PRE ASSIGNMENT: "Carlsberg" and “Mothers of invention”

CARLSBERG

1. Who are the constituents in the Carlsberg article? What are their motivations?

 Carlsberg: The beer manufacturer is motivated by a strong desire to enhance its

sustainability performance. The primary focus is on mitigating the environmental
impact of packaging, which constitutes a significant portion of its overall footprint.
Carlsberg seeks innovative, eco-friendly packaging solutions without delving directly
into packaging production.

 ecoXpac: A Danish company specializing in biodegradable packaging, ecoXpac's

motivation lies in a shared commitment with Carlsberg to create sustainable
packaging options. Their collaboration provides ecoXpac access to a broader market
through Carlsberg's involvement.

 BillerudKorsnäs: As a Swedish packaging company, BillerudKorsnäs contributes

additional capital and materials expertise. Their motivation includes expanding the
market for sustainable packaging solutions, leading to increased sales and profit.

 Technical University of Denmark (DTU): The DTU's motivation centers around

advancing research and contributing technical expertise to the sustainable packaging
technology. Their resources and equipment are made available for the project,
aligning with their dedication to sustainable innovation.

 Innovation Fund Denmark (IFD): The IFD's motivation is likely rooted in supporting
and promoting sustainable innovation, aligning with broader environmental and
societal goals.

2. What is “open” about the features of this project to develop a biodegradable beer
botle? How does that differ from other ways of innovating you know?
 Collaboration: The project embraces collaboration across organizational boundaries,
with Carlsberg working alongside external entities such as ecoXpac, DTU,
BillerudKorsnäs, and IFD. Each brings unique knowledge, expertise, and resources to
the collaborative effort.

 Shared Purpose: The collaborators share a common goal of developing

environmentally friendly packaging. This shared purpose facilitates a division of
labor, allowing each contributor to leverage its strengths.

 Information Sharing: Carlsberg provides guidelines and specifications, and the

resulting packaging technology is made open and available for other companies to
adopt. This openness expands the market and benefits both the packaging
developers and other companies.

This open innovation approach contrasts with traditional, closed models where companies develop
solutions internally without external collaboration, emphasizing the sharing of risks and resources.

3. Do you think Carlsberg should pursue its effort in open innovation to develop a
biodegradable botle? Should they change course?
  Success Metrics: If the project continues to meet sustainability goals and
demonstrates economic viability, Carlsberg should likely persist in its efforts.

 Market Dynamics: In a growing market for sustainable packaging, Carlsberg should

remain committed to innovation to maintain a competitive edge.

 Stakeholder Alignment: Continued support from stakeholders, including consumers,

investors, and regulatory bodies, is essential for Carlsberg to sustain its open
innovation strategy.

 Technological Advancements: Adaptation to emerging technologies or approaches

that further enhance packaging sustainability is crucial for Carlsberg to stay at the
forefront of innovation.

In summary, as long as the open innovation model proves effective in achieving sustainability
objectives and staying competitive, Carlsberg should continue along this path. Regular assessments
and adaptability to changing circumstances will be vital in determining the need for a change in
strategy.

Mothers of invention

1. What are the main findings of the research paper described in the reading? Do you
find these findings surprising? Why/why not?
The research paper's primary discoveries are as follows:
 Women inventors demonstrate a greater likelihood of creating patents that address
issues specifically affecting or disproportionately impacting women, such as
menopause and fibromyalgia.
 Teams composed entirely of female inventors are 35% more prone to innovate in
areas related to women's health when compared to teams consisting solely of male
inventors.
 Female-majority teams exhibit an 18% higher likelihood of focusing on women's
health compared to teams with a majority of male inventors.
 Despite constituting almost half of U.S. life sciences PhDs, women's representation
on U.S. life sciences patents stands at only 25%.
These findings underscore the underrepresentation of women in the innovation sector,
particularly in fields related to women's health, highlighting the necessity for systemic
changes to address gender imbalances in innovation.

2. What solutions does the author of the reading propose to address disparities in STEM
and innovation? How do these translate to the organizational context?

The author puts forward several remedies to tackle disparities in STEM and innovation:
 Enhance Diversity in Decision-Making Roles: Advocate for increased representation
of women and underrepresented groups in decision-making positions related to
setting innovation priorities, grant allocation, and investment choices. This involves
diversifying the voices that contribute to defining problem areas and selecting
projects.
 Reevaluate Selection Criteria: Reconsider the criteria used to select projects and
individuals in innovation processes. Examine how biases in evaluation processes,
 such as lower ratings for women and underrepresented groups, perpetuate
inequalities. Challenge and amend the criteria to ensure impartial and unbiased
assessments.
 Prioritize Underfunded Problem Areas: Acknowledge and address the underfunding
and neglect of specific problem domains and missions, especially those linked to
women's health. Challenge existing notions about which areas are deemed a priority
for investment and innovation.
In an organizational setting, these solutions would necessitate a reassessment of hiring
practices, ensuring diversity in decision-making bodies, and a reevaluation of criteria for
project selection to eliminate biases. Organizations could actively seek out and prioritize
underfunded problem domains in their innovation strategies.

3. Outside of medicine, can you think of technological/product/service domains that

might have known a slower innovation rate because of the under-representation of
some groups among inventors and decision-makers?

Beyond medicine, areas potentially experiencing sluggish innovation due to under-

representation might include:
 Technological Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities: The scarcity of
representation among inventors and decision-makers with disabilities might result in
delayed innovation in technologies designed to enhance accessibility for people with
diverse disabilities.
 Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Educational Technology: The lack of
representation from various cultural and linguistic backgrounds in the development
of educational technology could lead to a slower pace of innovation in creating
inclusive and culturally relevant learning tools.
These instances underscore the significance of varied perspectives in propelling innovation
across diverse domains. The absence of such diversity could lead to overlooked challenges
and unrealized opportunities.