2 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Navigating the 'paradox of openness' in energy and transport innovation: insights from eight corporate clean technology research and development case studies
Using an inductive case study approach drawn from original interview data, this article investigates the innovation approaches among a sample of international energy companies, or corporate firms. It first presents a conceptual framework synthesized from the business studies, entrepreneurship, evolutionary economics, innovation studies, management science, organization studies, political science, and sociology literature. This framework suggests that corporate approaches to clean technology innovation will cut across the four dimensions of organizational multiplicity and stakeholder involvement, information sharing, coordination and control, and market orientation. It then explores how eight firms—the Algal Carbon Conversion Flagship and Aurora Algae (biofuel), DONG and Statoil (carbon capture and storage), Tesla and Volkswagen (electric vehicles), and Siemens and Vestas (offshore wind turbines)—approach clean technology development with “open innovation” attributes mixed with “closed” attributes. Although the study finds striking similarities among the particular approaches embraced by each corporate actor, it also notes that approaches are technology and firm specific, and the potential for different permutations leads to an almost endless number of possible stylistic combinations. The innovation profiles depicted also reveal conflict and competition among various stakeholders, the implication being that corporate innovation in the energy sector remains a conflicted, disjointed, and messy process
Recommended from our members
Balancing safety with sustainability: assessing the risk of accidents for modern low-carbon energy systems
This study assesses the risk of energy accidents—their frequency over time, severity in terms of fatalities, and scope in terms of property damage—among a suite of low-carbon energy systems. Using an original historical database of energy accidents over the period 1950–2014, it comparatively assesses energy accident risk across biofuels, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectricity, hydrogen, nuclear power, solar energy, and wind energy. Our study shows how these energy systems collectively involved 686 accidents resulting in 182,794 human fatalities and 388.8 million and 267.2 fatalities per accident, though when reflected as a median the numbers substantially improve to $820,000 in damages per accident and zero fatalities. Wind energy is the most frequent to incur an accident within our sample (48.8 percent of accidents), hydroelectric accidents tend to be the most fatal (97.2 percent of all deaths), and nuclear energy accidents tend to be the most expensive (accounting for 90.8 percent of damages). The article uses this data to present a set of unique risk profiles: nuclear, hydro, and wind energy are categorized as having a “high” risk of accidents; hydrogen, biofuels, and biomass “moderate” a accident risk; solar and geothermal a “low” risk