JB: Indeed, the issue is pressing. Worldwide, a consensus is slowly gaining ground: The immense societal challenges facing humanity can no longer be overcome with conventional technologies or ways of thinking. New approaches and instruments are needed to tackle challenges such as climate change or global pandemics. As a non-profit organization, we see innovation in this sense as a central lever in the transformation towards sustainability. It is not about innovation for the sake of inventing, but innovation with a clear objective. An example: In Canada, the artificial intelligence (AI) strategy is also based on ethical standards, thus linking technology and social issues. Through our work at the Bertelsmann Stiftung, we want to contribute to innovation being understood not only as a driver of competitiveness, but also as a path to comprehensive sustainability. And this is not a nice-to-have, but as essential for our society as for our economy.





CB: As you have suggested, with innovation being such a central topic right now, definitions vary greatly according to beliefs, geographies, industries, disciplines, etc. The OECD has a good definition in my view, even if it is slightly too focused on markets, leaving social/societal innovation in the shadows. My personal understanding of the term "innovation" is that it is the general science, or art, of getting ideas effectively adopted into the real world, in a manner perceived to be more valuable than previous ways.

There is very often an element of novelty to innovation, even if defining "novel" would be another question in itself. What is new in one scientific field or business industry might be considered common practice in another. What is a new societal idea today, might have been the traditional operating logic of other moments in history. However, the value from these not-so-novel ideas may still be considered highly beneficial in today's context or tomorrow's future.

CB: Many universities worldwide have technology transfer offices (TTOs) that aim to convert research with potential commercial interest into economic value. The province of Québec, Canada wanted to launch a similar organization, but with broader value and geographical assumptions. The provincial government invests a good portion of its GDP in research funding and hence was looking for ways to increase its return on research investments. For governmental stakeholders, "return on investment" carries a broad meaning including social returns, environmental improvements, culture building and, of course, increased economic outputs. Hence, rather than resorting exclusively to research and development (R&D) credits or subsidizing university-focused TTOs, it set up Axelys, a pan-provincial non-profit with the aim to stimulate innovation at the project level, institutional level, and province-wide eco-systemic level to help capture the many different, not just economic, "values" of publicly funded research.

We are establishing a network of "innovation brokers" based in universities, colleges, and communities everywhere in the province that are co-funded by both the research institution and Axelys. These brokers engage with researchers in the different institutions to discover ideas that possess potential for innovation. Axelys then assesses the potential economic, social, and other types of values of these ideas and defines a tailored path forward to capture or deploy the societal value(s) identified. This could be achieved by refining a technology or a non-technological process, by helping engage with the right stakeholders (clients, beneficiaries, experts, non-profits, etc.), by helping scale validated initiatives, by supporting the establishment of project leadership when a project pilot does not naturally emerge, etc.

We aim to provide what it takes to help deliver the societal value of promising research.

JB: In our current projects, we focus on stimulating the dynamics of innovation and start-ups. We use studies to identify weaknesses in the local innovation system and work with experts to develop concrete proposals to reform it. For example, in our study series "Innovation for Transformation" we have looked for progressive innovation policies worldwide, including in Canada. Another important element is the cross-sectoral connecting of stakeholders who would otherwise not encounter each other. This includes politicians, policy makers, start-ups, large companies, non-profit organizations, and researchers. We want to anchor the idea of "mission orientation" more firmly in the German innovation system, i.e., align innovation policy with concrete societal needs ("missions"). To this end, we initiate workshops, for example, to discuss necessary adjustments in the institutional landscape.

CB: When we think about the question carefully, it can basically be rephrased into "how can we be innovative in innovation". This is something we have been quite focused on at both the organizational and eco-systemic levels, in Canada and Germany. Almost ironically, when most actors usually focus on improving technological innovation, social sciences usually seem best placed to answer the question.

CB: Germany has an excellent education and research ecosystem that is used to collaborating with industry. For example, the dual education system is deeply engrained and enables the co-contribution of theoretical ideas developed in the academic context with the pragmatic reality of the workplace. As the actors on both the theoretical and real "platforms" are the same individual, the focus on ideas and their simultaneous application becomes internalized in individuals, contributing to a culture of innovation in Germany. Another interesting point we noticed when looking at the tradition of innovation in Germany, was the historical importance put on the social and spiritual knowledge transfer aspects of apprenticeships. Canada could definitely learn from and build on Germany's long history in relaying social and behavioral norms towards the goal of nurturing a "culture of innovation", whether in crafts, research, businesses, NGOs, communities and government.

We hope that the GCC continues to act as a "pacemaker" where innovation professionals and enthusiasts can exchange ideas and values, in order to make better societies on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond.



JB: Despite all weaknesses, e.g., in the digital sector, it must be emphasised that there is a lot of successful innovation in Germany. The field of mechanical engineering, in particular, has a lot of know-how to offer. At the same time, there is a certain lack of bridging technology, innovation, and societal progress. Canada appears more progressive in this context, as evidenced, for example, by the "Montréal Declaration for a Responsible Development of AI". In our research, we were repeatedly impressed by the interdisciplinarity and diversity in Canadian institutions such as CIFAR and Mila. Germany could do well to learn from this. Furthermore, it will be exciting to see how the recently announced innovation agency will be set up in Canada.

There are similar plans in Germany, and an exchange on this matter could be very interesting. There is also plenty of room for bilateral cooperation. Both Canada and Germany (and Europe) want to develop technologically and must stand up to competitors, such as China and the US. Together, they could pursue a "third way" that combines technological and social innovations in a complementary way and that differs from economic and social models in China or the US. An organization like the GCC could take on the important role of "bridge builder" between the continents and different sectors.

Photo Credits:

Header picture: David Ausserhofer

Dr. Camilla Mohrdieck: Engelbert Lauinger

Prof. Dr. Ron Pelot: Axelys