Platform governance literature has primarily focused on the platform owner’s perspective, overlooking how complementors can effectively influence governance changes. Our research highlights complementors’ activities, examining how a social justice narrative helps them gain support for change efforts. Across three studies, we (a) identify a novel mechanism, the Robin Hood perception, and explain why this narrative is effective in generating support; (b) show that hypocrisy accusations harm the narrative, in turn reducing support; and (c) find that peer firm mobilization shields complementors from this adverse effect. These findings enhance our understanding of how complementors can garner support for governance changes. They pave the way for further research on how actors beyond platform owners can shape the rules and direction of digital platforms.

Not all firms exhibit the same level of commitment to green new product introductions (GNPIs), yet our understanding of the factors underlying these disparities remains incomplete. Prior research has primarily focused on firm-level factors, paying little attention to individual-level antecedents of GNPIs. This imbalance in the GNPI literature contrasts with the broader innovation and general management literature, which displays an ever-growing interest in the “human side of innovation,” acknowledging the relevance of Chief Executive Officers' (CEOs') political ideologies for organizational outcomes. Addressing this imbalance, our study examines the relationship between CEOs' political ideologies and their firms' GNPIs, along with the conditions that shape this influence. Grounded in social identity theory, our study first argues that the more liberal CEOs are, the more GNPIs their firms are likely to generate and that this association is amplified by CEO power. It then proposes that the more liberal CEOs are, the more likely they are to respond to adverse situations beyond their control (a Republican presidency or lower levels of consumer green sentiment) by initiating more GNPIs. It finally posits that the more liberal CEOs are, the fewer GNPIs they tend to initiate in response to adverse situations for which they are accountable (involvement in sustainability-related scandals). We integrate data from seven databases into a longitudinal dataset comprising 89 firms and 192 CEOs over the period 2010–2020 to test our theoretical framework empirically. Time-lagged panel regression analyses strongly support our theoretical arguments. Our findings contribute to the emergence of an individual-level, microfoundational perspective on sustainable innovations, our knowledge about the organizational implications and boundary conditions of CEOs' political ideologies, and the treatment of multiple identities within social identity theory, especially the relationship between political and occupational identities. The implications of our findings extend to business practitioners, offering valuable insights for CEOs, boards of directors, and investors.

Innovation politics impact the development and introduction of innovations, yet knowledge about the influence of specific political behavior or behavioral patterns remains blurred. Based on a literature review and the articles in this Special Issue, we propose a three-part framework that identifies the building blocks of political behavior in innovation: what motivates actors to be political, the different types of political actors, and the effect of various political behaviors on innovation outcomes. Emphasizing the evolving landscape of innovation politics, the framework aims to highlight research gaps and guide future studies toward improving our understanding of the functional and dysfunctional aspects of innovation politics.

Idea screening is crucial as it must select the most promising ideas that are best suited to increase front-end success. Although paradox theory indicates that learning tensions characterize the evaluation and screening of idea creativity, we know little about how idea screeners navigate through the associated competing demands. In response, we investigate the effects of idea screeners’ paradoxical thinking on the assessment of the creativity of ideas as well as its motivational antecedents of paradoxical thinking. By analyzing a survey (N = 326) and an experiment (N = 292), we show that paradoxical thinking increases front-end success and both dimensions of idea creativity (encompassing meaningfulness and novelty). In turn, by creating a motivational context (comprising decision autonomy, encouragement to take risks, and tolerance for mistakes), firms can provide the antecedents to adopt paradoxical thinking. Our study contributes to and extends the literature on screening idea creativity and paradox theory.

I cannot enter co-authros in the mask: authors are: Röth, Tobias; Schweitzer, Fiona; Spieth, Patrick