CC BY
39
26. Kookueva V.V. and Tsertseil J.S. (2018). Clustering as a basis for an innovative development strategy. European Research Studies Journal, 21(4), 818-830.
27. Babkin A.V., Tashenova L.V. Tipologiya and structure of industrial clusters: the praktiko-focused approaches//Management in Russia and abroad. 2019. No. 1. Page 36-44&
28. Kuzovleva, V. Alekseenko, T. Filippova and T. Kudryavtseva. 2019. Efficiency of construction cluster innovative potential management. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation, 497(1), 012033. D0I:10.1088/1757-899X/497/1/012033.
29. T. N. Selentyeva, V. A. Degtereva, M. V. Ivanova and O. V. Mikheyenko. 2018. The competitiveness of innovation clusters: Approaches to assessing and role of state cluster policy. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Business Information Management Association (IBIMA). Seville, Spain, 1706-1709.
30. Ksenofontova O.L. Experiment of foreign countries on creation and functioning of clusters: model approach/Modern high technologies. Regional supplement. - 2015. - No. 2 (42). - Page 36-42.
31. Sutyrin S. F., Filippov P.N. Clusters of competitiveness of Finland/Bulletin of the St. Petersburg university. - 2014.-It is gray. 5. Release 1. - No. 5. - Page 71-76.
32. Porvatkina M.V. Foreign experience of formation and development of regional clusters in economically developed coun-tries//the TPGU Bulletin. - 2011. - No. 12 (114). - Page 112-115.
33. Gazimagomedov R.K. Regional industrial clusters in Western Europe//Issues of structurization of economy. - 2005. - No. 2. - Page 172-188.
34. Batalova A.A. Main advantages of country models necessary for formation of industrial clusters//0nline magazine "Nau-kovedeniye". - 2014. - No. 1 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://naukovedenie.ru/PDF/03EVN114.pdf/.
DOI: 10.24412/2309-4788-2020-10518
А. Балуч- аспирант, кафедра «Управление инновациями», Томской государственный университет систем управления и радиоэлектроники, Aman.baloch2007@mail.com,
A. Baluch- postgraduate student, Department of Innovation Management, Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics;
И.А. Павлова - к.э.н., старший научный сотрудник Лаборатории устойчивого развития социально-экономических систем Томского научного центра СО РАН, доцент Национального исследовательского Томского политехнического университета, доцент Томского государственного университета систем управления и радиоэлектроники,
I.A. Pavlova - Candidate of Economic Sciences, Senior Researcher of the Laboratory for Sustainable Development of Socio-Economic Systems of the Tomsk Scientific Center of the SB RAS, Associate Professor of the National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Associate Professor of the Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics.
РАЗВИТИЕ ИННОВАЦИОННЫХ СИСТЕМ ДЛЯ УСТОЙЧИВОСТИ РЕГИОНА DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATION SYSTEMS FOR REGIONAL SUSTAINABILITY
Аннотация. В настоящее время развитие инновационных систем все чаще рассматривается в контексте устойчивого регионального развития. Изучение роли инноваций для отдельных конкретных организаций сегодня не ограничиваются только сферой производственной эффективности. Инновации являются ключевым элементом успеха и выживания каждой организации, однако их значение необходимо оценивать через факторы устойчивого развития региональных инновационных систем в интересах географически локализованных сообществ, территорий, кластерных образований. В работе представлен анализ современной литературы по тематике инновационного развития регионов. Дана характеристика подходов и методов для оценки разных типов инноваций и их значения для устойчивого развития (sustainable development) регионов. Сделан акцент на эволюции модели тройной спирали, применимости вариаций этой модели для анализа, а также проведен анализ литературы по устойчивости (resilience) региональных инновационных систем к внешних негативным воздействиям (шокам).
Abstract. Nowadays, development of innovation systems for regional sustainability is considered as one of the key concerns of human communities; so that, most countries try to become pioneer in this area. So, most countries make worldwide changes to achieve this goal. Regarding the importance and necessity of sustainable development in countries, factors leading to this development should be paid attention to. The important role of innovation in organizations' success is not limited to the country's production sector. Rather, this issue is also true and even more important in companies' service sector that educates the future human resources. Innovation is an important issue in economic, business, technological, sociological, and engineering studies that creates the ability to adapt to and manage changes; innovation is the key element of every organization's success and survival, and the organizations' attention to the individuals' creativity and innovation makes them to move forward. Innovation is a key element in the success and survival of each organization, but their value must be assessed through the factors of sustainable development of regional innovation systems in the interests of geographically localized communities, territories and regional clusters. The paper presents an analysis of modern literature on the topic of innovative development of regions. The characteristics of approaches and methods for
assessing different types of innovations and their significance for sustainable development of regions are described. Emphasis is placed on the evolution of the triple helix model, the applicability of variations of this model for analysis, and the literature on the resilience of regional innovation systems to external negative factors (shocks) is analyzed.
Ключевые слова: инновационная система, региональная инновационная система, региональная устойчивость, экономическая устойчивость, тройная спираль, четверная спираль, пятерная спираль
Keywords: innovation systems, regional sustainability, economic resilience, triple helix, quadruple helix, quintuple helix
Introduction
The need to innovation has emerged due to the raised problems such as rapid growth of new and complex competitors, distrust with traditional methods of corporate management, some of the best employees leaving the company to become entrepreneurs, and the large companies' shrinkage. As creativity and innovation are among the main characteristics of entrepreneurs, companies should promote their capabilities in this area [1]. Sustainable development is the result of promoted global awareness of environmental, social, and economic issues, poverty, inequality, and concerns about human's future. Sustainable development creates a strong bond between these (environmental, social, and economic) issues [2].
Doctrine of development is an idea and practice that has appeared since the early 19th century. This concept is different from the idea of development process [3]. A limited number of development studies emerged after World War II, and they quickly focused on a set of problems in the area of macroeconomics, global communication, and inequality between poor and rich countries. Promotion of gross domestic product (GDP) and per capita income were considered as the development goals, and it was supposed that economic growth will create more equality, and this equality will ruin poverty [4]. However, with the strengthened problems such as poverty, unemployment, and inequality even in countries with a high economic growth, the role of economic variables as the mere effective factors in evaluation of development came into question [5]. Regarding the raised problems, in order to get rid of the social and economic pressures, first, the capacities, capabilities, and the obstacles to achieve sustainability should be recognized, analyzed, and explained; so that these potentials can be employed in regions by accurate planning.
Rationale for the study
Innovation systems enable companies to compete and respond to environmental changes and achieve a more optimal performance by acquiring new capabilities. All the ideas of the companies' internal innovative systems cannot be applied in the market through the commercialized research and development systems. Therefore, most of these ideas can move beyond the company in different stages of development, and companies can benefit from these ideas through processes other than internal commercialization [6]. Previous studies suggest that indicators of innovative performance such as introducing new products and new production lines can make a successful enterprise distinct.
This research employs a descriptive exploratory analysis through data collection on the issue of regional sustainable development through innovations. The objective of the study is to specify the importance and role of innovation for resilient development of regions.
In order to encourage innovation in organizations, senior managers should have long-term commitment to their employees [7]. Here, lifelong employment and internal promotion are considered as traditional policies, while the structure of innovative organizations usually tends to be flexible with fewer rules and regulations, less detailed job descriptions, and a high level of authority [7]. Correlation between technological efficiency and innovation has the underlying factor of changing the structure of social systems leading to the individuals' creativity in organization, since organizational innovation is significantly effective in classification of organizational structure and it leads to higher efficiency of organizations [8]. Organizational innovation through changes in the organizational structure and, then, organizational culture could possibly save large companies from economic crisis and increase labor force recruitment [9]. For large industrial companies as complex systems the culture of adoption of creativity in an organization is the most important agent for achieving creativity and innovation [10].
Truong [11] performed a cross-country study about consumer innovation and technological service innovation. According to the research background, consumer innovation is a universal concept. It is supposed that innovators and risk takers are independent from their national identity. So, they are known by similar innovative characteristics all over the world. Nevertheless, cross-cultural marketing studies suggest that cultural norms and values have different effects on adoption of innovation.
Positive effects on companies' performance in R&D, production, marketing, and finances of manufacturing industry can be achieved through different types of innovation (product, process, marketing, and organizational innovations)
[12]. Positive corporate experiences in adoption of strategic organizational sustainability by using knowledge management and open innovation in order to promote sustainable innovations can be based on the organizational model of economic cooperation and environmental innovations as stimulants of significant changes in organizational stability culture
[13]. Stock et al. [14] proposed a model for development of sustainable innovations for the primary phase of heuristic process - a model for development of sustainable innovations that are based on the idea of production in primary phases of innovation and focusing on innovation prerequisites. In this regards, special goals and the principles of sustainable development have become integrated to adopt a problem-solving approach. This integrated method is also used as a principle for development of sustainable innovation goals.
The concept of resilience was proposed by C.S.Holling referring to stability of ecological systems [15]. Later the studies on resilience accentuated the connection to the measures and policies to counteract negative factors. For example, Zhang et al. [16] have provided a framework for managing community-based accidents in China, citing the creation of non-governmental organizations, community education in the face of crises, the production and transfer of knowledge, the creation of organizations and their organizational definition and performance in the face of disasters and crises. In order to determine and minimize the effects of the proposed reforms in increasing resilience, León and March [17] developed a factor-based computer model, the results of which show a significant increase in the security of the evacuated and the increase in evacuation speed due to the proposed reforms. Overall, most studies addressed the issue of resilience from one angle, and none of them are comprehensive enough.
The concept of innovation
Innovation refers to successful implementation of creative ideas in a company [18]. Zheng has defined innovation as leaving old patterns and the most important capability needed for the organization's growth and development, referring to innovation as one of the main factors for preserving the competitive advantage and the organization's long-term success in competitive markets [19]. Due to the fact that organizations with the capacity of innovation will be able to better and more quickly respond to environmental challenges than non-innovative organizations, they can promote the organization's performance. Innovation is usually accompanied with change and it is considered as a new agent leading to a change. However, not any change is referred to as innovation because it may not contain new ideas and lead to organizational improvement. In general, it can be stated that innovation is referred to as new, constructive, and successful changes in the market leading to the improved performance of organization [20]. Currently, innovations provide a mechanism to preserve competitive positions in the market by business institutions. Organizational innovation affects the company's financial performance. In fact, innovation is included in any business activity and it has consequences in the market leading to achieving competitive advantage and a competitive position, the effect of innovation should be reflected in the company's value and financial performance [21].
Innovation is the only common infrastructure idea in all forms of organizational entrepreneurship. Although innovation is not considered as an adequate condition for entrepreneurship, some people believe that organizational en-trepreneurship will not exist without innovation. Researchers specified different degrees of innovation [22]. Kuratko [23] specifies that innovation is connected to an individual or group while introducing a new production idea in the organization that supports this endeavor. For Shane [24], innovation is seen through provision of a new product or a new composition of services in addition to the current products and services. Sathe [25] stresses innovation is about getting an invention certificate, replacement of some strategic units in the company or even purchasing another organization to get into a new industry. Alternating products and services [26], engaging into a foreign trade or fundamentally increasing foreign sale [27], starting a new organization to operate a new market [28] - all these examples manifest different degrees if innovation.
Organizational innovation
Organizational innovation is referred to as introducing a new organizational method for business management in workplace or in the company's relationship with foreign agents. Organizational innovation is currently one of the most important sustainable resources of competitive advantage for companies. Due to its special nature and framework, there is not enough knowledge about organizational innovation. Organizational innovation has been studied in many areas such as strategic management, entrepreneurship, and marketing [29].
Innovation is one of the main stimuli of economic growth and value generation. With the introduction of knowledge-based economy, innovation is considered as a key element of the organization's success or failure in competition and also the main resource of competitive advantage. At the same time this type of innovation is tightly connected to the concept of sustainability. The theory of organizational innovation classifies organizational innovation into product innovation and process innovation, but also, it classifies innovation into improvement of the current products (incremental innovation) and development of new products (radical innovation) [30]. A fundamental challenge for organizational innovation research is the variety of innovation organizations' characteristics with diverse multiple properties and operational variables of innovation organizations [31].
Few studies have so far investigated organizational innovation from either conceptual or methodological aspects. As stated by Armbruster et al., organizational innovation refers to the changes in structures and processes of an organization to apply new management, working, and operational concepts such as employing groups for production, supply chain management, and quality management systems [32]. All the studies have introduced organizational innovation as a necessary mechanism for proposing new technologies or as an antecedent factor for success of product innovation or technical processes. These studies have been aimed at understanding the way and the conditions in which organizations change; however, no attention has been paid to organizational performance and competitiveness [20].
Organizational innovation is a management system emphasizing the organization's mission, seeking for new and unique opportunities, and specifying the criteria of success. Drucker believes that successful innovation requires concentrated and purposive hardworking. Innovation is a key factor creating global competitions which leads to organizational growth and future success. Also, it functions as an engine letting organizations to have a continuous efficiency in global economy [33].
Organization innovation provides the possibility of domination, and taking appropriate innovative actions leads to gaining profit through the changing market. When organizational creativity is supported and innovations are proportional to the organization, competitive advantage will be gained from innovation of forming products, services, new processes, marketing, or a combination of them. Organizational innovation has a diverse literature and researchers have not agreed on proposing a same definition for that yet [34]. Organizational innovation is a management system emphasizing the organization's mission, seeking new and unique opportunities, and specifying the criteria of success. Drucker believes that successful innovation requires concentrated and purposive hardworking. Innovation is a key factor creating global competitions which leads to organizational growth and future success. Also, it functions as an engine letting organizations to have a continuous efficiency in global economy [33]. Organizational innovation does not necessarily mean applying the most novel technologies; rather, it is mainly focused on thinking styles and finding creative solutions than the technology itself [34]. As another perception, organizational innovation refers to development and adoption of a new idea or behavior in organizational processes that is considered innovative for the whole organization [35]. In general, organizational innovation can be considered as a process by which, organizational inventions become converted to products, procedures, services, or changes that create added value or can be supplied in market [36]. To explain the concept of organizational innovation, it is important to emphasize the fact that organizational innovation is not a one-dimensional concept; rather, it is a multifactor area including various aspects [37].
Components and types of innovation
In economic evolution literature, innovation has been considered as the driving force of economic growth and development for about a century. In recent years, with the emergence of knowledge-based economy, innovation has got a more fundamental role in transformation of social and economic structures; so that some papers have mentioned today's advanced economies as innovation-based economies. Furthermore, in the past 50 years, policy makers have had an increasing interest in developing knowledge-based innovation policies as the driving force of economic development [38]. In other words, nowadays factors such as environmental changes, technological advances, and increased number of competitors have created an endless competition between organizations, while by more tendency to adoption of innovation, organizations will be more successful in responding to environmental changes and expanding their capabilities to achieve a higher performance [39].
The process of innovation is something beyond creating or proposing a new idea since it involves development and implementation of activities. In fact, innovation is the process of development and implementation of new ideas by people interacting with others in institutional and organizational areas [40]. Innovation can be defined as creating new knowledge and ideas for application of new business results, setting goals for improvement of processes and internal business structures, and providing dynamic products and services. As a result, innovation includes both root and development innovations [41].
Oslo Manual provides a classical definition of innovation for statistical monitoring of innovation stressing that innovation introduces a product or service, including new or significantly improved properties. In this regard, innovation is accompanied with significant improvements in technical properties, components, and constituents, the attached software, ease of application, and other functional properties. Product innovation provides a tool for production [42] referring to development and provision of new improved products and services. The key factors to evaluate this dimension of innovation include [43]:
• pioneering in providing new services (products);
• trying to develop new services (products) by education of individuals and teams in organizations;
• developing products (services) for new groups of customers.
Process innovation provides a tool for improving and preserving quality and saving costs, and it includes the adoption of new or improved methods of production, distribution, and service transformation. In fact, process innovation specifies the extent to which new technologies are applied and new methods are tested. The key indicators to evaluate this dimension of innovation include]: making changes in the process of providing products and services and seeking for new methods of performing operations and pioneering in proposing new production methods [43].
Structure innovation was promoted in the Industrial Age, and it is aimed at efficient and effective engineering of innovation in the framework of special guidelines. This type of innovation was first used by large companies and emphasizes internal leadership, strategic planning, effective implementation of ideas, shareholders' pressure, and financial resources with insignificant attention to creative environment for creation of innovation [44]. Structure innovation refers to procedures, policies, and organizational forms [45]. It includes changes affecting polices, resource allocation, and other factors related to the organization's social structure. In fact, structural innovation specifies the extent to which, the organizations' managers use modern management systems, etc.
Concept of sustainability and triple helix patterns
Sustainability is considered as the optimal use of resources in all dimensions. In fact, sustainable development is a strategy to meet the needs of the people of the world without adversely affecting health and the environment, without destroying and threatening the global resource base, and without considering the ability of future generations to meet their needs [46]. Indicators of sustainability are very diverse and include the following [47]: economic, social, demographic, political indicators, environmental factors with a more detailed decomposition into integrated planning,
ability and potential for innovation, education, health indicators, transportation indicators, urban development activities, climate and so on.
In terms of sustainable development of innovation systems, the triple spiral model fits very well into description of overall growth and progress made by actors in innovation systems. The model proposed by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff in 1996 aims at describing and explaining the interactions of the three pillars (government, industry, and academia) in the process of innovation and development. In this model, in line with the systemic approach of innovation and concept of regional innovation systems [48-49] interactions of different institutions involved in the innovation process are examined. Unlike the linear patterns of the 1960s and 1970s, in which relationships were one-sided and multiple feedback was ignored, this pattern is based on the interactions of the three pillars of government, industry and academia (university). Here are three generations of the process of developing a tripartite spiral pattern (fig.1). In the first generation, the three-way spiral pattern is the role of government in controlling and communicating between academia and industry [50-51]. This situation depicts a pattern in which one pillar (government) dominates the other two pillars and controls their relations. A clear example of this can be seen in the former Soviet Union and the communist countries of Western Europe, and a weaker example in the policies of many Latin American countries and some European countries such as Norway [52]. In the second-generation pattern, the boundaries of government, university, and industry functions are separated by the strong boundaries of rationality, culture, and technology, this pattern is called the pattern of lack of government interference. Finally, in the third type of model, the institutional domains of university, industry, and government overlap in the innovation process, and their roles overlap in some cases. In this model, the university, in addition to research activities, engages in entrepreneurship and innovative activities, creates enterprises, and commercializes ideas. In contrast, the industry engages in knowledge production activities and absorbs existing knowledge to increase productivity and production. Under these conditions, the government also invests in the production of goods, knowledge, innovation, and large investment services.
Figure 1 - Tripartite spiral pattern in the triple helix model [51]
It is necessary to note, that despite critiques, the triple helix model is not a static model, it has its own inherent dynamics with interactions either balanced or disbalanced in terms of the system development. The triple spiral pattern is based on four pillars [52]:
• movement from the industrial society to knowledge-based society;
• movement of physical technologies to more advanced technologies with smaller scales;
• emergence of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge in areas such as biotechnology, computer science, and nanotechnology;
• building an entrepreneurial university model with the culture of entrepreneurship, innovation, and
technology transfer.
•
Multiple helix pattern patterns to accommodate sustainability aspects
After the design of the triple helix pattern, in order to develop and expand the newer and more dimensions to the triple helix and further adapt it to social, cultural, and environmental needs of different countries and regions experts in various fields proposed quadruple helix patterns, quintuple helix patterns, and N-helix patterns [53].
The main purpose of developing a quadruple spiral pattern is to customize scientific products and products tailored to the needs and wants of society [53]. The starting point for this model is the publication of an article by the creators of triple helix's theory addressing the question whether public could be a fourth spiral [54]. As for understanding the ability to add "community" as a fourth loop, some scholars have cited the examples of "society" as "civil society", "community of founding media, and culture of foundation". The most important feature of the quadruple helix patterns is the production of user-cantered knowledge, research and innovation, and the creation of applied knowledge by paying attention to the real issues, demands, and needs of users and the community [55].
Fourth Helix:Media-based
first Helix:Academiai Second Helix:lndustry/ Third Helix:State/ and culture-based public University Business Government and civil society
Figure 2 - Conceptualization of the Quadruple Helix innovation system [55]
In the quintuple helix pattern with the approach of paying attention to "natural environments" or "environment" is also added as the fifth element to original triple helix spiral pattern. The quintuple helix model can also be seen as a framework for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary analysis resulting from sustainable development and social ecology [56]. The reason for this is the fundamental need for a stable balance between socio-economic development and their natural environment in order to preserve human civilization. Accordingly, the triple helix pattern emphasizes the need to pay special attention to the mobility of natural environments and its importance in the development and future development of knowledge production and innovation systems [55]. Thus, as can be seen in the figure 3, society is the bedrock of triple spiral innovation systems and the natural environment of quadruple spiral innovation systems. After analysing Carayannis and Campbell [57], Leydesdorff as one of the founding fathers of the triple helix pattern, examined the ability to add loops and other elements to the triple helix. This study [53] presents the theory that the ability to upgrade elements varies according to the specific economic, social, cultural, and indigenous conditions of each country, and there are more than 20 dimensions, or number of helices can be increased up to N dimensions. Accordingly, Leydesdorff, does not accept the claim that there is only one valid and final triple helix model in all circumstances.
Figure 3 - The subsystems of the quintuple helix model [52, 57]
Considering the issues raised in this article, which is based on a number of recent achievements and findings in reputable international sources, it seems that the main reference and consensus of experts in the field of innovation and knowledge production still are over the first original model of three helices. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff presented this model specifically as a reference model for evaluating, developing, and improving the interactions of the three pillars of knowledge production and innovation in a knowledge-based economy. Subsequent researchers refer to this pattern and the three pillars as the "core of innovation".
At the same time the quintuple helix model is used to cover various environmental concerns such as creating win-win conditions for balanced attention to the quality of the natural environment and synergy of innovation, knowledge
production, economics, democracy, and environmental development needs. For example, the creators and designers of the quintuple helix theory, explained the ability to use this model to address concerns about global warming as a challenge as well as a stimulus for innovation. We may conclude that the quintuple helix pattern leads to a proper approach and performance assessment of regional sustainable development. Given that it appears in the "environment" as a stimulus for the production of knowledge and innovation, it provides the right conditions for it to be used in economics and the knowledge-based society [55].
Resilience of the economic systems
The issue of national resilience in recent years, especially after the 2008 financial crisis, has attracted the attention of elites. Today, not only leading international organizations such as the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are discussing resilience but also countries and small regional organizations are developing plans and establishing institutions for monitoring and planning as well as implementing resilient approaches. Since there are several indicators of economic resilience, the general approach in this article will be to introduce as the economic resilience index of Briguglio et al. [58]. The Economic Resilience Index overtook the domain if its predecessor the Economic Vulnerability Index. The economic vulnerability of some economies stems from the fact that their economies are heavily influenced by forces beyond their control. Foreign shocks often easily affect the domestic economy, often due to the open economy and dependence on a limited range of products. The first article on the vulnerability index was published in 1995 and in 2003 Briguglio and Galea [59] linked the economic vulnerability index to the concept of resilience in an index called the "adjusted economic vulnerability index for resilience". They argued that the simple indicator of resilience is GDP per capita, as this variable includes the country's ability to deal with vulnerabilities. Perhaps the negative burden of vulnerability led to the introduction of the first economic resilience index in 2006 by Briguglio. In his view, resilience represents at least three hidden abilities in an economy:
• the economy's ability to avoid these shocks;
• the ability of the economy to tolerate the effects of these shocks;
• the ability of the economy to recover quickly from external destructive economic shocks [58].
In general, the variables that make the economy resilient include both economic factors and socio-political factors. The main premise in constructing the Economic Resilience Index of the studies of Briguglio and his colleagues is that resilience (shock-absorbing elements and action against shock) in an economy can exist in the following areas: mac-roeconomic stability, efficiency of the microeconomic market, good governance, social development. All of these areas have variables that are affected by economic policies and can be used to create economic resilience to deal with the consequences of adverse shocks.
Conclusion and policy implications
Innovation is one of the most important tools by which, companies can help promotion of economic dynamism in every industry. Innovation is the result of choosing an appropriate policy and following that. In order for companies and organizations to become and remain innovator, they need an innovation policy directed by the government and sector institutions. Organizational performance has different dimensions including not only financial approaches, but also all the approaches that can evaluate value creation in an organization. Innovative performance is usually determined by investigating the number of evident achievements, recorded reports, and new projects adopted by the organization. Furthermore, comparison of the function and quality of new products and processes with those of competitors suggest the innovative performance of the organization. Reputation in the market is also one of the determinative factors in this regard. So, studying the obstacles to development in social systems can provide the country's planners with a deep and scientific analysis of these obstacles; so that they can propose inclusive development plans to provide the opportunity of sustainable development in the country.
The key concept in a resilient economy is the impact of adverse shocks on economic growth. If the adverse shock fails to change the course of economic growth, the economy is resilient to shock. If the shock changes the growth path and reduces the growth rate and the economy has the capacity to react and be able to recover and achieve positive growth again, the economy is resilient, but if due to the shock, it cannot recover, is economically vulnerable. Part of the overall policy of the resistance economy is to create economic resilience, and part is to reduce the vulnerability of the economy. It can be concluded that economic stability is one of the factors that increase the horizons of economic growth in the country and is a necessary condition for achieving high economic growth in the country. Therefore, the stability of economic systems for the region and various industries is very important.
In spite of the importance of innovation systems for regional sustainability, little evidence still exists so far for diversity of regional sustainability models of some industries in the regional context. As a sustainable competitive advantage creating sustainability, the concept of innovation system has become important in traditional industries, such as food industry. So, it is necessary to propose a model with the capacity of providing a proper understanding of the relationship between regional sustainability agents such as innovation systems. In this way, organizations will be able to investigate these agents and manage regional sustainability.
Acknowledgments
The study was performed with the financial support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research in the framework of the project 18-410-700006 "Study of the processes of evolutionary formation of regional clusters".
References
1. Aliasi, M., Safardoost, A., and Rozehsara, M. (2018). The role of innovation strategy on innovative performance of organizations. Strategic Management Thought, 12(1), 185-204.
2. Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O'Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable development, 15(1), 38-52.
3. Cowen, M., & Shenton, R. W. (1996). Doctrines of development. Taylor & Francis.
4. Naraghi, Y. (1996). Development and underdeveloped countries. Tehran, Anteshar Co.
5. Pourmohammadi, M., Zali, N. (2004). Human development, challenges and perspectives (with an analytical look at human development indicators in Iran). Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 15, 117-140.
6. Seyedmohammad. J., & Ansari, R. (2015). The impact of open innovation and technological instability on the performance of innovation in achieving competitive advantage in knowledge-based companies, Journal of Management Improvement Research, 9(1), 114-95.
7. Macpherson, M. (2001, May). Performance excellence principles-drivers of innovation in public sector organisations. In National Conference of the New Zealand Organisation for Quality (Vol. 31).
8. Jacson, H. (2007). The relationship between innovation and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 31(2), 193-224
9. Kanter, R. M. (1984). Change masters. Simon and Schuster.
10. Carlisle, Y., & McMillan, E. (2006). Innovation in organizations from a complex adaptive systems perspective. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8(1). DOI: 10.emerg/10.17357.120dec460fb3975905c83ef42abd3252.
11. Truong, Y. (2013). A cross-country study of consumer innovativeness and technological service innovation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(1), 130-137.
12. Shaukat, S., Nawaz, M. S., & Naz, S. (2013). Effects of innovation types on firm performance: An empirical study on Pakistan's manufacturing sector. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 7(2), 243-262.
13. Lopes, C. M., Scavarda, A., Hofmeister, L. F., Thomé, A. M. T., & Vaccaro, G. L. R. (2017). An analysis of the interplay between organizational sustainability, knowledge management, and open innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 476-488.
14. Stock, T., Obenaus, M., Slaymaker, A., & Seliger, G. (2017). A model for the development of sustainable innovations for the early phase of the innovation process. Procedia Manufacturing, 8, 215-222.
15. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 4(1), 1-23.
16. Zhang, X., Yi, L., & Zhao, D. (2013). Community-based disaster management: a review of progress in China. Natural hazards, 65(3), 2215-2239.
17. León, J., & March, A. (2014). Urban morphology as a tool for supporting tsunami rapid resilience: A case study of Talcahuano, Chile. Habitat international, 43, 250-262.
18. Racela, O. C. (2014). Customer orientation, innovation competencies, and firm performance: A proposed conceptual model. Procedia-Social and behavioral sciences, 148, 16-23.
19. Zheng, W. (2010). A social capital perspective of innovation from individuals to nations: where is empirical literature directing us? International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(2), 151-183.
20. Rezvani, M., & Taghraei, M.T. (2012). The role of organizational social capital in organizational innovation orientation in knowledge-based enterprises (Case of: university of Tehran, science and technology park). Transformation Management Research Journal, 3 (2), 28-53.
21. Feizollahi, S., Shirmohammadi, A., & Latifian, B. (2013). The investigation of relationship between organization strategy, total quality management (TQM) and organization performance. Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(8), 1879-1885.
22. Shaemi, A., Shahin, A, & Yazdanashenas, M. (2008). The role of human resource management system in organizational entrepreneurship, Quarterly Journal of Human Resource Management Research, 7, 177-221.
23. Kuratko, D. F. (1993). Entrepreneurship: Developing innovation in the corporation. Advances in Global High Technology Management: High Technology Venturing, 3, 3-14.
24. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of management review, 25(1), 217-226.
25. Sathe, V. (1989). Fostering entrepreneurship in the large, diversified firm. Organizational Dynamics, 18(1), 20-32.
26. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship, New York, Harper & Row Published.
27. Birkinshaw, L. (1997). The determinants and consequences of subsidiary initiative in multinational corporations, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 24(1), 9-36.
28. Shane, S.A. (2001). Entrepreneurship as a field of research: A response to Zahra and Dess, Singh, and Erickson, Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 13-16.
29. Camisón, C., & Villar-López, A. (2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. Journal of business research, 67(1), 2891-2902.
30. Baker, G., Hoshi, T., & Itoh, H. (2008). Organizational innovation and corporate performance. In Organizational Innovation and Firm Performance (pp. 143-145). Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 22 (2), June 2008 (Elsevier Inc.).
31. Lu, T. T., & Chen, J. C. (2010). Incremental or radical? A study of organizational innovation: An artificial world approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(12), 8193-8200.
32. Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S., & Lay, G. (2008). Organizational innovation: The challenge of measuring nontechnical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation, 28(10), 644-657.
33. Ghina, A. (2014). Effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in higher education institutions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 115, 332-345.
34. Nickraftar, T., Talebi, K., & Saeediarani, F. (2015). Investigating the relationship between organizational innovation and performance with the mediating variable of marketing innovation (Case study: small and medium businesses in Kashan textile industry). Business Management, 7 (2), 485-500.
35. Peng, J., Zhang, G., Fu, Z., & Tan, Y. (2014). An empirical investigation on organizational innovation and individual creativity. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 12(3), 465-489.
36. Imanipour, N., Mohammadpour, S., & Gholipour, A. (2012). The role of e-human resource management on organizational innovation. Entrepreneurship Development, 5(2), 87-105.
37. Lam, A. (2011, April). Innovative organisations: Structure, learning, and adaptation. In DIME final conference (Vol. 6, p. 8).
38. Choopani, H., Zarekhalili, M., Gholamzadeh, A., & Gholamzade, H. (2012). Investigating the relationship between intellectual capital and organizational innovation (case study: development insurance company). Innovation and Creativity in the Humanities, 2 (1), 27-58.
39. Saeedaardakani, S., Tabatabainasab, S., Konjkavmonfared, A., & Hakaki, S. (2010). Identification and ranking of factors affecting innovation with MADM approach. First International Conference on Management and Innovation, Shiraz, 27-28 February.
40. Wong, C. K. (2005, May). A critical realist approach to organizational innovation research. In 4th International Critical Management Studies Conference, 4th-6th July, at Cambridge University, United Kingdom.
41. Chen, J., Zhu, Z., Xie, H. Y. (2004). Measuring Intellectual Capital: A new Model and Empirical Study. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 195-212.
42. Ojasalo, J. (2008). Management of innovation networks: a case study of different approaches. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(1), 51-86.
43. Mirkamal, S., Choopani, H. (2011). The relationship between transformational leadership and tendency to organizational innovation. Insurance Research Journal, 26(3), 155 - 187.
44. Baglieri, E. (2003). Dall'idea al valore [From idea to value]. Milano: Etas Libri.
45. Jiménez-Jimenez, D., Valle, R. S., & Hernandez-Espallardo, M. (2008). Fostering innovation. European Journal of innovation management, 11(3). pp. 389-412. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060810889026.
46. Jilcha, K., & Kitaw, D. (2017). Industrial occupational safety and health innovation for sustainable development. Engineering science and technology, an international journal, 20(1), 372-380.
47. Gharkhlo, M., & Hosseini, S.H. (2017). Sustainable Urban Development Indicators. Geography and regional development journal, 4(8), 157-177.
48. Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research policy, 26(4-5), 475-491.
49. Braczyk, H. J., Cooke, P. N., & Heidenreich, M. (Eds.). (1998). Regional innovation systems: the role of governances in a globalized world. Psychology Press.
50. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: Industry, university, and government in innovation. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293-337.
51. 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, 29(2), 109-123.
52. Dzisah, J., & Etzkowitz, H. (2008). Triple helix circulation: the heart of innovation and development. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 7(2), 101-115.
53. Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The triple helix, quadruple helix... and an N-tuple of helices: explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 25-35.
54. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Can 'the public' be considered as a fourth helix in university-industry-government relations? Report on the Fourth Triple Helix Conference, 2002. Science and public policy, 30(1), 55-61.
55. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. In Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems (pp. 1-63). Springer, New York, NY.
56. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD), 1(1), 41-69.
57. 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.
58. Briguglio, L., Cordina, G., Farrugia, N., & Vella, S. (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring economic resilience. Building the Economic Resilience of Small States, Malta: Islands and Small States Institute of the University of Malta and London: Commonwealth Secretariat, 265-288.
59. Briguglio, L., & Galea, W. (2003). Updating and augmenting the economic vulnerability index. Occasional paper, Islands and Small States Institute of the University of Malta, 4, 1-15.
