|
on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Economy |
|
Issue of 2014‒01‒17
seven papers chosen by Laura Stefanescu European Research Centre of Managerial Studies in Business Administration |
| By: | Alessandra Colombelli (GREDEG - Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion - CNRS : UMR7321 - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis [UNS]); Jackie Krafft (GREDEG - Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion - CNRS : UMR7321 - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis [UNS]); Francesco Quatraro (GREDEG - Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion - CNRS : UMR7321 - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis [UNS]) |
| Abstract: | The paper analyzes the effects of the properties of firms' knowledge base on the survival likelihood of firms. Drawing upon the analysis of the patterns of co-occurrence of technological classes in patent applications, we derive the coherence, variety and cognitive distance indexes, accounting respectively for technological complementarity, differentiation and dissimilarity in the firms' patent portfolios. The results of our analysis are in line with the previous literature, showing that innovation enhances the survival likelihood of firms. In addition, we show that the search strategies at work in the development of firms' knowledge base matter in reducing the likelihood of a failure event. Knowledge coherence and variety appear to be positively related to firms' survival, while cognitive distance exerts a negative effect. We conclude that firms able to exploit the accumulated technological competences have more chances to be successful in competing durably in the market arena, and derive some policy implications concerning the role of public intervention in the orientation of search efforts in local contexts. |
| Keywords: | Knowledge coherence; Variety; Cognitive distance; Firms' survival |
| Date: | 2013–10–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00923650&r=knm |
| By: | Baier, Elisabeth; Rammer, Christian; Schuber, Torben |
| Abstract: | We analyze the effects of captive off-shoring of innovation activities on the firms' ability to adapt their organizational processes and structures. Starting from complexity theory, we use three consecutive waves of the German part of the Community Innovation Survey to test our hypotheses. We find an inverted u-shape of innovation off-shoring on the effectiveness of organizational adaptability, implying an optimal threshold value of innovation off-shoring. This value is 11% for share of off-shored R&D, 15% for downstream innovation activities such as local market adaptation, and 34% for design activities. We also analyze several contingency variables. In particular we show that the costs of innovation off-shoring in terms of reduced organizational adaptability are exacerbated by a strong focus on R&D and a strong embeddedness in on-shore networks. Smaller firms find it easier to deal with the management complexity induced by geographical dispersion of innovation activities because of their greater flexibility. -- |
| Keywords: | Internationalization,Off-Shoring,Innovation,R&D,Organizational Adaptation,Organizational Adaptability |
| JEL: | O32 M16 L23 L25 |
| Date: | 2013 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:zewdip:13109&r=knm |
| By: | Riccardo Crescenzi; Max Nathan; Andrés Rodríguez-Pose |
| Abstract: | This paper investigates how physical, organisational, institutional, cognitive, social, and ethnic proximities between inventors shape their collaboration decisions. Using a new panel of UK inventors and a novel identification strategy, this paper systematically explores the net effects of all these 'proximities' on co-patenting. The regression analysis allows us to identify the full effects of each proximity, both on choice of collaborator and on the underlying decision to collaborate. The results show that physical proximity is an important influence on collaboration, but is mediated by organisational and ethnic factors. Over time, physical proximity increases in salience. For multiple inventors, geographic proximity is, however, much less important than organisational, social, and ethnic links. For inventors as a whole, proximities are fundamentally complementary, while for multiple inventors they are substitutes. |
| Keywords: | Innovation, patents, proximities, cities, regions, knowledge spillovers, collaboration, ethnicity |
| JEL: | O31 O33 R11 R23 |
| Date: | 2014–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cep:sercdp:0153&r=knm |
| By: | Doran, Justin; Ryan, Geraldine |
| Abstract: | Purpose Eco-innovation is any form of product, process or organisational innovation that contributes towards sustainable development. Firms can eco-innovate in a variety of ways. In this paper we identify nine different eco-innovation activities - including such items as reducing material use per unit of output, reducing energy use per unit of output, reducing CO2 'footprint' - and we ask whether these act as substitutes or complements to one another. Design/ Methodology/ Approach Using data for over 2,000 Irish firms collected in a special module included in the sixth Community Innovation Survey we test whether the introduction of two eco-innovation activities over a short period of time provide a greater (lesser) benefit to the firm, in terms of turnover, than the introduction of these eco-innovations individually. Findings Introducing only one eco-innovation activity has little payoff (in terms of turnover per worker) with only those firms who reduce their CO2 'footprint' having higher levels of turnover per worker. When introducing more than one eco-innovation activity we find that certain eco-innovation activities complement one another (e.g. reducing material use within the firm at the same time as improving the ability to recycle the product after use) others act as substitutes (e.g. reducing material use within the firm at the same time as recycling waste, water, or materials within the firm). Practical Implications Our results suggest that firms can maximise their productive capacity by considering specific combinations of eco-innovation. This suggests that firms should plan to introduce eco-innovation which act as complements, thereby, boosting productivity. It also suggests that eco-innovation stimuli, introduced by policy makers, should be targeted at complementary eco-innovations. Originality We analyse whether eco-innovations act as complements or substitutes. While a number of studies have analysed the importance of eco-innovation for firm performance, few have assessed the extent to which diverse types of eco-innovation interact with each other to complement or substitute one another. |
| Keywords: | Eco-Innovation, Complementarity, Innovation, Ireland, CIS |
| JEL: | O30 O31 Q50 Q55 |
| Date: | 2014–01–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:52797&r=knm |
| By: | Felipe Bernardo Rojas Pizarro (GRIPICO-UCM, Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I. Facultad de CC. Económicas y Empresariales Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Campus de Somosaguas, 28223 Pozuelo de Alarcón. (Spain)) |
| Abstract: | This paper analyses the relationship between innovation and employment for Spanish manufacturing firms with data from Panel of Technological Innovation between 2004 to 2010. Following the model developed by Harrison et al. (2008), the results provide empirical evidence about the existence of different patterns in the impacts of process and product innovations on firms’ employment for the pre-crisis period and during the economic crisis. |
| Abstract: | En este trabajo se revisa la relación entre innovación y empleo, para las empresas manufactureras españolas, con datos del Panel de Innovación Tecnológica entre el periodo 2004 al 2010. Siguiendo el modelo desarrollado por Harrison et al. (2008), se encuentra evidencia empírica de la existencia de patrones diferenciados en los impactos de la innovación de proceso y de producto para el periodo previo a la crisis y durante la crisis económica |
| Keywords: | Innovation; employment; Spain; panel data; innovation survey,Innovación; empleo; España; datos de panel; encuesta de innovación. |
| JEL: | L6 O31 O33 |
| Date: | 2013–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ucm:doctra:13-07&r=knm |
| By: | Marianna Gilli (University of Ferrara, Italy); Susanna Mancinelli (University of Ferrara, Italy); Massimiliano Mazzanti (University of Ferrara & Ceris Cnr Milan, Italy) |
| Abstract: | Innovation is a key element behind the achievement of desired environmental and economic performances. Regarding CO2, mitigation strategies would require cuts in emissions of around 80-90% with respect to 1990. We investigate whether complementarity, namely integration, between the adoption of environmental innovation measures and other technological and organizational innovations is a factor that has supported reduction in CO2 emissions per value added, that is environmental productivity. We merge new EU CIS and WIOD meso level data to assess the innovation effects on sector CO2 performances at a wide EU level. We find that jointly adopting different innovations is not a significant factor to increase environmental productivity, neither for the entire economy nor for manufacturing or narrower ETS sectors. The only case where a complementarity arises is for Northern EU manufacturing sectors that integrate eco innovations with product and process innovations to support environmental productivity. We believe that the lack of integrated innovation adoption behind environmental productivity performance is a signal of the current weaknesses economies face in tackling climate change and green economy challenges. Incremental rather than more radical strategies have predominated so far; this is probably insufficient when we look at long-term economic and environmental goals. |
| Keywords: | Complementarity, Innovation, Climate Change, Sector Performance |
| Date: | 2013–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:fem:femwpa:2013.88&r=knm |
| By: | Aerts, Kris; Kraft, Kornelius; Lang, Julia |
| Abstract: | We investigate the effect of profit-sharing on product and process innovation. Profit-sharing is a credible commitment of the companies to let the employees participate in any efficiency gain. Resistance against technical progress becomes less plausible. Moreover, employees are stimulated to share their specific information advantage on possibilities to optimize the production process and products with the management. We take account of possible selectivity effects and using survey data on German companies with and without profitsharing in a conditional difference-in-differences framework, we test our hypothesis by comparing measures of innovativeness. Based on matching (selectivity on observable covariates) in a static comparison firms with a share system show both more product and process innovations. In a dynamic setting, we find that the introduction of profit-sharing only spurs product innovation. -- Wir untersuchen die Auswirkungen von Gewinnbeteiligung auf Produkt- und Prozessinnovationen. Das allgemeine Ziel der Unternehmen bei der Einführung von Gewinnbeteiligung als Element der Einkommenspolitik ist die Motivierung der Beschäftigten zu einer höheren Leistung. Da Gewinnbeteiligung für beide Seiten einen Vorteil darstellt, kann sich eine größere Übereinstimmung der Interessen der Arbeitnehmer und der Kapitaleigner entwickeln. Bei einer effizienten Ausgestaltung des Anreizsystems und rationalem Verhalten der Beschäftigten sollte sich der Unternehmenserfolg erhöhen. Während viele Studien die Auswirkungen von Gewinnbeteiligung auf die Unternehmensleistung im allgemeinen (Produktivität, Gewinnhöhe) untersuchen, gibt es wenig Evidenz hinsichtlich der Effekte auf den Innovationserfolg. In der hier präsentierten Untersuchung führen wir Erfolgsmaße für Innovation ein und betrachten die Auswirkungen der Einführung von Gewinnbeteiligungsmodellen auf Produkt- und Prozessinnovationen. Wir verwenden das IAB-Betriebspanel als eine umfangreiche Datengrundlage zu deutschen Betrieben über die Jahre 2005-2009. Die Möglichkeit einer Verzerrung der Ergebnisse durch Selektionseffekte wird über zwei Methoden berücksichtigt. Einerseits werden statische Vergleiche zwischen Firmen mit und ohne Gewinnbeteiligung durchgeführt. Hierbei werden Unterschiede zwischen den Betrieben mit und ohne Gewinnbeteiligung hinsichtlich der Ausprägungen der exogenen Variablen über das Matching-Verfahren eliminiert. Andererseits identifizieren wir die Betriebe, welche eine Gewinnbeteiligung eingeführt haben und betrachten die Auswirkungen dieser Einführung in einem konditionalen Differenz-in- Differenzen Ansatz. Auf der Grundlage der Ergebnisse des Matching Ansatzes sind Betriebe mit Gewinnbeteiligung denjenigen ohne Beteiligung sowohl in Hinsicht auf Prozess- als auch Produktinnovationen überlegen. Bei dem bedingten Differenz-in-Differenzen Ansatz findet sich jedoch ein positiver Effekt der Gewinnbeteiligung lediglich hinsichtlich von Produktinnovationen. Folglich sind die Betriebe, welche Gewinnbeteiligung einführen, bereits vorher innovativer. Gewinnbeteiligung kann jedoch den Erfolg bei Produktinnovationen noch weiter erhöhen. |
| Keywords: | Profit Sharing,Innovation,Matching,Difference-in-Differences |
| JEL: | L23 L25 O31 O32 |
| Date: | 2013 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:zewdip:13114&r=knm |