Co-location of innovators and final products: case of wind energy of Germany
https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2025-3628
Abstract
This study highlights the importance of understanding the geographical context of innovation processes in industries driven by tacit knowledge, with German wind energy as its object of investigation. The subject of the research is the spatial organization of innovation processes in the wind energy sector, focusing on the co-location of inventors, production facilities, and installed capacities, particularly among locally embedded enterprises. The aim of this research is to characterize the geography of innovation in the German wind energy sector by examining the correlation between innovation departments and installed capacities, the degree of company embeddedness, and the industry’s stage of development. The novelty lies in the application of a spatial analysis framework combined with network theory to explore how proximity and embeddedness shape the innovation cycle. The study developed a methodology to quantitatively assess the co-location of company branches and installed capacities over time using influence zones. Findings reveal a strong link between the locations of knowledge-generation sites and installed capacities, especially for embedded enterprises, where co-location coefficients within a 50-km radius range from 1.9 to 2.5. This correlation strengthens over time, particularly from 2000–2009 to 2010–2019. Foreign enterprises show high co-location coefficients for manufacturing sites but not for innovation departments. Further research is needed to explore the interplay of tacit and formalized knowledge in increasingly complex innovation processes and to determine causality in co-location patterns between innovators and installed capacities.
About the Authors
Ekaterina V. Romanova
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Malaya Ordynka 17, Moscow, 119017
Evgeny I. Vdovkin
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Leninskie Gory 1, Moscow, 119991
References
1. Alhusen, H., Bennat, T. (2021). Combinatorial innovation modes in SMEs: Mechanisms integrating STI processes into DUI mode learning and the role of regional innovation policy. European Planning Studies, 29 (4), 779-805. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2020.1786009.
2. Asheim, B. (2007). Differentiated knowledge bases and varieties of regional innovation systems. Innovation, 20 (3), 223-241. DOI: 10.1080/13511610701722846.
3. Asheim B. and Coenen L. (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, 34(8), 1173-1190. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013.
4. Asheim B. and Gertler M. (2005). The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems. In: Fagerberg J., Mowery D., and Nelson R., (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 291-317. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0011.
5. Alle, K., Fettke, U., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N. (2017). Lokale Innovationsimpulse und die Transformation des deutschen Energiesystems. In: Fuchs, G. (eds) Lokale Impulse für Energieinnovationen. Energie in Naturwissenschaft, Technik, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-14801-0_1.
6. Baburin V.L., Zemtsov S.P. (2017). Innovation potential of russian regions. Moscow: KDU "University book".
7. Barua, P. T. (2012). Delivering on the clean energy economy: The role of policy in developing successful domestic solar and wind industries. World Resources Institute, [online]. Available at: http://pdf.wri.org/delivering_clean_energy_economy.pdfhtml [Accessed 22 Feb. 2025].
8. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in human geography, 28 (1), 31-56. DOI: 10.1191/0309132504ph469oa.
9. Becattini G. (1979). Dal “settore”industriale al“distretto”industriale. Alcune considerazioni sull’unità d’indagine dell’economia industriale. Rivista di economia e politica industriale, 1, 7-21.
10. Becattini G. (1990). The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion. In: Pyke P., Beccattini G. and Sengenberger W. (Eds) Industrial Districts & Inter-firm Co-operation in Italy. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies (ILO), 13-32. DOI: 10.4000/rei.6507.
11. Bednarz, M. Broekel, T. (2020). Pulled or pushed? The spatial diffusion of wind energy between local demand and supply. Industrial and Corporate Change, 29 (4), 893-916. DOI: 10.1093/icc/dtaa012.
12. Binz, C., Truffer, B. (2017). Global Innovation Systems — A conceptual framework for innovation dynamics in transnational contexts. Research Policy, 46 (7), 1284-1298. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.05.012.
13. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39 (1), 61-74. DOI:10.1080/0034340052000320887.
14. Camagni, R. (1991). Local‘Milieu’, Uncertainty and Innovation Networks: Towards a New DynamicTheory of Economic Space. In: Camagni, R., Ed., Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives. London: Belhaven, 121-144.
15. Carrillo-Carrillo, F., Alcalde-Heras, H. (2020). Modes of innovation in an emerging economy: a firm-level analysis from Mexico. Innovation, 22 (3), 334-352. DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2020.1735395.
16. Chugh, R. (2015). Do Australian universities encourage tacit knowledge transfer? International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing, 2, 128-135. DOI: 10.5220/0005585901280135.
17. Cooke P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10 (4), 945-974. DOI: 10.1093/icc/10.4.945.
18. Doloreux, D., Shearmur, R. (2023). Does location matter? STI and DUI innovation modes in different geographic settings. Tecinnovation, 119, 102609. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102609.
19. Eder, J. (2019). Innovation in the periphery: A critical survey and research agenda. International Regional Science Review, 42 (2), 119-146. DOI: 10.1177/0160017618764279.
20. Feldman M. P., Kogler D. F. (2010). Stylized facts in the geography of innovation. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, 1, 381-410. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01008-7.
21. Hanson J. et al. (2021). The co-evolution of innovation systems and context: Offshore wind in Norway and the Netherlands. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 138, 110513. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110513.
22. Heidenreich, M., Mattes, J. (2022). "Wissensgenerierung und -diffusion in der deutschen Windenergiebranche [Bundesländer-Übersicht zu Erneuerbaren Energien]". Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 31(5), 1285-1306, DOI: 10.1093/icc/dtac022.
23. Hervas-Oliver, J. L., et al. (2021). Radical vs incremental innovation in Marshallian Industrial Districts in the Valencian Region: what prevails? In: Luciana Lazzeretti, ed., Rethinking Clusters. London: Routledge, 46-61. DOI: 10.4324/9781003130222.
24. Huenteler, J., Schmidt, T., Ossenbrink, J., and Hoffmann, V. (2015). Technology life-cycles in the energy sector — Technological characteristics and the role. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 104, 102-121. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.09.022.
25. Jackwerth, T. (2017). Formen der Wissensintegration in Innovationsnetzwerken. Das Beispiel der Windenergie. In Kollaborative Innovationen. Die innerbetriebliche Nutzung externer Wissensbestände in vernetzten Entwicklungsprozessen, Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 119-147.
26. Jensen,M. B., etal. (2007). Formsof knowledgeandmodesof innovation.ResearchPolicy, 36(5), 680-693. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006.
27. Kamp, L. M., Smits, R., & Andriesse, C. (2004). Notions on learning applied to wind turbine development in the Netherlands and Denmark. Energy Policy, 1625-1637. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00134-4.
28. Lorenze E. and Lundvall B. (2006). How Europe’s Economies Learn: Coordinating Competing Models. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199203192.001.0001.
29. Maegaard P., Krenz A., Palz W. (2013). Huetter’s heritage: The Stuttgart School. In: Wind power for the world: the rise of modern wind energy, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 387-407. DOI: 10.1201/b15010.
30. Marshall A. (1920). Principles of Economics, 8st ed. London: Macmillan and Co.
31. Moodysson J. (2007). Sites and modes of knowledge creation: on the spatial organization of biotechnology innovation. Lund: Lund University.
32. Moodysson J. (2008). Principles and practices of knowledge creation. On the organization of ‘buzz’ and ‘pipelines’ in life science communities, Economic Geography 84 (4), 449-469.
33. Nonaka, I. (2009). The knowledge-creating company. In: The economic impact of knowledge, London: Routledge.
34. Ohlhorst, D. (2009). Windenergienutzung in Deutschland – Konstellations-und Policy-Analyse des Innovationsverlaufs. In: Windenergie in Deutschland: Konstellationen, Dynamiken und Regulierungspotenziale im Innovationsprozess. Wiesbaden: VS-Research.
35. Parrilli, M. D., Balavac, M., Radicic, D. (2020). Business innovation modes and their impact on innovation outputs: Regional variations and the nature of innovation across EU regions. Research Policy, 49 (8), 104047. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104047.
36. Parrilli, M. D., Heras, H. A. (2016). STI and DUI innovation modes: Scientific-technological and context-specific nuances. Research Policy, 45 (4), 747-756. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.001.
37. Pelyasov A. N. (2012). Innovation and regional development. In: Synergy in Space: regional innovation systems, clusters, and knowledge spillovers. Smolensk: Oecumene.
38. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
39. Rohe, S. (2020). The regional facet of a global innovation system: Exploring the spatiality of resource formation in the value chain for onshore wind energy. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 36, 331-344. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2020.02.002.
40. Scott T A. (2007). Capitalism and urbanization in a new key? The cognitive–cultural dimension. Social Forces 85 (4), 1465-1482. DOI: 10.1353/sof.2007.0078.
41. Smith, K. (2000). What is the 'knowledge economy'? Knowledge-intensive industries and distributed knowledge bases. Sydney: AEGIS, University of Western Sydney.
42. Tang, T., & Popp, D. (2015). The Learning Process and Technological Change in Wind Power: Evidence from China's CDM Wind Projects. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 195-222. DOI: 10.1002/pam.21879.
43. Tsouri, M., Hanson, J., & Normann, H. (2021). Does participation in knowledge networks facilitate market access in global innovation systems? The case of offshore wind. Research Policy, 50 (5), 104227. DOI: 10.1016/J.RESPOL.2021.104227.
Review
For citations:
Romanova E.V., Vdovkin E.I. Co-location of innovators and final products: case of wind energy of Germany. GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY. 2025;18(1):117-129. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2025-3628
Views:
290
Email this article 