Innovation in the products and services offered by a firm does not originate exclusively from activities executed within the boundaries of the firm. Firms are embedded within networks of customers and suppliers (i.e., supply networks) with which they exchange products, services, data, and information. All these exchanges are potential vectors of innovation. Supply network actors do not just supplement internal innovation efforts. In fact, the stock of knowledge that a firm can indirectly access through its network is often comparable to or even exceeds internally available resources, because any single firm usually has many suppliers. To illustrate this fact with respect to a firm's suppliers, for example, consider the research and development (R&D) statistics from some of largest publicly traded firms in the US, Japan, and Europe in the Defense, Automotive, Electronics, Consumer and Packaged Goods (CPG), and Industrial Equipment industries (see Table 1, Data source: Factset and Compustat).

As seen in Table 1, in the period spanning fiscal years 2015–2018, the average research and development (R&D) intensity (and cumulative average dollars invested in R&D) of first‐tier suppliers is higher than, or at least comparable with, the R&D expenditure of the focal firm, both within and across industries. For example, within Defense sector firms, the ratio of average R&D intensity (cumulative R&D dollars) of first‐tier suppliers to that of the focal firm varies from 0.98 to 19.63 (6.90 to 43.00); within the Automotive sector, it varies from 0.60 to 1.40 (3.60 to 18.44). Similar patterns are also observed in the Electronics, Industrial equipment, and CPG sectors. Hewlett Packard, for example, has an average first‐tier supplier R&D intensity of 3.27 times its own, and the cumulative R&D of its first‐tier suppliers is 54.60 times its own spending. Similarly, General Electric (GE) had first‐tier suppliers with an R&D intensity about 62 times its own, while the first‐tier suppliers collectively spent 7.30 times the total R&D dollars that GE spent. These examples illustrate the (1) suppliers R&D investment tend to be greater or equal than the investment of their customers, at least for very large publicly traded companies and that (2) the potential to leverage supplier R&D investments varies greatly within a given industry and across industries.

Leading corporations in different industries actively acknowledge and promote supplier‐driven innovation. In the CPG industry, for instance, Unilever noted: “Around 70% of our innovations are linked to working with our strategic suppliers.” To this end, through its “partners to win” program launched in 2011, Unilever invested in mutually beneficial relationships with key suppliers to “share capabilities and co‐innovate” (Trebilcock, 2014). Similarly, as Procter & Gamble (P&G) engaged in innovation activities with its top 15 suppliers—who feature a combined R&D staff of 50,000—the firm saw a 30% increase in the number of innovation projects with joint staffing between P&G and supplier researchers (Larry & Sakkab, 2006). In the case of Toyota's R&D centers for individual platforms, collaboration with suppliers for innovation is institutionalized. Selected suppliers embedded personnel in the R&D center's operations (Wyman, 2015). Technology firms that invest vast resources in innovation have also embraced this practice. For example, Cisco (Gassmann, 2006) and Google (Remneland‐Wikhamn, Ljungberg, Bergquist, & Kuschel, 2011) have heavily leveraged supplier partnerships to enhance the pace of their innovations. Overall, these examples emphasize the importance of the supplier network in the current context. Rao (2018) state that as much as 55–65% of innovation is driven by suppliers.

This special issue offers a unique opportunity to take stock of the multiple streams of research that investigate innovation in supply networks and to sketch out new avenues for research. In this introductory article, we first discuss the impetus for investigating innovations in supply networks and offer a brief overview of past research that relates to this topic. Next, we develop a framework that, while integrating past research results, pinpoints numerous opportunities for future research on innovation in supply networks. While doing so, we discuss how the papers that are a part of this special issue fit within the proposed framework.

公司提供的产品和服务的创新并非完全源于公司范围内执行的活动。公司嵌入客户和供应商网络（即供应网络）中），以与他们交换产品，服务，数据和信息。所有这些交流都是创新的潜在载体。供应网络参与者不仅可以补充内部创新工作。实际上，一个公司可以通过其网络间接访问的知识储备通常可以与甚至超过内部可用资源相提并论，因为任何单个公司通常都拥有许多供应商。例如，为了说明与公司供应商有关的这一事实，请考虑美国，日本和欧洲的一些最大的上市公司在国防，汽车，电子，消费品和包装产品方面的研发（R＆D）统计数据（CPG）和工业设备行业（请参阅表1，数据来源：Factset和Compustat）。

如表1所示，在2015-2018财年期间，一线供应商的平均研发强度（和研发投入的累计平均美元）高于或至少与一级供应商相当。行业内和跨行业的焦点公司的研发支出。例如，在国防部门的公司中，一线供应商的平均R＆D强度（累计R＆D美元）与焦点公司的R＆D强度之比从0.98到19.63（6.90到43.00）不等。在汽车行业，则从0.60到1.40（3.60到18.44）不等。在电子，工业设备和CPG部门中也观察到类似的模式。例如，惠普的一线供应商平均研发强度是其自身的3.27倍，而累计研发 其一级供应商的D是其自身支出的54.60倍。同样，通用电气（GE）的一级供应商的研发强度约为其自身研发水平的62倍，而一级供应商的总研发投入为通用电气支出的7.30倍。这些示例说明了（1）供应商R＆D投资往往大于或等于其客户的投资，至少对于大型上市公司而言是如此；（2）在特定行业内，利用供应商R＆D投资的潜力差异很大。跨行业。

各行各业的领先企业都积极认可并促进供应商驱动的创新。例如，在CPG行业中，联合利华（Unilever）指出：“我们约有70％的创新与与战略供应商的合作有关。” 为此，联合利华通过2011年启动的“合作伙伴取胜”计划，与主要供应商建立了互惠互利的关系，以“共享能力并共同创新”（Trebilcock，2014年）。同样，宝洁（P＆G）与排名前15位的供应商一起从事创新活动，前15名供应商的研发人员总数为50,000人，因此宝洁与供应商研究人员共同合作，公司的创新项目数量增加了30％（拉里（Larry＆Sakkab），2006年）。在丰田针对各个平台的研发中心的情况下，与供应商的创新合作已制度化。选定的供应商在研发中心的运营中嵌入了人员（Wyman，2015年）。在创新上投入大量资源的技术公司也接受了这种做法。例如，思科（Gassmann，2006年）和谷歌（Remneland-Wikhamn，Ljungberg，Bergquist和Kuschel，2011年）充分利用了供应商合作伙伴关系，以加快创新步伐。总体而言，这些示例强调了在当前情况下供应商网络的重要性。Rao（2018）指出，多达55–65％的创新是由供应商驱动的。

本期特刊提供了一个难得的机会，可以评估研究供应网络中的创新的多种研究流，并勾勒出新的研究途径。在这篇介绍性文章中，我们首先讨论了调查供应网络创新的动力，并简要概述了与此主题相关的以往研究。接下来，我们将开发一个框架，该框架在整合过去的研究结果的同时，为未来有关供应网络创新的研究提供了很多机会。在这样做的同时，我们讨论了作为该特刊的一部分的论文如何适合所提议的框架。