71-74. https://doi.org/10.12720/ joams.1.1.71-74 Fichter, K., & Hurrelmann, K. (2021). Sustainabili- ty-oriented business incubation: framing and sup- porting sustainable entrepreneurship. In Handbook of Research on Business and Technology Incubation and Acceleration (pp. 478-495). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788974783.00038 Gao, Q., Cui, L., Lew, Y. K., Li, Z., & Khan, Z. (2021). Business incubators as international knowledge intermediaries: Exploring their role in the interna- tionalization of start-ups from an emerging market. Journal of International Management, 27(4), 100861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2021.100861 Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy-A new sustainabili- ty paradigm?. Journal of cleaner production, 143, 757- 768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048 Giudici, A., Reinmoeller, P., & Ravasi, D. (2018). Open-system orchestration as a relational source of sensing capabilities: Evidence from a venture associ- ation. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1369- 1402. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0573 Grama-Vigouroux, S., & Royer, I. (2020). Impact of stakeholders and collaborative innovation on value creation of incubated start-ups: The case of Roma- nian business incubators. Innovations, 62(2), 129-160. https://doi.org/10.3917/inno.062.0129 Grama, S., & Royer, I. (2013). Competencies for open innovation for entrepreneurs in technological incu- bators: an empirical test in Romania. Revue de lEn- trepreneuriat, 12(3), 33-58. https://doi.org/10.3917/ entre.123.0033 Gassmann, O. & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a Theory of Open Innovation: Three Core Process Archetypes. R&D Management Conference (RADMA), Lisbon. Halkos, G., & Gkampoura, E. C. (2021). Where do we stand on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals? An overview on progress. Economic Analy- sis and Policy, 70, 94-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eap.2021.02.001 Hasche, N., Höglund, L., & Linton, G. (2020). Quadru- ple helix as a network of relationships: creating value within a Swedish regional innovation system. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 32(6), 523- 544. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2019.1643134 Hausberg, J. P., & Korreck, S. (2021). Business incu- bators and accelerators: a co-citation analysis-based, systematic literature review. Handbook of Research on Business and Technology Incubation and Acceleration, 39-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9651-y Hull, C. E., Millette, S., & Williams, E. (2021). Challeng- es and opportunities in building circular-economy incubators: Stakeholder perspectives in Trinidad and Tobago. Journal of Cleaner Production, 296, 126412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126412 Irani, L. (2015). Hackathons and the making of entrepreneurial citizenship. Science, Technolo- gy, & Human Values, 40(5), 799-824. https://doi. org/10.1177/0162243915578486 Klofsten, M., & Bienkowska, D. (2021). Busi- ness incubators within entrepreneurial ecosys- tems: sustainability aspects of new venture sup- port and development. In Handbook of Research on Business and Technology Incubation and Ac- celeration. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi. org/10.4337/9781788974783.00015 Klofsten, M., Lundmark, E., Wennberg, K., & Bank, N. (2020). Incubator specialization and size: Divergent paths towards operational scale. Technological Fore- casting and Social Change, 151, 119821. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119821 Lapointe, D. and Guimont, D. (2015), „Open innova- tion practices adopted by private stakeholders: per- spectives for living labs“, Info, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/info-01-2015-0003 Markovic, S., Bagherzadeh, M., Dubiel, A., Cheng, J., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2020). Do not miss the Boat to Out- side-in Open Innovation: Enable Your Employees. In- dustrial Marketing Management, No 91, pp. 152-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.09.003 Mian, S., Lamine, W., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Technol- ogy Business Incubation: An overview of the state of knowledge. Technovation, 50, 1-12. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.005 Musteen, M., Datta, D. K., & Francis, J. (2014). Early internationalization by firms in transition economies into developed markets: The role of international net- works. Global Strategy Journal, 4(3), 221-237. https:// doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1077 Johnson, P., & Robinson, P. (2014). Civic hackathons: Innovation, procurement, or civic engagement?. Re- view of policy research, 31(4), 349-357. https://doi. org/10.1111/ropr.12074 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 2 / 1 6 124 Ngongoni C.N. & Grobbelaar S. S. S. (2017), Value co-creation in entrepreneurial ecosystems: Learn- ings from a Norwegian perspective, IEEE AFRICON, 2017, pp. 707-713, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/AFR- CON.2017.8095569 Porter, M. E. (2021). The Changing Role of Business in Society. Retrieved May 15, 2022, from https://www. hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/20210716%20 B u s i n e s s % 2 0 i n % 2 0 S o c i e t y % 2 0 P a p e r % 2 0 For%20Website_84139c25-9147-4137-9ae9- 28e27e1710a1.pdf Sarpong, D., Ofosu, G., Botchie, D., & Clear, F. (2020). Do-it-yourself (DiY) science: the proliferation, rele- vance and concerns. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 158, 120127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2020.120127 Theodoraki, C., Messeghem, K., & Rice, M. P. (2018). A social capital approach to the development of sus- tainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: an explorative study. Small Business Economics, 51(1), 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9924-0 Tsai, F. S., Hsieh, L. H., Fang, S. C., & Lin, J. L. (2009). The co-evolution of business incubation and national innovation systems in Taiwan. Technological Fore- casting and Social Change, 76(5), 629-643. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.08.009 UN (2021). The Sustainable Development Goals Re- port 2021. New York: United Nations. Retrieved May 9, 2022, from https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2021/ Uvarova, I., Platonova, I., Rascevska, Z., Volkova, T., & Atstaja, D. (2021, June). The value co-creation in cir- cular business models: Quadruplex Helix perspective. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on New Business Models: New Business Models in a Decade of Action: Sustainable, Evidence-Based, Im- pactful, Halmstad, Sweden (pp. 9-11). Vallance, P., Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Kempton, L. (2020). Building collaborative platforms for urban innovation: Newcastle City Futures as a quadruple helix intermedi- ary. European Urban and Regional Studies, 27(4), 325- 341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776420905630 Vanhaverbeke, W., Frattini, F., Roijakkers, N., & Usman, M. (Eds.). (2018). Researching open in- novation in SMEs. World Scientific. https://doi. org/10.1142/10733 You, W., Chen, W., Agyapong, M., & Mordi, C. (2020). The business model of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) laborato- ries-A triple-layered perspective. Technological Fore- casting and Social Change, 159, 120205. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120205 Zavratnik, V., Superina, A., & Stojmenova Duh, E. (2019). Living labs for rural areas: Contextualization of living lab frameworks, concepts and practices. Sustainability, 11(14), 3797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143797 Zukin, S. and Papadantonakis, M. (2017), „Hack- athons as Co-optation Ritual: Socializing Workers and Institutionalizing Innovation in the „New“ Economy“, Kalleberg, A.L. and Vallas, S.P.(Ed.) Precarious Work, Research in the Sociology of Work, Vol. 31, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 157-181. https://doi. org/10.1108/S0277-283320170000031005 Zykienė, I., Laučienė, R., Daugėlienė, R., & Le- skauskienė, A. (2021). Strengthening Lithuanian-Lat- vian cross-border cooperation in the context of in- ternational trade. European integration studies, (15), 138-159. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.1.15.29062 About the authors This article is an Open Access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). IVETA CIRULE Dr. sc. administr. BIORGANIK5 Ltd Fields of interests Open Innovation, Business Incubation, Innovation ecosystem, Entrepreneurial competences Address Veca Bikernieku 9-16, Riga, LV-1079, Latvia, +37129189748 biorganik3@gmail.com INGA UVAROVA PhD Candidate ArtSmart Ltd., Management Department, BA School of Business and Finance, Latvia Fields of interests Sustainable business models, Business model Innovations, Start-up support ecosystem, Quadruplex helix Address Stepini, Aizkraukles pag., Aizkraukles nov., LV-5101 +371 26434730 inga.uvarova@ba.lv GINTA CAUNE RISEBA University Fields of interests Open Innovation, Business Incu- bation, Social Capital Address Meza street 3, Riga, LV-1048, Latvia +37126068307 ginta.lejina@inbox.lv