2.1 Embracing the Sustainable Entrepreneurial University in the Regional Entrepreneurial and Innovation Ecosystems

Regions are eco-systemic agglomerations of stakeholders (organisational and institutional entities) with socio-technical, socio-economic, and socio-political co-operative (sometimes conflicting, some others converging), goals, priorities, expectations, and behaviours. These are pursued through entrepreneurial actions (including development, exploration, exploitation and deployment), reactions, and interactions. The interactions beneath this regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystem occur among the Quadruple/Quintuple Helix actors, namely (government, university, industry, civil society, and environment) as the enablers and enactors (Carayannis & Campbell 2009; Carayannis et al. 2017). In this “Mode 3” approach, as conceptualised by Carayannis & Campbell (2009), knowledge production is based on mutuality and complementarity among innovation networks and knowledge clusters (e.g.: human and intellectual capital, shaped by social capital, supported by financial capital). This answers the need for more democratised access to knowledge and innovation where local and traditional knowledge systems and the involved actors take part in collective processes of cultural and social transformation, especially in less developed regions (Rapini et al. 2024). This “Mode 3” is described as a multi-layered, multi-modal, multinodal, and multi-lateral system, where universities are recognised to play a relevant role in terms of the co-opetitive knowledge creation, diffusion, and use (Carayannis et al. 2017). Indeed, Carayannis et al. (2018) mention and define a new type of entrepreneurial university that refers to “Mode 3”. They affirm that a “Mode 3” university or HEI can provide higher-order learning in the context of an open, complex and non-linear knowledge production system. This happens through creative ways of combining, recombining and integrating different principles of knowledge produced and applied (Carayannis et al. 2018). The context in which the authors contextualise their conceptualisations is the spatial (regional or national) innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem that, as defined by Dubina et al. (2017: 438), is considered as “an open complex dynamic system with a framework, where a specific institutional environment of an innovative type is formed, and which takes into account the national (regional) economic interests and contributes to the activation and enhancement of innovations, technologies and human capital.” Cai et al. (2020: 12) take a step forward, by providing a wider definition of innovation ecosystems, in a co-evolutionary perspective: “co-innovation networks, in which actors from organisations concerned with the functions of knowledge production, wealth creation and norm control interact with each other in forming co-evolution and interdependent relations (both direct or indirect) in cross-geographical contexts, and, through which new ideas and approaches from various internal and external sources are integrated into a platform to generate shared values for the sustainable transformation of the society”. There are several aspects of this definition that prove relevant for this study: one is the interdependency among different collaborative actors. Indeed, this ecology-based concept focuses on cross-sectoral co-evolution and co-creation activities as links among the entities involved, over time, for the production of innovation from a sustainable development perspective (Oh et al. 2016; Cai et al. 2019). Novelty in this definition also comes with the reference to transnationality. In this sense, we assist in multi-level and synergetic integration processes between two or more innovation ecosystems across national borders, which work better if they start from already existing and bottom-up initiatives, where knowledge flows and innovation processes take place in multiple geographical locations (Cai et al. 2019). In this context, by pursuing their research and teaching missions and drawing upon their outreach knowledge transfer activity at both the regional and international levels, universities can play a pivotal role in activating and making visible the hidden links fostering transnational cooperation among actors from different innovation networks. Indeed, potential collaborations can be activated among entities from different geographical locations, by taking advantage of their common connections to existing university collaborations, often starting from individual collaborators (Cai et al. 2019).

The changing role of universities in contemporary society has been studied, amongst others, by Cai & Ahmad (2023), which highlighted the shift from the entrepreneurial university, focused on promoting economic growth through technology transfer towards a sustainable model of the entrepreneurial university, with several and broader engagement roles for social transformation. The authors highlight the difference between the entrepreneurial university and the sustainable entrepreneurial university in terms of roles played within innovation ecosystems. In terms of knowledge flow, while the former model sees the university as a knowledge producer for technology transfer, the latter sees it as an anchor organisation for knowledge exchange in a bi-directional and interactive way (see also Rinaldi et al. 2018; Tomasi et al. 2021). Regarding the interactions with innovation actors, the entrepreneurial university is more oriented towards a triple-helix approach (Etzkowitz 2008) with reciprocal collaborations with industries and governments. The sustainable entrepreneurial university is instead more focused on the quadruple helix approach (Carayannis & Campbell 2009) as they consider a larger variety of ecosystem actors, including citizens, and are interested in building trust relationships among all collaborators. Finally, considering the university and its relations with society, the entrepreneurial university is described as more focused on meeting societal needs mainly for growth and innovation, whereas the sustainable entrepreneurial university is committed to shaping a better future society by trying to accomplish its developmental role through the transformation of society – also based on the production of new knowledge (Shapiro 2005; Grau et al. 2017).

2.2 Shaping the Role of Universities and Stakeholders’ Collaboration within Regional and Transnational Entrepreneurial and Innovation Ecosystems

In Europe, recently there has been a progressive transition and transformation in all three universities’ missions, leading to the Sustainable Entrepreneurial Universities paradigm (Cai & Ahmad 2023). These transformations entail new organisational processes and roles for Universities, among which the promotion of sustainable development and community engagement and its measurement, also focusing on equity and social justice. Some initiatives to tackle these new roles concern didactical activities (e.g.: designing new curricula and degree programmes), and the adoption of interdisciplinary approaches both on teaching and research, based on universities’ societal engagement (Posch and Steiner 2006; Rinaldi et al. 2018; Capano and Pritoni 2019).

Referring to a new economic role played by entrepreneurial universities, Audretsch (2014) adopted the concept of the “university acting in the entrepreneurial society”, by shifting the focus towards the wider societal context, that now became “entrepreneurial”. In this context, the university combines its traditional yet complex missions of an entrepreneurial university (technology transfer and commercialisation of university research; generation of startups and new ventures; supporting economic growth) with a resilient orientation, by adapting to the needs and concerns of society and providing thinking, leadership and activity to enhance the entrepreneurship capital.

In the European University Association report by Reichert (2019), the roles of universities in regional innovation ecosystems clearly emerge. Two main roles were identified:

• 1) they are central regional actors for knowledge production, skills development and cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary approaches for competitiveness and;

• 2) they represent cultural actors facilitating regional interactions, working as orchestrators of regional connectivity in all knowledge-intensive sectors and supporting a search for systemic sustainable co-created solutions to societal challenges.

The report also shows that to pursue their goal of orchestrators of multi-actor innovation networks, also beyond their regional borders, in a global orientation of knowledge production and with an open innovation approach, universities operate through the following activities:

• 1) educating “human capital” for innovation;

• 2) research/knowledge (co-)production for private and public value creation;

• 3) fostering knowledge exchange for innovation systems;

• 4) strategic transformation – embedding innovation.

As for the first point, related to education, the idea is preparing students or young researchers to become “game changers”, namely innovators able to identify social, technological and economic challenges, define or redefine them and find or adapt related disruptive innovations. This can be done through interdisciplinarity, self-organised teamwork project-based/challenge-based learning, digital skills modules and entrepreneurship education (entrepreneurial skills development; support to startups; mentorship with external stakeholders).

In the second point, which concerns research and knowledge co-production, universities balance their commitment to research between international research and regional relevance, by providing access to regional stakeholders in their innovation processes to a “global pipeline” of knowledge and provide an accessible translation of the academic knowledge, to be integrated with external knowledge sectors of the business or public spheres. In these co-production processes, it is relevant for universities to involve experts and scholars from the field of regional science and planning, as they can put the basis for reciprocal understanding and for sharing the collaborative nature of the regional innovation system and overcoming the barrier of mindset differences or misalignment between goals and interests among the different stakeholders involved (Tomasi et al. 2024). Some activities under this point are: running cross-departmental/faculty interdisciplinary research to address major challenges and real-life problems, also through cross-disciplinary networks; focusing on social innovation and balancing innovation for commercial purposes with the attempt to address societal challenges and also running applied collaborative research funded by the industry and supported by other external partners; activating universities’ role as “hot spots” between the local to the global level, by increasing their research capacity to investigate regional stakeholders’ needs and gain insights – also in transnational contexts – that support their research work: adapting resources and implementing regionally potential solutions and best practice experiences encountered through international research networks and projects (Tomasi et al. 2022).

In the third point, knowledge exchange is intended to go from technology transfer to multi-actor co-creation. This includes:

1. transferring technology and creating value and Intellectual Property (IP) from university research;

2. facilitating business innovation and enabling businesses with high innovation potential to easily access university research results by creating a good interface between university researchers and companies (especially SMEs with fewer resources, lack of time and cultural gap);

3. conducting university-industry research collaboration and building long-term strategic partnerships with businesses. This could be done in both a short-term and long-term perspective: e.g.: joint research projects (short-term) and establishing shared infrastructure (e.g.: labs, research centres, industry-based PhD programmes, etc.) (long-term);

4. supporting business creation: university spin-offs and start-ups represent a real contribution to regional innovation, through their impact-driven approach. This activity can be carried out by establishing dedicated support services (consultancy), incubation and acceleration programmes for student start-ups and research spin-offs and complementing them with metropolitan/regional support services;

5. offering continuing education/professional development courses for external stakeholders.

Finally, the fourth point is about strategic transformation towards innovation embeddedness at the institutional level. This aspect relates to the university’s institutional transformation and development strategy including changes in terms of updated research organisation and teaching methods, more oriented to respond to regional/global challenges, personnel development, internal governance and financial incentives, creation of new or reinforcement of existing physical and non-physical infrastructure (e.g.: co-creation hubs), to be reflected and redesigned in terms of cultural and social embedding within the regional context.

What is clear is that contributing to regional development and innovation is a matter of co-responsibility among the Quadruple Helix actors (Carayannis & Campbell 2009). This is even more true as entrepreneurship – requiring the contribution of several regional stakeholders – is increasingly acknowledged to be pivotal for the promotion of regional growth (Bischoff et al. 2018). In this context, entrepreneurship education is seen as capable of developing entrepreneurial attitudes and skills in learners (Fayolle et al. 2006) and producing some tangible benefits contributing to regional growth (e.g.: more business and job creation, innovation, knowledge, productivity, resource efficiency, etc.) (Galvão et al. 2020).

Recalling the concept of a new “entrepreneurial society” (Audretsch 2014) and concerning a sustainable entrepreneurial university (Cai & Ahmad 2023), when focusing on university-based entrepreneurship education, it is to be recognised that a major role is played by the active participation of the university’s internal and external stakeholders as members of a network (Galvão et al. 2020). Here, stakeholders encompass all the people or entities directly or indirectly affected by entrepreneurship education, namely, those actively involved in the provision of education or benefitting from it (Bischoff et al. 2018). Internal stakeholders are university affiliates, including university management and instructors, while external stakeholders contain all non-university stakeholders who are directly involved in or related to entrepreneurship education of the respective universities (Bischoff et al. 2018). Among internal ones are students; university managers and instructors; teachers; and Technology Transfer Office staff. External stakeholders include: alumni; other universities and academics (also at the international level); science and technology parks; policymakers at different governmental levels; business and industrial organisations; financial institutions; entrepreneurship support services (consultancy); incubator/accelerators; NGOs, civil society and community leaders; charity and social service providers; international organisations, etc. (Cai & Ahmad 2023; Bischoff et al. 2018).

The roles played by some of the mentioned external stakeholders are highlighted, based on Bischoff et al. (2018). Entrepreneurs and companies play roles mainly related to lecturing and story-telling, coaching and mentoring activities, advising and consulting services also in terms of curriculum development, sponsorship and investments or partnerships and collaboration in start-up projects, the provision of networks and contacts, and student internship placements, sponsorship, being members of a jury during startup contests, etc. Financial institutions mostly provide financial support and investments. They might act as evaluators of startup ideas and give lectures. Support services (public or private) can provide training courses, networking possibilities, and funding. Sometimes they support curriculum development, give lectures and provide mentorship and coaching. Incubators/Accelerators provide funding, coaching, business advice, expertise and infrastructure. From an international perspective, foreign universities cooperate as networks for the exchange of best practices and the joint organisation of entrepreneurship initiatives, entailing the application of international team teaching approaches, students’ mobility within entrepreneurship education programs and the establishment of international double-degree teaching programs. The national/regional governments play a more general role at the ecosystem level, by supporting university entrepreneurship and related education from a regulatory and strategic perspective (e.g.: university-related and regional financial/organisational initiatives/regional innovation strategies); by playing as a facilitator and funding agent (e.g.: start-up and accelerator services; economic incentives for university-business collaboration, research and infrastructure; marketing to attract investments and talents) (Reichert 2019). Even though the sustainable entrepreneurial university supports a Quadruple Helix approach to regional development and innovation and entrepreneurship education, the role of non-governmental organisations is still neglected. Nevertheless, NGOs and civil society organisations play a pivotal role in entrepreneurship education, in terms of provision of feedback, advice, experience, infrastructure and funding, activities and workshops organisation. Engagement in networking and partnerships is also relevant (Bischoff et al. 2018).

As affirmed by Galvão et al. (2020: 176) “Stakeholder engagement plays a key, strategic role in the dynamics of local systems. When stakeholders are part of a network, their combined resources can form a framework for development policies and mechanisms that improve the transfer of knowledge and innovation leading to regional growth.” These networks, especially in entrepreneurship education, represent channels facilitating the flow of skills, knowledge, technology and development. To succeed in this facilitation of interactions, such networks need to be created, developed and consolidated (Galvão et al. 2020).

2.3 Challenges in Implementing the Sustainable Entrepreneurial University and Activating Their Roles in Regional Entrepreneurship and Innovation Ecosystems

Even though the scientific literature does not specifically address the challenges faced by universities in implementing the sustainable entrepreneurial university approach and in deploying their multifaceted roles in this context, there are several scientific and policy contributions that allow to reflect upon some of the barriers that might limit universities’ actions in this sense.

From an economic perspective, the willingness of European universities to progressively support sustainable innovation face financial limitations due to the institutions’ dependence on public funding. This prevents or limits their ability to invest in long-term sustainability initiatives, especially if these take time to demonstrate their benefits (Compagnucci & Spigarelli 2020). Moreover, the availability of such fundings is often project-dependent. On the one hand, this approach is mainly supported by researchers’ or research groups’ guided by a sense of the mission. Namely, such academics are willing to invest on the sustainable entrepreneurial university approach as part of their third mission in a variety of ways (Tomasi et al. 2024). Direct initiative in scouting funding opportunities and applying to call for projects’ funding is one of these. On the other hand, such a willingness might suffer from constraints related to competing priorities (Díaz-García et al. 2015), e.g.: ordinary research activity, teaching or other institutional activities. In this context, there is not enough space for projects and, often, even when they are carried on, they end without a guarantee for continuity.

This is also a cultural and social issue. Indeed, in social terms, not all universities in Europe adopt an entrepreneurial mindset to produce sustainable impacts. Some universities still deal with traditional academic values focused on research excellence, while community-driven outcomes are not a primary objective (Guerrero et al. 2015). This can also be described as a cultural form of resistance, particularly common in institutions that do not consider entrepreneurship and sustainability as part of their academic integrity and independence (Lockett et al. 2019). On the opposite, a cultural change would require integrating sustainability and entrepreneurship within more traditionally research-focused institutions, discouraging the idea that such an approach would represent a shift away from core academic values (Foss & Gibson 2015).

Additionally, in legal terms, implementing the sustainable entrepreneurial university might be slowed down by some rigid regulatory frameworks and related bureaucracy. Even though the Bologna Process fostered the university’s institutional autonomy and the European University Association (EUA 2021) describes the 2030 universities as “strong, autonomous and accountable”, such legal and administrative frameworks can decelerate the implementation of sustainable entrepreneurship initiatives. Indeed, structural regulations can hinder universities’ response to sustainability goals (EC 2017). Especially concerning their sustainable entrepreneurial role for research commercialisation, legal and policy barriers (e.g.: restrictive regulations for intellectual property) might prevent universities’ engagement with industry and governmental bodies (Pavie et al. 2014). Finally, from a more systemic perspective, challenges arise concerning the intermediary role sustainable entrepreneurial universities may play in their innovation ecosystems. Indeed, navigating complex stakeholder networks – especially when transnational – and supporting their interconnectedness, also entails facing misalignment among institutional, national, and EU-wide sustainability goals, producing fragmentation, as a consequence (EUA 2021). Cohesive policy support and structural reforms would facilitate the establishment of the sustainable entrepreneurial universities around Europe, also considering transnationality as a way to overcome the above mentioned challenges, in line with the most recent European strategies for Higher Education in connection with the European Green Deal (EC 2020).

3.1 Case Study Presentation

Since 2021, SFF has been an international ecosystem alliance initiative running joint international entrepreneurship programs for talent and start-ups, intending to bridge the gap between academia and business creation by leveraging existing activities of HEIs and ecosystems to foster co-creation among innovation actors, combining the regional and international levels.

When the project started, many consortium partners already had cross- institutional ties. They built upon these connections, utilising existing successful formats from their institutions, further developing and promoting them under a unique international brand (EIT HEI Initiative 2023a; 2023b).

SFF¹ (EIT HEI Initiative 2023a) is sustained by two EIT HEI projects and various international and national programs, including EUAcceL,² Tandem +³ (EIT HEI Initiative Cohort 1, 2021–2023). During this research timeframe, SFF was funded under the EIT HEI Initiative Cohort 3 (2023–2024) through SFFAcceL⁴ and SFF.DeepT+⁵ projects, with a focus on DeepTech.

Figure 1 shows the SFF project consortium and its changes over time.

View Full Size

Project-based overview of the SFF consortium

Citation: Triple Helix 11, 3 (2024) ; 10.1163/21971927-bja10057

Source: authors’ elaboration from EIT HEI Initiative website

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Strategic meetings organised by the consortium led to several working groups focused on governance, education and training for students and staff, research, startup incubation, business and ecosystem development, monitoring and assessment. Moreover, in-presence networking activities, conferences, co-creation workshops, start-up contests and meetings with investors are put in place during the SFF Summits, run every year, twice a year, both in Munich and in other hosting partner regions (e.g.: Varna – Bulgaria; Athens – Greece), involving SFF partners and members of their entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems.

In line with the descriptions provided above and based on Cai & Ahmad (2023) and Bischoff et al. (2018), the SFF stakeholders can be divided into core target group; internal stakeholders and external stakeholders.

The SFF core target group is formed by international students, talents and student teams involved in the entrepreneurial education and startup development program, as well as early-stage startups. They are enrolled in Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees at the partner HEIs in the SFF consortium. Often, they attend curricular and extra-curricular entrepreneurship education courses in their institutions, which leads them to apply to the SFF programme. They come from several fields, such as STEM (especially from engineering and IT, as well as medical and healthcare sectors), social sciences (including economy, management and sociology) and humanities (including arts and creative fields).

Among the internal stakeholders are the consortium university partners themselves. They can be lecturers or researchers in the entrepreneurship field or the domains relevant to the project (e.g.: energy, mobility, manufacturing, health, food, etc.). Their role in SFF is to support students’ participation in the SFF programme, sharing knowledge and expertise by acting as trainers, coaches, mentors and sparring partners during the educational activities. Moreover, they establish and maintain good relationships with the external stakeholders from their innovation ecosystem and engage themselves in the networking activities promoted by SFF at the international level. This role might be also played by the staff from the technology transfer offices, university incubators and accelerators, who are also among the internal stakeholders. The people involved, at their institutions, work as incubator/accelerator managers, consultants, business advisors, designers and administrative staff. Some have a managerial role within the SFF programmes, and take care of specific tasks and educational activities. When involved in delivering entrepreneurship educational services as trainers and coaches, these stakeholders fall under the educators’ sub-category, which is internal.

All of the above-mentioned profiles play a role in fostering entrepreneurial mindsets and innovation through their active participation in the SFF educational programs and other relevant project activities, also at the ecosystem level, by sharing their knowledge and expertise and by running research and taking care of the monitoring and evaluation activities of the project.

External stakeholders include the businesses and industry stakeholders as well as the public sector and civil society representatives.

As for the formers, within SFF, they collaborate with startups and universities, by providing their expertise as coaches, mentors and industry experts. Companies and trade associations sometimes provide sponsorships, and share their facilities and infrastructure. They often belong to the fields relevant to the SFF project and also host (both virtually and physically) SFF startups and talents for the incubation processes. Moreover, they engage their representatives in the ecosystem and networking activities promoted by the SFF consortium at the regional and international levels. Among the external stakeholders, there are also private incubators/accelerators and innovation hubs, which provide support, resources, and mentorship to startups and talents, helping them grow and succeed. Moreover, individuals, such as consultants and business advisors, investors, venture capitalists and business angels offer their knowledge and expertise to support entrepreneurial activities and innovation within the ecosystem and promote investment opportunities for SFF startups and talents.

Public institutions, often municipalities and regions, support local innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems/valleys, by creating the proper environment for startups and entrepreneurial activities. Sometimes, they launch public entrepreneurship initiatives such as support services offices for entrepreneurs, innovation hubs and co-working spaces, incubators/accelerators, and providing financial incentives for startups. In the context of SFF, they collaborate to enhance the regional entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems by supporting initiatives and networking events and by putting funding, facilities and infrastructures at the project’s disposal.

NGOs are less represented. Some engage with the SFF program to address socio-economic and environmental challenges, especially at the regional level. They also participate in ecosystem events, representing challenges and needs from civil society, to inspire startup ideas.

To allow all these stakeholders to connect and share initiatives held online or within the regional ecosystems, the SFF network also implemented the SFF online platform (startforfuture.eu). For the SFF consortium, it represents a shared space for operational tasks and scalability. It is used to complement the SFF entrepreneurship programme and reinforce its network. As for the former, it does it by stimulating and updating the programme participants as the programme managers can publish posts in the live feed with requests to accomplish small tasks, by providing students with knowledge pills and relevant news, by sending out programmes-related events’ invitations, etc. As for the latter, the platform serves as a dedicated virtual community working as a social network. The platform also hosts specific regional innovation ecosystems and thematic hubs: these are private groups where people from a specific geographical area or working on a specific theme (e.g.: research & academia) can share contents, events and update each other.

In line with the above-presented overview, at the moment, SFF has four main pillars of intervention:

1. SFF Academy: educational programs to foster entrepreneurial and innovation skills among university staff and students;

2. Open Incubation Programme: a three-stage cross-university entrepreneurship education program helping talents and startups transform ideas into viable ventures (LEARN, Match&Start, Develop&Co-create) continuously monitored and undergoing improvements and organisational changes.

3. Open Incubator: collaboration and resource sharing among SFF Alliance partners, promoting joint activities and mentoring.

4. Regional Innovation Valleys: fosters the development of existing ecosystems into sustainable innovation hubs with a deep tech focus and through peer support among partners.

Moreover, to provide continuity in time and economic sustainability to the SFF activities, besides the public fundings deriving from the funded projects, in 2023, the Start for Future European Cooperative Society, as a legal entity, was launched (Start for Future 2023), towards a transnational sustainable business-oriented approach.

3.2 Research Methods

In this research, a case study approach is used as it allows an in-depth exploration from multiple perspectives of the complexity and uniqueness of a particular project – more specifically – the SFF initiative, in a “real life” perspective (Simons, 2009; Yin, 2009). This case study was selected as it represents a good practice (EIT Initiative 2023a) of a sustainable international alliance of ecosystems governed by principles of systemic innovation and involving Quadruple Helix actors (Carayannis & Campbell 2009) that aim to actively co-create for delivering socio-economic and environmental impact in Europe and their regional entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems through entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education.

The authors’ proposition is that the SFF alliance may become a network of sustainable entrepreneurial universities, whose capacity to produce a transformative impact at the regional and European levels derives from their ability to promote entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education through transnational stakeholders’ collaboration (Cai et al. 2019). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the characteristics and implications of stakeholders’ involvement in the SFF initiative also in terms of contribution to regional development and innovation. To do so, the authors ran a series of online workshops entailing semi-structured interviews with selected stakeholders involved in the SFF initiative, reflecting and adapting the classification by Bischoff et al. (2018) and Galvão et al. (2020) of internal and external stakeholders. The stakeholders’ selection process directly involved the SFF partners, which, in a preliminary phase, were requested to run a stakeholder mapping activity by filling out a table⁶ to identify primary and secondary stakeholders and modalities for their engagement as well as a power-interest matrix,⁷ to identify stakeholders according to their relevance for the project. Moreover, the authors asked partners to provide the contacts, among the identified stakeholders, of one internal stakeholder (IS), one external stakeholder (ES) and one educator (E). The main criteria for selection were the stakeholders’ awareness of the project and their direct contribution through a specific role played in it. Due to the project’s great focus on entrepreneurship education, the presence of the latter typology of stakeholders, even though mainly belonging to the first category (internal), was required to provide specific insights on the entrepreneurship education side of the project and its potential to create opportunities for regional development and innovation.

Data was gathered in two cycles: 1) in May 2023 with stakeholders related to project partners from EUAcceL and Tandem+; 2) in May 2024 with stakeholders related to project partners (the so-called “newcomers” – who more recently joined the SFF consortium) from SFFAcceL and SFF.DeepT+ (see Case study presentation section below).

Cycle 1 took place on May 11th and 12th 2023 with 3 online workshops, one per each category of stakeholder. Each workshop/collective semi-structured interview lasted about 1 hour, it was held online via the Microsoft Teams platform. The meeting was recorded and transcribed. During the sessions, the researchers promoted support tools such as Google Jamboard, where the participants could write down their summarised replies on virtual sticky notes, visible, in real time, to all participants. One researcher acted as moderator/interviewer while another one took real-time notes on a separate file. In some cases, an additional figure supported the logistic aspects, by giving access to participants on the platform and supporting them in using the Google Jamboard.

Additionally, for those stakeholders who could not attend the workshop due to other concurrent commitments, the research team prepared an online form (Google Form) reporting the same questions presented to the stakeholders who participated in the workshop, to be filled out in a written way by the end of May 2023.

On May 27th 2024, one online workshop lasting about 1h30 was run. The stakeholders’ selection process followed the same procedure as the previous one. In this case, the research team decided to bring together the three categories of stakeholders identified by the 11 new partners from the SFF consortium, to ensure a good level of participation in the workshop and to foster major exchange among the diverse partners, allowing them, from different roles and positions, to share their experience in SFF. The team adopted the same protocol, platform and support tools as in the previous data-gathering cycle. Also, in this case, the workshop was recorded and transcribed. One internal stakeholder who could not participate agreed to fill out a template with the same questions asked during the interview.

Table 1 presents an overview and comparison between the 3 workshops held in 2023 and the workshop from 2024, based on the number of participant stakeholders (SHs), type of participation in the research (only for 2023: workshop – W; form – F), stakeholders’ position at their university/ organisation, role in SFF, according to partner (acronym) and project affiliation (EUAcceL or Tandem+/SFFAcceL or SFFDeepT+).

View Full Size

View Full Size

An overview and comparison between the 3 regional innovation workshops held in 2023 and the workshop from 2024 (authors’ elaboration)

Citation: Triple Helix 11, 3 (2024) ; 10.1163/21971927-bja10057

• Download Figure
• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The questions aimed at digging into participants’ experiences and fostered an exchange of views and perspectives on the SFF project by gathering diverse stakeholders from several organisations in the same virtual room. The topics addressed in the interview concerned the motivations of the stakeholders’ institutions/organisations to take part in the project; the roles played by each institution/organisation as well as the perception of other partners’ roles in the project. Some questions focused on participants’ perceptions of stakeholders’ collaboration and coordination, based on the stakeholder collaboration matrix by Bischoff et al. (2018), resulting from the interaction between weak/moderate/strong collaboration (x-axis) with decentralised/mixed/ centralised coordination (y-axis). Some questions differed according to the responding stakeholders: 1) perceived regional impact and contribution of SFF in terms of entrepreneurship education (educators: E); 2) regional development and innovation, also through education (external stakeholders: ES) (Galvão et al. 2020); and 3) institutions/organisations’ strategies’ to manage and maintain relationships with external stakeholders (internal stakeholders: IS) (Bischoff et al., 2018). Data was analysed through qualitative thematic coding analysis (Gibbs, 2007) and discussed according to Bischoff et al. (2018) and Galvão et al. (2020) content categorisation.

4.1 Motivations of the Stakeholders’ Institutions/Organisations to Participate in SFF

Two main reasons encourage institutions/organisations’ participation in SFF. One relates to the educational perspective. In general, SFF spreads an entrepreneurial culture among students (Reichert 2019; Henry et al., forthcoming). All stakeholders, but mainly ESs and ISs both from the 2023 and 2024 workshops, stressed the importance of SFF in providing and increasing opportunities for student teams and talents to develop entrepreneurship-related skills. According to respondents, international exposure represents one of the main added values of the programme. The challenge-based learning and interdisciplinary approaches support students in gaining a multi-faced perspective on regional and global challenges, activating their entrepreneurial mindset (Whitmer et al. 2010; Yarime et al. 2012; Trencher et al. 2013; EC 2022a). Indeed, it was recognised that connecting and co-creating with different stakeholders (other teams, industry experts, mentors, incubators and investors from other countries) and developing their business ideas, in an open environment, represents a huge opportunity for students’ future careers, if they will not become entrepreneurs. SFF, as a network of entrepreneurial organisations, shapes its programme according to an iterative co-creation process based on cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary exchanges between students and international innovation actors to prepare them to act as “game changers” (Oh et al. 2016; Cai et al. 2019; Rinaldi et al. 2018; Reichert 2019; Tomasi et al. 2021).

From an institutional/organisational perspective, especially for ISs, SFF supports the accomplishment of partners’ entrepreneurial university role, thus creating a wide and innovative entrepreneurial community based on synergies and collaboration to leverage each one’s capabilities (Es) in an open innovation perspective (Pontikakis et al. 2022) and integrating different activities and expertise (Arbo & Benneworth 2007). Related to this, trust in partners’ perspectives emerged as a theme. This is even more true considering the “friendship-born” nature of SFF, since the consortium originated from the choice of partners that collaborated in past projects to undertake a new collaboration, whose long-term perspective has recently been consolidated in the launch of the SFF Cooperative Society. This, linked to the fact that many local collaborations are also based on individual research-based/teaching-based, third mission-based relationships, which creates positive conditions for effective co-creation and innovation (Cai et al. 2019). In this sense, ESs also highlighted international networking and collaboration as an opportunity to access shared resources (e.g.: funding, facilities, high-quality learning programmes and startup support services, incubation, etc.). This enhances the shared sense of ownership needed when it comes to sustainable regional development with universities as change agents involving all regional stakeholders in processes of knowledge co-creation (Stoeglehner et al. 2009; Peer & Stoeglehner 2013).

According to ESs, each organisation in SFF can play the role of connector between SFF (European level) and the related entrepreneurial ecosystems (regional level) (Cai et al. 2019). In this sense, one respondent among ESs (2023) affirmed: “Our main reason for being part of SFF as an innovative ecosystem and network relates to our continuous research and evaluation of future factors and trends (technology, society, environmental, legal). We are always searching for innovative new business models, new solutions, new partners, new processes and collaboration models.” Some ISs (2023 and 2024) mentioned participation in the SFF Academia-Research research network as a reason to take part in SFF (meetings, conferences, contributions to special issues, creating the groundwork for future projects), in an attempt to contribute to the connected innovation ecosystems also in terms of knowledge co-production, by acting as knowledge “global pipelines” and “hot spots” between the local to the global level and by translating research results to make them available to build innovative, sustainable and viable business solutions for regional development (Reichert 2019; Tomasi et al. 2022; Tomasi et al. 2024).

4.2 Collaboration and Coordination among Stakeholders in SFF

The level of collaboration and coordination among partners and stakeholders in SFF varies according to the lens of analysis.

In terms of SFF project management: most of the stakeholders perceive a very cooperative environment, with strong management and coordination capacity. Anyway, some new ISs (2024) affirmed it is sometimes difficult to get oriented and updated on the ongoing processes and take a proactive approach, due to the high complexity of the project and the diverse reference points for each specific task. Communication flows and coordination are facilitated by some supporting tools (e.g.: the SFF community platform and app, matching of students and experts, updating e-mailing and consortium meetings, social media, etc.) (ESs). Some coordination challenges, especially in delivering the SFF educational programme, derive from different countries’ jet legs, limited time, variety in the organisation of the academic calendars, and difficulties in ensuring continuity in professors, students and experts’ participation (ISs 2023).

Concerning SFF-Regional Ecosystems relationships, the existing personal/ institutional relationships with project partners represent the main entrance point for participation in SFF. This enhances trust bonds among partners and capitalises on previous collaborative processes’ results to foster long-term oriented collaborations (Cai et al. 2019). Students connect to ESs mainly through mentorship/coaching activities. Sometimes such relationships last beyond SFF phases (ESs). Other networking opportunities come from the SFF Summits and the SFF Community with related interactions also through social media. Scholars and professors are the most difficult to engage and keep engaged (Es) since they do not always realise what benefits may come from their participation in the project. On the one hand, this confirms that these processes work if there is co-responsibility as the networks need to be consolidated over time with the contribution of all involved parties (Galvão et al. 2020).

At the SFF partner institution/organisation level, there should be a higher extensive and systematic effort to communicate to the whole regional ecosystem the opportunities and advantages coming from participating in the project. TTOs, university-based entrepreneurship centres, and university-based, professors may have a role in this task (Es, ISs). Communication among the different networks’ knots is also still not completely exploited, even though a dedicated activity of ecosystem development is foreseen in the project. As an example, some ESs who are looking into SFF to broaden their market opportunities affirmed that they would need a higher number of contacts and more opportunities for encounters. Increasing mobility funding could enhance chances for exchanges (ESs) both among partners and their ecosystem stakeholders.

Figure 2 systematises these findings by adapting Bischoff et al. (2018) stakeholders’ collaboration matrix.

View Full Size

SFF collaboration matrix

Citation: Triple Helix 11, 3 (2024) ; 10.1163/21971927-bja10057

Source: retrieved and adapted from Bischoff et al. 2018

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

4.3 Regional Impact of SFF

Some stakeholders (from all categories) affirmed that SFF currently contributes to regional development mainly in terms of entrepreneurship education, by creating complementarity between the local and the international programmes. This is in line with the Mode 3 approach to innovation by Carayannis & Campbell (2009), where knowledge production is based on mutuality and complementarity among innovation networks, thus supporting human capital creation to fostering social capital. Incubation and acceleration, coaching, mentorship and networking enable knowledge triangle interrelations and capacity building thanks to access to industry expertise, market research and business development resources. Some also highlighted that SFF helped them build connections within their local entrepreneurial ecosystem (ISs). This somehow reflects the co-evolutionary perspective proposed by Cai et al. (2020), where SFF activates interdependent relations (both direct and indirect), based on cross-geographical contexts. In this sense, SFF works as a platform, as an open complex system (Dubina et al. 2017) in which new ideas and approaches to co-creation for the sustainable transformation of the society – through the support from various internal and external sources – are developed and integrated into a unique multi-layered, multi-modal and multi-modal “hub” (Carayannis et al. 2017).

Most of the stakeholders, not being able to estimate the regional impact of SFF, yet, as they consider it is still too early to assess it, recognised the high potential of the project in terms of future positive impacts. For some, more could be done: dedicated channels to reach the regional innovation stakeholders in a more effective, systemic and long-term perspective are needed (ISs).

The majority of respondents, from all categories, both in 2023 and 2024, recognised that, by fostering entrepreneurial development starting from the classroom, SFF can help spread the entrepreneurial culture, especially regionally (Reichert 2019). Stakeholders recognise that SFF – allowing students to access an international community of innovators – enhances their understanding of how to create value through circular and sustainable business models and potentially take action, in this sense, thus contributing to regional development and innovation (Cai & Ahmad 2023). Moreover, SFF can support regions in widening their international connections and fostering best practice exchange, by also attracting talents and investments, finding new research paths, technology improvements and know-how and also reinforcing their local networks of stakeholders, by bringing in new ones. This would enable social and technological innovation and contributing to their territorial innovation ecosystems (M’Gonigle and Starke 2006; EC 2022a; Esparza Masana 2023). Finally, such interactions between universities (including students), businesses and the remaining helices of the wider regional ecosystems create – both locally and internationally – those productive synergies mentioned by Goddard & Chatterton (2003) between teaching (skills), research (innovation) and service to the community.

4.4 Boosting the Sustainable Entrepreneurial University: Taking an Integrated Transnational Perspective

The results presented so far show that SFF allows continuity and combination between the local and the international levels (Dubina et al. 2017). This is relevant if we take into account the need for a cultural shift, where university sustainability, entrepreneurship, innovation and societal impact start becoming indispensable aspects of the European universities personality.

Indeed, results show that SFF can represent a good example of how, through interconnectedness and the creation of transnational links universities can truly aspire to fulfil their role as “sustainable entrepreneurial universities”. Such links can also influence the respective regional innovation ecosystems and support universities to overcome all those cultural, social, legal and institutional barriers that – at the local level – prevent universities from becoming effectively sustainable and entrepreneurial (Compagnucci & Spigarelli 2020; Díaz-García et al. 2015; Guerrero et al. 2015; EC 2017; Pavie et al. 2014; EUA 2021; Lockett et al. 2019; Foss & Gibson 2015). This is clear as, on the one hand, SFF mostly works as a complementary entrepreneurship programme, aligned to the ones provided locally, and SFF partners represent the access point to the programme for interested regional stakeholders, both internal (including educators) and external ones. In this way, it enhances the potential of regional innovation as it guarantees international exposure also to regional stakeholders: they can bring in their capabilities and values while learning through other networks’ experiences (Arbo & Benneworth 2007; Pontikakis et al. 2022).

Trust and direct relationships among partners (locally, locally-internationally and internationally) are quite relevant. In SFF, the former originated from previous collaboration experiences and is oriented to a long-term relationship (SFF Cooperative Society). As for the latter, at the regional level, stakeholder engagement often relied on existing individual collaborations, exchanges and resources from certain researchers and departments. These types of relationships – which entail trust and friendliness – increase the opportunity for collaboration among stakeholders in their ecosystems and among ecosystems, thus enabling the co-creation of innovation (Cai et al. 2019).

While SFF is generally perceived as a cooperative environment with strong management and coordination capacities and there is a common feeling of being part of a European community, some challenges emerged from the results, due to the project’s multi-layered approach and complexity. Some stakeholders need dedicated channels and increased opportunities for face- to-face networking to effectively understand the benefits of the project and get engaged with continuity. This would support more connections among the different ecosystems. Some of SFF partners (internal stakeholders) that recently joined the project, need more time and support to orient themselves within the network and to proactively contribute to the activities, beyond supporting them. The tools to foster communication flows and coordination are already there and should be applied more systematically: the SFF Community and SFF Summits appear particularly useful in this sense. More has to be done also at a single partner level, internally (e.g.: extensively involving more professors and students) and within each regional ecosystem (establishing long-term relationships), to develop tailored strategies for stakeholder engagement.

Finally, the results show that coordination and collaboration can be improved to allow SFF to properly fulfil its role of – and foster its – “transnational sustainable entrepreneurial university” characteristic (Reichert 2019; Galvão et al. 2020).