Governance of Innovation Ecosystems: Evidence from Lisbon through the Quadruple Helix Lens

Abstract

Abstract: This paper examines how government, industry, academia, and civil society perform their respective roles within the innovation ecosystem of Lisbon, Portugal, focusing on the governance mechanisms that sustain cross-sector collaboration and on how such coordination contributes to fostering innovation. The study adopts a qualitative approach based on semi-structured interviews with eleven key informants drawn from across the four helices, complemented by documentary analysis of public innovation policies implemented in the territory. The analysis focuses on four analytical dimensions: the governance of the public policy cycle, inter-organisational integration, the alignment between funding instruments and strategic priorities, and the extent of civil society participation in decision-making processes. Findings indicate that Lisbon exhibits an institutionally stabilised ecosystem in which the government plays a central coordinating role by designing consistent policy instruments, leveraging national and European resources, and coordinating regional development mechanisms. The private sector demonstrates high capacity for collaboration with universities and research centres, particularly in knowledge-intensive sectors, a dynamic facilitated by a predictable regulatory environment and formal cooperation channels. Non-governmental organisations and other civil society organisations are recognised as relevant stakeholders, especially in social and urban agendas; however, their strategic influence, whilst formally acknowledged, has yet to be decisively embedded in co-productive decision-making processes. The paper argues that innovation processes in the Lisbon ecosystem derive less from individual sectoral excellence and more from structured coordination among the helices. The ecosystem’s long-term resilience, however, depends on strengthening the meaningful and substantive participation of civil society organisations and consolidating mechanisms for inter-institutional learning that convert technocratic integration into social co-production. The study’s principal theoretical contribution is the empirical operationalisation of the distinction between procedural and substantive civil society participation as the critical variable differentiating a functional Triple Helix from a realised Quadruple Helix. Practical implications address the redesign of civil society engagement mechanisms and the simplification of compliance requirements that disproportionately burden peripheral ecosystem actors.