Innovation as Mindset, not as a Figure

**But who said that a multinational cannot think like a startup?** Innovation has no size (and the same goes for the author).

Within an increasingly complex innovation ecosystem, the idea that true innovation is the prerogative of garage startups has aged. On the contrary, innovation has taken the form of a widespread mindset: a culture that runs through startups, SMEs, large international groups, and the public sector. In this article we explore how the question is not whether a multinational can think like a startup, but how to build inside large organizations spaces, processes, and cultures capable of innovating with entrepreneurial logic. And it proposes a practical path for founders investors and operators of the Italian

Innovation as a mindset, not as a figure

What is the true measure of innovation today? It is not a matter of size or legal form, but of mindset. The literature and international experiences converge on a clear line: innovation does not arise only from the birth of a startup, but from the ability to open the company to external skills, to challenge established models, to experiment with controlled risk, and to dialogue with heterogeneous ecosystems. Henry Chesbrough, considered the father of the Open Innovation paradigm, showed how competitive advantages emerge from openness to new ideas, skills, and external contaminations. It is therefore not the “size” that makes the difference, but the ability to connect internal and external networks and to learn continuously.

In parallel, Alexander Osterwalder, Yves Pigneur, and Tendayi Viki promoted the idea of an innovation ecosystem: it is not about isolating a startup function in a dedicated department, but about enabling startup dialogue with large corporations, universities, customers, and partners. The result is a transformation of the meaning of innovation from an isolated project In this framework, innovation becomes a process of rethinking products, services, processes, and professional boundaries that were once rigidly siloed.

Even Steve Blank, one of the fathers of Lean Startup, contends that the crucial question is not whether a large company can behave like a startup, but how it can build inside spaces, processes, and teams capable of innovating with entrepreneurial logic. Eric Ries, with The Startup Way, described how multinationals like General Electric have adopted startup principles to accelerate experimentation and continuous learning. Digitally mature companies innovate by building cross-functional teams, collaborative networks, and open ecosystems, not by superficially imitating the startup aesthetic.

In short: agility is not a superficial trend; it is the ability to adapt to market changes before others. Innovation has never been a contest between small and large, but a continuous circulation of knowledge among startups, SMEs, and big companies. The capital of the ecosystem is not size, but circulation: those who can learn, update, and contaminate remain relevant.

Innovation does not ask for a birth certificate, but the willingness to share risks, experiment, and learn.

Startup and corporate: a relationship of contamination

There is no need for a dichotomous label between startup and corporate: large companies can act as transformation laboratories, adopting startup logic. The idea is to create structures: cross-functional teams, internal incubators, open innovation partnerships, and governance mechanisms capable of accelerating decisions, tests, and learning. In this framework, speed is not an end in itself, but a prerequisite for sustainable adaptability over time.

The contemporary narrative describes a contamination relationship: mature companies transform their ways of working to enable continuous experimentation, shared responsibility, and listening to the customer. The mix of governance, structure, and culture makes it possible to integrate startup-typical methodologies, such as test-and-learn, rapid iterations, and measurement of learning, into complex and regulated contexts. The objective is not to emulate the aesthetics of a startup, but to internalize a culture of team autonomy, rapid testing cycles, and risk management oriented toward progressive improvement.

This mindset is also reflected in the creation of open ecosystems: corporate accelerators, internal venture capital, incubation programs, or partnerships with universities and research centers. The ecosystem does not survive at the expense of the company’s size, but thanks to a multiplication of combinations between scale, speed, governance, and experimentation. In this context, open innovation is not only a practice, but an organizational philosophy that allows filtering and integrating useful contaminations for the business.

An often overlooked dimension concerns culture. Agility is not just a project methodology; it is a way of working materialized in autonomous decision-making, shared responsibility, and continuous learning. In Northern European countries, agile becomes a way of working: it is not a slide to present, but a way of thinking about work. From this perspective, innovation is not the property of a single function: it is a distributed competence that runs through the entire organization.

The role of corporate culture becomes decisive for innovation

Grom’s case and transformation inside Unilever

The debate around Grom, now part of Unilever, becomes one of the concrete cases to observe this evolution: it is not a “transformed” startup into corporate, but a story of industrial transformation that allows rethinking relationships between company, market, and consumers. The question Alberto Pelosi posed on LinkedIn, what is a brand of Unilever doing in this startup space, is enlightening: it is not about labeling, but understanding how a large company can evolve inside and beyond its boundaries.

Grom is no longer a startup in the traditional sense, but it remains a testimony of how a multinational can exercise a business transformation: innovating in how the brand is told, in how it dialogues with consumers, and in how it adapts to rapidly evolving market demand. The key element is the ability to integrate decisive speed and listening to the internal customer into a complex and regulated structure. It is not superficial imitation of startup culture that makes the difference, but the adoption of principles of continuous experimentation, multidisciplinary teams, open innovation, and design thinking within a governance capable of aiming for rapid and precise decisions.

This is also a reflection of the transformation of contemporary capitalism: multinationals do not merely invest in startups; they seek to think, act, and learn like startups, internalizing the culture of innovation. It is this contamination, not opposition, that drives the evolution of companies: speed of decision, continuous customer listening, quick course correction, lean structures, and the ability to adopt new ways of working. It is a transformation that concerns not just one category of firms, but the interaction between ecosystems and organizational models on an increasingly wide scale.

Debate and prospects: advantages, risks, and who benefits

The thesis of contamination between startup and corporate presents undeniable advantages, but also friction points that deserve a critical reading. On one hand, the combination of scale and speed can allow faster iterations, reduce learning times, and accelerate time-to-market for new solutions. Large companies have resources, sales networks, infrastructure, and access to regulated markets that can multiply the impact of a discovery coming from a startup or academic research. In a European context, this synergy is crucial to compete with global players and to capitalize on programs like Horizon Europe or EU-scale funding and acceleration tools that reward open innovation and collaboration between public and private actors.

On the other hand, concrete risks emerge. Speed may clash with organizational complexity and heavy governance. The apprenticeship of a large company is not identical to that of a SME or a startup; risk management, compliance, and cost-control processes can curb agility if not adequately designed. Moreover, corporate culture may not immediately align with a test-and-learn model: incentives, learning metrics, and structures that value error as part of the innovation path are needed. Another issue concerns balancing “open innovation” with protecting one’s own assets: not everything is shareable, and intellectual property management must be clear from the start.

For investors, founders, VCs, angels, the opportunity is twofold. On one hand, the existence of large companies ready to experiment offers channels of development, access to resources, and potential rapid scale-up. On the other hand, it is essential to assess cultural coherence and internal execution capability: which teams, which processes, which metrics, which governance allow an internal initiative to grow sustainably? The Italian ecosystem, with regions like Emilia-Romagna, Modena, Bologna, and Reggio Emilia, can capitalize on public programs, startup calls, and innovation hub initiatives to align startups and large companies on concrete projects in digital health, advanced manufacturing, and green tech.

A critical perspective notes that innovation must not become an improper simplification: it is not enough to “act like a startup” without internalizing the fundamental principles. The real difference lies in building a culture of continuous learning and in maintaining responsibility toward the customer and the market, regardless of size. In practice, this means: creating cross-functional teams with decision-making autonomy, defining learning KPIs (validate-to-learn, learning-rate metrics), establishing governance processes that allow rapid iterations without compromising compliance, and nurturing an open ecosystem that connects startups, universities, and companies.

Finally, it is useful to maintain an operational reading key: this is not about imitating a startup, but about thinking like a startup within complex structures. Innovation thus becomes a business competence, not a luxury of some departments: a capability to rethink products, services, and business models in constant evolution, fueling the effectiveness of one’s value proposition in the market.

Toward an operational practice: how to change inside the company without losing sight of reality

Put learning at the center: build a “test-and-learn” cycle with clear learning metrics, not just revenue growth.
Build cross-functional teams: multidisciplinary squads with decentralized authority to accelerate decisions and reduce bottlenecks.
Integrate open innovation: open collaboration channels with universities, startups, research centers, and customers to intercept useful insights and reduce development risk.
Balance governance and feasibility: define control structures that protect compliance and security, without stifling the freedom to experiment.
Cultivate a culture of constructive error: value negative experiences as learning and opportunities for improvement.
Cultivate regional ecosystems: in Italy, the presence of incubators, innovation hubs, and specific calls (startup, PNRR, innovation incentives) can facilitate synergies between large companies and new realities, with particular focus on areas come
Promote light governance for pilot projects: define clear responsibilities and rapid decisions to accelerate tests.