Since the introduction of concepts such as the Triple Helix and the Entrepreneurial University, we have witnessed a radical shift in the perception of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as mere knowledge producers and providers towards becoming catalysts for social, economic, technological and environmental development. The way forward for HEIs to become essential actors in driving innovation and sustainable transformation within regional, national and international ecosystems requires pathways open to influences and exchanges both within and between institutions, especially in their entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems. Accordingly, HEIs need to take on a new role – one in which they learn how to collaborate in the navigation of these pathways.
This special issue is interested in a new ‘social contract’ for HEIs. Thomas Hobbes’ idea of the social contract between citizens and the state became an influential part of political theory a long time ago. Although Hobbes did not explicitly have in mind HEIs, when he wrote about the political fabric of the 17th century, one should not neglect the impact of the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment and the academic institutions and discourses on his thinking. His approach to political theory, governance and civil society implied from the very beginning the dynamics of transformation in the society, which should be reflected in the changes of a social contract among different segments and actors of a society, which we now call the triple, quadruple of quintuple helix. Without making anachronistic claims, we argue that the continuous changes in these interactions are reflected also in the ongoing questioning of the efficacy of social contracts between HEIs and society (for example, Vavakova, 1998; Lubchenco, 1998; Gibbons, 1999; Martin, 2003; Neave, 2006; Maassen, 2014; UNESCO, 2016). The expansion of the “entrepreneurial university” to the “sustainable-entrepreneurial university” (Cai & Ahmad, 2021) calls for a transition of HEIs using more a systems approach in dealing with the challenges of the 21st century by achieving well-being of the people and the well-being of the planet, as stipulated by the global consensus on the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals.
In this sense, inquiring into a new social contract is also fundamentally connected to questions of relevance and responsibility of HEIs (Godonoga & Sporn, 2022; Hoffman, 2016; Hoffman 2021). While Hobbes famously argued for a social contract where citizens abandon part of their freedom to guarantee the peaceful cohabitation, similar questions might be raised about the freedom and accountability of HEIs: What implications does a new social contract for HEIs have for the freedom of research and education? What strategies and pathways does HEI management and staff need to consider under a new socio-ecological contract? How are such multilateral interactions of HEIs with multiple stakeholders in society introduced, implemented and scaled? With our special issue, we not only want to provide some answers to these questions, but raise such questions for reflection, research and negotiation in the first place.
1 State of Art
This special issue aims to contribute to the ongoing debate on the future of education, research and transfer, by arguing that “without strong, autonomous, credible and innovative higher education, it will be impossible to build the social contract of education” (UNESCO, 2021: 156). This means that universities cannot be conceived anymore as merely educational institutions: they are increasingly becoming central players in the innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems, contributing to regional economic and social development through research, education and technology transfer (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017). Nevertheless, the role they might play in this context needs to be further investigated.
To do so, there is a need to define what an innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem is. This can be done from a co-evolutionary, ecological and spatial perspective by referring to it as an interdependent innovation-driven open and complex system of relationships which contributes to the activation and enhancement of innovations, technologies and human capital addressing contextual economic and social interests. The result is knowledge production, wealth creation, and norm control, which might also generate shared values for the sustainable transformation of society (Dubina et al., 2017; Cai et al., 2020). In the presented concepts stands the progressively resilient orientation of the role played by the university and their third mission: it adapts to the needs and concerns of society and provides thinking, leadership and activity to enhance the entrepreneurship capital (Audretsch, 2014). This is in line with the Triple and Quadruple Helix models (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000; Carayannis & Campbell, 2009) and with a sustainable entrepreneurial university approach, where it actively commits and engage for societal transformation (Cai & Ahmad, 2021).
The role of universities within entrepreneurial ecosystems is multifaceted. They can promote innovative thinking within organisations and be entrepreneurial themselves, by becoming a source of novel ideas and producing opportunities, and innovative solutions within the academic context, namely, by becoming intrapreneurship (Audretsch et al., 2021; Flores et al., 2024; Guerrero et al., 2021). In this sense, to do so they are frequently motivated by their ‘third mission’ aspirations and their interest in serving society and engaging with the private sector and the wider community in research and teaching (Clauss et al., 2019).
As for the latter, universities can promote responsible and sustainable entrepreneurship education, by experimenting with new teaching models, pedagogies and approaches driving educators and students to widen their thinking and address compelling societal challenges and transforming the university as a whole (Cai & Ahmad, 2021; Flores et al. 2024). By promoting structured entrepreneurship programs, they enhance students’ knowledge and skills and positively influence their attitudes toward entrepreneurship, by supporting responsible business creation (Fayolle & Gailly, 2015; Giordano Martínez et al., 2018). Such approaches entail ecosystem engagement, knowledge exchange, co-creation and a network of shared resources (Pocol et al., 2022; Warhuus et al., 2017). In this context, educators move away from their traditional “knowledge transmission” role and progressively engage in the community, by becoming coaches and mentors for the students (Rubens et al., 2017) but also change agents (Priestly et al., 2013, 2015).
Finally, they can act as network agents, by fostering regional economic development and facilitating the formation of innovation clusters and collaborative opportunities to attract and connect high-tech industries in the local systems of knowledge and expertise. This can be done by also creating bridges with the related broader national and international circuits (Atterton & Thompson, 2010; EC 2022).
These diverse roles reflect the imperative for new ways to consider the social contract of education, where universities serve as pivotal agents of innovation, sustainability, and societal transformation, addressing global challenges through collaboration and engagement at the regional, national, international and transnational levels.
2 Background to the Special Issue
This Special Issue (SI) is a collaboration between the Triple Helix – A Journal of University-Industry-Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship and the Start for Future (SFF) Alliance. SFF is the fastest growing international university-ecosystem to shape responsible entrepreneurship and systemic innovation in Europe and beyond. Starting out as a collection of different EU-funded projects in 2018, by 2024, SFF had evolved into a thriving community of more than 30 HEIs, incubators and innovation ecosystems. SFF represents a systemic initiative in Europe, since it combines entrepreneurship education, start-up creation and organizational development in a holistic, yet open manner.
In this SI we aim to bring together state-of-the-art research that delves into the multifaceted dimensions of HEIs’ new role in European innovation ecosystems. By focussing on the role of HEIs within the knowledge triangle, we provide empirical evidence for the transition towards a “sustainable entrepreneurial university” (Cai & Ahmad, 2021) from the perspective of HEIs. Furthermore, by opening up a space for scholarly discussion to provide further evidence of university-led societal transformation, readers are presented with different perspectives on how to implement transformative processes within their institutions. From examining university-industry collaborations and entrepreneurial ecosystems to investigating the societal impact of academic research and education, our SI contributions offer valuable insights into the transformative power of universities in shaping our collective future. Against a backdrop of criticism and mistrust of public institutions, our SI also reinvigorates HEIs as essential powerplants for transformation within European society. Accordingly, we offer content in line with the approach defined in the Partnerships for Regional Innovation (PRI) where universities have a unique position at the crossroads of education, research, and innovation, serving both society and the economy. This position is achieved through knowledge transfer and sharing in their innovation ecosystems, by localising SDG-related challenges and embedding them in Smart Specialisation Strategies (Pontikakis et al., 2022).
3 Special Issue Process and Overview of Selected Papers and Emerging Themes
Accordingly, the guest editors set out to address a range of issues relevant to the theme of the new social contract for HEIs and their role in European innovation ecosystems. We invited both conceptual and empirical research papers that could contribute to advancing knowledge about how this new social contract might be operationalised and how HEIs can effectively engage with their regional innovation ecosystem. In 2023, we issued a call for papers and circulated it widely throughout our consortium and our associated networks. In response to the call for papers, we received a total of 16 papers and, following a rigorous double blind review process, we selected 8 for inclusion in the special issue. After a two-step review process, the special issue now contains 6 original articles.
Two themes and levels of analysis can be discerned in the articles of this special issue. The first three articles focus on a metaperspective of the role of HEIs in European innovation ecosystems and inquire into how different HEIs may shape these ecosystems.
The contribution by Jeanette Engzell, Magnus Klofsten and Erik Lundmark is titled “Academic intrapreneurship beyond commercialisation: exploring the establishment of a research centre as an intrapreneurial venture”. By challenging the assumption that academic intrapreneurship is solely commercially driven, the study focuses on the collaboration processes related to the establishment of research centres in universities as an act of academic intrapreneurship and an instance of organisation creation. Indeed, research centres represent pivotal infrastructures that foster innovation, knowledge creation, and interdisciplinary collaboration. The authors claim that these provide a structured environment for researchers to explore new ideas, conduct in-depth studies, and collaborate across disciplines and with several types of stakeholders, beyond the Triple Helix (TH) model.
Therefore, through a qualitative case study, this article aims to unravel the intricacies of research centre creation within the academic setting by viewing it through the lens of intrapreneurial activity and by specifically exploring the case of a university research centre – The Helix Research Centre (HRC). Founded in Linköping University in Sweden in 2006, the HRC is here investigated as an example of academic intrapreneurship, based on the “penta-helix model” of collaboration. By using qualitative primary and secondary data sources, including autoethnographic reflection and the results from a 15-year-long VINNOVA-initiated assessment, the study describes the HRC centre’s idea and vision, the stakeholders involved, partnerships and collaborations, financial and organisational structure, providing an overview of it as an intrapreneurial hub fostering societal transformation. In line with this special issue theme, results show the role of intrapreneurial research centres in cultivating intrapreneurial behaviours and fostering organisational change. To achieve these goals, they require balanced financial resources allocation, clear value propositions and role clarity, strategic collaboration and effective communication with diverse stakeholders to enhance knowledge exchange, innovation and societal impact.
The article, ‘Boosting regional innovation through co-creation for sustainable entrepreneurship: stakeholders’ perspectives on the Start for Future Initiative’, by Sabrina Tomasi, Omar García Urdiales, Martin Arias Fornara, Michael Flad, Raiza da Rocha Oliveira Teixeira, Kåre Moberg, Colette Henry, Marlene Klotz, and Alessio Cavicchi, sets out to explore the practical implications of stakeholder engagement around Start For Future for regional development and innovation at a pan-European level. The authors take the position that collaboration in regional ecosystems goes beyond the classically understood creation of scientific knowledge and refer to the fourth mission of universities (to be entrepreneurial). In line with the position presented, the authors formulate a research question to identify the characteristics of stakeholders included in Start for Future and to understand how their participation in the SFF initiative contributes to regional development and innovation. The article uses a case study as its research method, which allows for a detailed analysis of the complexity of the SFF initiative and explores the role of an international alliance of innovation ecosystems involving Quadruple Helix actors in the development of entrepreneurship and innovation on a European scale. The study shows that SFF has great potential in developing entrepreneurial human capital, acting innovatively and sustainably, through transnational, cross-sectoral, and interdisciplinary cooperation between the SFF partners. In so doing, the article adds to the research of the of the sustainable entrepreneurial university and provides evidence of creating an ecosystem of sustainable entrepreneurial universities with a transnational perspective.
In the paper “Reimagining entrepreneurial ecosystems through novel university-driven collaborative formats” authors Pavlina Vujovic and Stratos Baloutsos are arguing that stages in a life cycle of developing an entrepreneurial ecosystem matter. Literature review revealed that stages are either ignored or research interest is mostly on mature phase. For empirical test how to implement holistic approach and Activity Theory in the process of developing effective and efficient inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystems, the authors used a cross-European initiative, the Start for Future Ecosystem, initially financially supported by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), where 25 Higher Education Institutions and 20 incubators collaborate. Through the conducted interviews and using the linguistic cues, the authors were able to identify the congruences that mitigate contradictions in the early stage of developing a HEI driven entrepreneurship ecosystem, based on the collaboration of its actors. These findings contribute to conceptualizing of entrepreneurial ecosystem in a broader Triple Helix concept of collaboration.
The second set of articles are focused on different ways of implementing a new social contract of HEIs in the field of education- These articles inquired into the multifaceted ways of how entrepreneurship education enables the interactions between HEIs and their regional innovation ecosystems.
Michael Breum Ramsgaard’s article “Bridging the disconnect between entrepreneurial university and entrepreneurship education literature – a call to reposition both concepts” investigates two communities of practice that have so far not been researched in combination: the entrepreneurial university and entrepreneurship education theory. Through an integrative literature review, Ramsgaard combines both literature streams and investigates how the two concepts, which philosophically and epistemologically speak to each other, can be combined. The article repositions the entrepreneurial university as an ‘emergent pedagogical space’ with educational theories informing the institutional theory of the entrepreneurial university. While the entrepreneurial university has, in the early phase, focused more on transfer of research in the context of triple helix interactions, the article focuses more on the educational dimensions of entrepreneurship within the development of entrepreneurial universities from the bottom up, starting with entrepreneurship educators. Repositioning the entrepreneurial university not in institutional theoretical settings, but in pedagogical and didactical frameworks does explicitly not form a ‘new social contract of HEIs’ but rather brings HEIs back to their core business: education.
The article “Entrepreneurial capital creation in Higher Education institutions: the case of the Start For Future program” by Jaume Teodoro and Ester Bernadó investigates the impact of entrepreneurship education on developing entrepreneurial capital. Grounding their study in the theory of planned behaviour, the authors draw on empirical data collected from 250 university students in Barcelona, Spain, to explore changes in their entrepreneurial intention following their participation in an entrepreneurship course linked to the EU-funded Start for Future program. The authors analyse gender differences and consider the evolution of entrepreneurial traits amongst the sample groups. Findings show that perceived behavioral control and attitudes towards entrepreneurship positively influence entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurial traits – such as alertness, innovation, resourcefulness, and extroversion – are also shown to positively influence entrepreneurial intention. Importantly, the findings highlight a gap in entrepreneurial intention between male and female students which was widened post program completion, with male students showing greater improvements in attitudes, competencies, and enabling entrepreneurial traits than their female counterparts. The study underscores the need for future research on entrepreneurship education programs to develop more inclusive strategies that address the unique barriers women face in engaging in entrepreneurship. This paper contributes to understanding how HEIs can operationalise their social contract by embedding entrepreneurship education into innovation ecosystems, supporting both local and international efforts to address sustainability and development challenges.
The article entitled “Creating novel, responsible, and impactful entrepreneurship education models” – authored by Colette Henry, Ester Bernadó Mansilla, Slavica Singer, Barbara Gabriel, Robertt Valente, Kåre Moberg, Sabrina Tomasi, Sebastian Planck, and Klaus Sailer – addresses the question of how universities can create novel, responsible, and impactful entrepreneurship education models. Applying a qualitative case approach comprising documentary analysis, score grids, and questionnaires, the authors analyze the EU-funded Start for Future alliance, an entrepreneurship and innovation mega-ecosystem that brings universities together to deliver entrepreneurship education in SDG-related domains. They critically explore the potential of the novel SFF entrepreneurship education model for universities to fulfil a new entrepreneurial change-maker role and demonstrate how such a model can help pave the way toward more transformative, responsible and impactful entrepreneurship education. The article makes three primary contributions relevant to the entrepreneurship literature and practice. Firstly, the article raises awareness for the new and critical role universities play as entrepreneurial change-makers, driving social, economic, and technological transformation. Secondly, they augment the growing body of academic work on entrepreneurship education, specifically illuminating the responsibility dimension in driving impactful entrepreneurship. Finally, they we draw attention to a novel, playful yet highly impactful entrepreneurship education model – Start for Future. This model builds on the principles of responsible entrepreneurship, reciprocity, mutual and intercultural learning, international co-creation and experimentation, and challenges how entrepreneurship educators are recognized and rewarded for their entrepreneurial efforts by prioritizing their contribution to responsible entrepreneurial practice over theory. In consequence, the article reinforces the acceptance and relevance of entrepreneurship education and could encourage students and educators to use their skills and resources to tackle some of society’s major challenges.
4 Reflections and a Future Research Agenda
The papers in this special issue have explored a wide variety of novel, important and relatively under-researched themes relating to HEIs’ third mission and their ‘new social contract.’ These include academic intrapreneurship and the value of research centres, creating impactful responsible entrepreneurship education programs, developing entrepreneurial capital creation through education for entrepreneurial competences, enhancing entrepreneurial ecosystems through university-driven collaborations, co-creation for sustainable entrepreneurship and bridging practical and theoretical disconnects between academia, research and developmental issues. Collectively, these themes and the findings from their respective investigations highlight significant gaps in our knowledge and signpost scholars toward an eclectic yet ambitious future research agenda.
Future research should delve into the operationalization of the new social contract for HEIs by addressing several emerging trends. First, studies should examine collaboration among actors within the Quintuple Helix, exploring how universities, industry, government, civil society, and the natural environment interact to foster innovation and societal transformation. A critical focus should also be on developing robust metrics to measure the synergies of these interactions, providing evidence-based frameworks for assessing their impact on regional and global innovation ecosystems. Additionally, the changing ways of learning require attention, particularly the integration of experiential learning models, the role of AI in enhancing personalized and adaptive education, and their implications for fostering entrepreneurial and systems-thinking competencies. Research should also investigate the policy implications of these shifts, analyzing how governments and institutions can co-design strategies to embed HEIs more effectively in sustainable development agendas and international innovation ecosystems. Finally, institutional transformations within HEIs need to be explored, particularly the evolving roles of management, researchers, and educators in aligning governance structures, research priorities, and teaching practices with the demands of a rapidly changing socio-ecological and economic landscape. By addressing these trends, scholars can provide actionable insights to guide HEIs in reshaping their contributions to innovation ecosystems particularly for planetary and societal well-being.
5 Concluding Remarks
Economists and political scientists have tended to argue that Thomas Hobbes’ social contract and state of nature is fundamentally based on a negative view of humanity (Johnson, 1979). In order to avoid that humans become ‘wolves among wolves’ in a hypothetical statue of nature, the social contract guarantees that power is distributed within a political society. In this special issue, we investigate a ‘new social contract’ for Higher Education Institutions, which, like entrepreneurship, has a positive and agentive view of humans and the institutions in which they work and their capability to affect change in the world. This special issue highlights critical advancements and emerging opportunities within the role of HEIs in European Innovation Ecosystems, providing a platform for dialogue and innovation. We urge stakeholders to leverage these insights to drive transformative action and foster interdisciplinary collaboration.
Acknowledgements
We extend our sincere thanks to the editorial team of the Triple Helix for their guidance and dedication throughout the publication process. Special recognition is due to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive feedback, which significantly enhanced the quality of this special issue. Lastly, we express our appreciation to all contributors for their valuable input and commitment, which have been instrumental in shaping this collection of high-quality scientific work.
References
Atterton, J., & Thompson, N. (2010). University engagement in rural development: a case study of the Northern Rural Network. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 5(3), 123–132.
Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 313–321.
Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., Menter, M., & Wirsching, K. (2021). Intrapreneurship and absorptive capacities: The dynamic effect of labor mobility. Technovation, 99, 102129.
Cai, Y., & Ahmad, I. (2021). From an Entrepreneurial University to a Sustainable Entrepreneurial University: Conceptualization and Evidence in the Contexts of European University Reforms. Higher Education Policy 36, 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-021-00243-z.
Cai, Y., Ma, J., & Chen, Q. (2020). Higher education in innovation ecosystems. Sustainability, 12(11), 4376.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). ‘Mode 3’and’Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International journal of technology management, 46(3–4), 201–234.
Clauss, T., Kesting, T., & Naskrent, J. (2019). A rolling stone gathers no moss: the effect of customers’ perceived business model innovativeness on customer value co‐creation behavior and customer satisfaction in the service sector. R&D Management, 49(2), 180–203.
Dubina, I. N., Campbell, D. F., Carayannis, E. G., Chub, A. A., Grigoroudis, E., & Kozhevina, O. V. (2017). The balanced development of the spatial innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem based on principles of the systems compromise: a conceptual framework. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 8, 438–455.
EC 2022. European Commission (2022). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European Strategy for Universities. COM (2022) 16 final. Strasbourg, 18.1.2022. Accessible at: https://education.ec.europa.eu/document/commission-communication-on-a-european-strategy-for-universities (last retrieved: 27.06.2024).
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4.
Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2017). The Triple Helix: University – Industry – Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12065.
Flores, M. C., Grimaldi, R., Poli, S., & Villani, E. (2024). Entrepreneurial universities and intrapreneurship: A process model on the emergence of an intrapreneurial university. Technovation, 129, 102906.
Gibbons M. Science’s new social contract with society. Nature. 1999 Dec 2; 402(6761 Suppl):C81–4. doi: 10.1038/35011576. PMID: 10591229.
Giordano Martínez, K. R., Fernández-Laviada, A., & Herrero Crespo, Á. (2018). Influence of Business Incubators Performance on Entrepreneurial Intentions and Its Antecedents during the Pre-incubation Stage. 8(2). https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/erj-2016-0095.
Godonoga, A., & Sporn, B. (2022). The conceptualisation of socially responsible universities in higher education research: a systematic literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 48(3), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2145462.
Guerrero, M., Heaton, S., & Urbano, D. (2021). Building universities’ intrapreneurial capabilities in the digital era: The role and impacts of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Technovation, 99, 102139.
Hoffman, A. J. (2016). Reflections: Academia’s Emerging Crisis of Relevance and the Consequent Role of the Engaged Scholar. Journal of Change Management, 16(2), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2015.1128168.
Hoffman, A. (2021). The Engaged Scholar: Expanding the Impact of Academic Research in Today’s World. Stanford Briefs.
Johnson, P. (1979). “Hobbes and the Wolf-Man” Hobbes, Thomas: His View of Man. Elementa, 21. 31–44.
Lubchenco, J. Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science. Science 279, 491–497 (1998). DOI:10.1126/science.279.5350.491.
Maassen, P. (2014). “A New Social Contract for Higher Education?”. In Higher Education in Societies. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. Retrieved Jul 4, 2024, from https://brill.edhh.ma/view/book/edcoll/9789462097469/BP000005.xml.
Martin, B. R. (2003). “Chapter 1: The Changing Social Contract for Science and the Evolution of the University”. In Science and Innovation . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved Jul 4, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781950241.00011.
Neave, G. Redefining the Social Contract. High Educ Policy 19, 269–286 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300130.
Pocol, C. B., Stanca, L., Dabija, D-C., Pop, I. D. & Mișcoiu, S. (2022). Knowledge Co-creation and Sustainable Education in the Labor Market-Driven University – Business Environment. Front. Environ. Sci. 10:781075. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.78107.
Pontikakis, D., Vazquez, I., Bianchi, G., (2022) Partnerships for Regional Innovation Playbook, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://dx.doi.org/10.2760/775610.
Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2013). Teachers as agents of change: Teacher agency and emerging models of curriculum. In Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice, 187–206.
Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: what is it and why does it matter?. In R. Kneyber & J. Evers (eds.), Flip the System: Changing Education from the Bottom Up. London: Routledge.
Rubens, A., Spigarelli, F., Cavicchi, A. & Rinaldi, C. (2017). Universities’ third mission and the entrepreneurial university and the challenges they bring to higher education institutions. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 11(3), 354–372. htpps://www.doi.org/10.1108/JEC-01-2017-0006.
UNESCO. Education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all (Global Education Monitoring Report) (2016). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bysa/3.0/igo/.
UNESCO. Reimagining Our Futures Together: A new social contract for education (2021). https://doi.org/10.54675/ASRB4722.
Vavakova, B. The New Social Contract Between Governments, Universities and Society: Has the Old One Failed?. Minerva 36, 209–228 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004384519396.
Warhuus, J., Tanggaard, L., Robinson, S. & Jensen, S. M. E. (2017). From I to We: Collaboration in Entrepreneurship Education and Learning? Education + Training, 59(3), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-08-2015-007.
