Given the increasing complexity of global ecological and social problems, innovation plays a key role in solutions for sustainable development. Within innovation ecosystems, intermediaries such as innovation hubs play an important part in influencing other actors like startups, investors and policymakers to create solutions for change. Therefore, it is essential that innovation hubs incorporate sustainability into their practices, if they are to contribute to addressing the Global Sustainability Challenge (GSC).   To see how this could be done, this study examines the case of the Venture Café Global Network (VCGN) a type of sector agnostic innovation hub. The study used a multi-method qualitative approach. Data was gathered through semi-structured interviews with different players in the innovation ecosystem, as well as with actors from within VCGN, and through a documentary analysis.   The results and discussion are presented according to certain overarching themes that emerged from the interviews and answer the research questions. Along with a longer list of recommendations, this study concludes that the adoption of a shared organisational definition of sustainability is the bedrock for any sustainability integration and vital for innovation hubs to impact other actors in their innovation ecosystems, to address the GSC.

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to understand How Corporate Innovation Hubs (CIHs) can Mitigate NIH and NSH Problems in Knowledge Transfer. To fulfill this purpose, the following research questions were derived: RQ1: What are the causes of NIH & NSH problems among actors collaborating through a CIH? RQ2: What are the consequences of NIH & NSH problems among actors collaborating through a CIH? RQ3: What mechanisms can a CIH use to mitigate NIH & NSH problems among collaborating actors? Method – The study is an explorative inductive multiple case-study, investigating five CIHs situated in either Silicon Valley, US or Gothenburg, Sweden. In total, 39 interviews were conducted in three waves, and results were derived using a Gioia analysis. Findings – This study resulted in a framework illustrating connections of causes and consequences of NIH and NSH problems with corresponding mitigating mechanisms. The most critical causes are Obsessive control (NIH), Internal antagonism (NIH) and Low confidential awareness (NSH). The most severe consequences are Use of irrelevant knowledge (NIH), Suffocation of external ideas (NIH) and Restrained problem-solving (NSH). The most important mitigating mechanisms are Translate relevance of ideas (NIH) and Create mutual confidential understanding (NSH). Theoretical and Practical Implications – This study contributes to the scarce literature on NIH and NSH problems among multiple actors collaborating through CIHs. By identifying causes, consequences and mitigating mechanisms of NIH and NSH problems, CIHs will be able to detect NIH and NSH tendencies among its collaborating actors, to mitigate its causes and prevent its consequences. Limitations and Future Research – The study is limited by the investigated CIHs focus on exploring future transportation solutions, indicating that future studies can investigate CIHs in other industry settings and among other actors collaborating through CIHs. Keywords: Corporate Innovation Hubs; NIH; NSH; Knowledge Transfer

Innovation hub organizations - or 'hubs' - have become a prevalent form of support for technology entrepreneurship in Africa. About 170 African hubs have been established, most since 2010. Practitioners have argued either that hubs are transformative network infra-structures for Africa's fledgling digital economy or that they are ineffective business incubators. This thesis steps back from this debate about whether hubs work. Instead, it asks how African hubs work, specifically how they shape relationships of technology entrepreneurs. Literature on intermediation and incubation is reviewed to establish a theoretical framework. The thesis then tests and extends the framework based on an extensive, grounded empirical inquiry. In-depth case study data (including 119 interviews with 133 participants) on six hubs were collected during field studies in Kigali, Harare, and Accra from September-December 2014. The thesis finds that the analyzed hub organizations were defined by nested, fluidly bounded entrepreneurial communities. Communities varied by their level of activation: mem-bers of active communities had concern for each other and recognized communities as social entities, while inactive community members only shared a loose purpose. The six hubs followed two distinct organizational patterns: the technology hub (depending on active core communities) and the entrepreneurship hub (relying on active peripheral communities). Based on these results, the thesis theorizes hubs as assemblers of technology entrepreneurs: hubs assemble previously distant and different actors into entrepreneurial communities. Assembly is unique to hubs: it is related to but different from incubation and most forms of intermediation. Assembly theory addresses important meso-level analytical gaps in prior research on the coordination and organization of entrepreneurship. The thesis underscores limitations in African technology entrepreneurship environments, advising hub practitioners to acknowledge that 'only what is there can be assembled.' Ultimately, it highlights that hubs have been critically misunderstood, and clarifies what hubs can and cannot do for technology entrepreneurs.