Skip to content

Building Inclusive Innovation Systems workshop – post-event summary

October 21, 2024

Event
Innovation
People
Research

Earlier this month, we co-hosted a workshop with The Enterprise Research Centre and Centre for Innovation Management looking at how the innovation ecosystem could be made more inclusive for underserved communities and the different roles of stakeholders within this.

There were various presentations throughout the event. Below you’ll find a summary of each presentation that took place.

Professor Stephen Roper – Inclusive innovation: An example of meta-innovation?

Meta-innovation is ‘innovation in innovation’. In other words changes in the way innovation is undertaken due to new technologies, ways of organising innovation or new innovation objectives. Inclusive innovation requires a significant change in innovation objectives to broaden the groups involved in shaping and setting the agendas for innovation projects. This in turn involves changes in the way (inclusive) innovation is undertaken. As such inclusive innovation is an example of other situations where a change in innovation objectives leads to changes in innovation practice. Understanding inclusive innovation may therefore offer broader insights when other innovation objectives change such as in responsible or green innovation.

Dr Jane Bourke – Inclusivity and Innovation

Employers are increasingly expected to create inclusive, diverse and psychologically safe workplaces. Here, we consider to what extent adopting socially desirable measures in the workplace can contribute to economically desirable outcomes such as innovation. We explore the innovation benefits of three measures of workforce diversity – gender, ethnicity, and disability – and the adoption of nineteen workplace wellbeing practices ranging from preventative practice, focused on reducing or better managing work stressors through job design and management; and employee-focused practices focused on bolstering resilience and coping strategies, to treatment-focused practices which are remedial and curative practices to address specific conditions.

Using 2022 & 2023 employer survey data from the UK, Ireland and Sweden, our analysis is based on probit regressions and treatment modelling, allowing for sample selection. Reflecting conceptual uncertainties, we find evidence of varying innovation benefits from workforce diversity, perhaps stemming from organisational, cultural and institutional differences. There are clear and consistent innovation benefits associated with the adoption of well-being practices.

Overall, supporting inclusivity in the workplace is associated with a strong economic benefit, linking two otherwise separate policy agendas and suggesting a range of actionable insights for employers.

Professor Muthu De Silva – Co-creation and Missions

Muthu highlighted the connection between mission-oriented policies and co-creation, which involves ecosystem actors combining their resources, knowledge, and networks to tackle challenges or seize opportunities beyond their organizational limits. She emphasized that co-creation varies across different phases of the innovation process—Research, Development, and Transformation. Additionally, Muthu stressed the importance of co-creating among different projects at the transformation stage, as the success of individual projects does not automatically translate to mission success.

Professor Helen Lawton-Smith and Jacqueline Winstanley – Inclusive Innovation 

Building on the Road to Wonder Report and their presentation at The 695th Lord Mayor’s Lecture Series ‘Disabled Entrepreneurs In London: Are They Getting A Fair Deal?’ Helen and Jacqueline’s session discussed the challenges and opportunities for innovative disabled entrepreneurs. Helen and Jacqueline continue to change the narrative and highlight the need for a paradigm shift from viewing disabled people as welfare burdens to leaders in the creation of innovation and enterprise.

Post Presentation Discussion 

Following the presentations, attendees had a discussion around the questions: “what was the most intriguing thing you heard?” and “was there something that wasn’t said or something missing?”

The conversation highlighted key themes around inclusivity, innovation, and support systems, particularly for disabled individuals and marginalized communities. Participants noted the similarities between various research efforts, emphasising the potential of mixed methods research to amplify unheard voices. There was significant interest in the role of education, training systems, and business schools in fostering inclusive innovation. However, a major challenge identified was the tension between meeting business objectives and supporting inclusivity, with managers often lacking the resources to balance both. 

The group also discussed the varying definitions of inclusivity, stressing the need to bridge the gap between micro-level initiatives and macro-level transformation. While frameworks and initiatives like social value frameworks and campaigns to support disability inclusion exist, they are not always effectively adopted. Regional opportunities were highlighted as potential testing grounds for inclusive innovation strategies, especially through local authorities and regional action plans. Additionally, the role of the public sector, leadership, and fostering psychological safety in creating collaborative and inclusive innovation environments was deemed critical. A key gap identified was the absence of clear pathways for implementing inclusive practices, as many people and organisations lack guidance on how to operationalise inclusivity frameworks effectively. 

Overall, the event provided an opportunity to share ideas and identify research synergies and potential future collaborations.

Share via