Sistemas nacionales de innovación: una aproximación empírica a la medición de los intangibles como factores explicativos de la capacidad innovadora de los países

Desde finales del siglo XX la economía presenta unas características que distan considerablemente de la economía industrial de mediados del siglo pasado. Parece aceptarse con carácter general que esta nueva situación económica se caracteriza por el papel fundamental que juegan los intangibles en el progreso económico de las naciones. En esta línea de pensamiento, encontramos en la literatura diversos modelos que buscan explicar las diferencias del output innovador y del desarrollo competitivo a través de dicha perspectiva intangible. Aunque con distintas denominaciones y algunas modificaciones, cada modelo descompone generalmente el Capital Intelectual en tres bloques genéricos: capital humano, capital estructural y capital relacional-. Otro denominador común de dichos modelos es que la elección de indicadores -y la asignación de peso, cuando procede- se hace según el criterio personal del autor. Asimismo, algunos modelos están constituidos por un gran número de indicadores, lo cual dificulta considerablemente su practicidad. Por otra parte, la literatura de los Sistemas Nacionales de Innovación, también ha realizado una meritoria contribución en la medición del esfuerzo innovador y la performance de los países. A tenor de las inconsistencias en los modelos de capital intelectual anteriormente esbozadas y, teniendo en cuenta la literatura de los Sistemas Nacionales de Innovación, el principal objetivo de esta investigación es: "Desde la perspectiva de Capital Intelectual y de los Sistemas Nacionales de Innovación, identificar los determinantes clave necesarios para que una nación pueda ser competitiva y, en consecuencia, pueda tener la capacidad de construir una economía más sólida y próspera para sus habitantes a través de la innovación y generación de conocimiento". Para la confirmación de nuestros argumentos teóricos, el trabajo empírico (metodología multivariante, factorial y regresión lineal) ha tenido como objeto de estudio 55 economías como muestra.Rojas Alvarado, RJ. (2009). Sistemas nacionales de innovación: una aproximación empírica a la medición de los intangibles como factores explicativos de la capacidad innovadora de los países [Tesis doctoral]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/8325Palanci

Emerging regional innovation policies for industry 4.0: analyzing the digital innovation hub program in European regions

This article is (c) Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here (please insert the web address here). Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited.[EN] Purpose Industry 4.0 or digitization, from a regional innovation system (RIS) and policy perspective to improve regional innovation, is over-looked. Specifically, this paper aims to focus on analyzing the nascent European Commission (EC) digital innovation hub (DIH) program, designed for fostering transition into Industry 4.0 in regions and facilitating new path development. Design/methodology/approach Empirically, 10 Spanish DIH is explored through interviews and secondary data analysis. Findings The results suggest that DIHs despite their emerging and trial-and-error stage are designed for promoting multi-actor collaborative platforms including non-local actors to stimulate transition into Industry 4.0 by promoting place-based collaboration alliances that respond to local/regional contextual specificities and demands. These regional-based platforms facilitate public-private partnerships that co-design policy initiatives resulting from co-participation and negotiation of spatially-bounded oriented initiatives for digitizing. Originality/value The authors answer: what are the key characteristics of emerging European-level regional innovation policies aimed at facilitating Industry 4.0 in regions? This is the first study on the topic.Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades: RTI2018-095739-B-100.Hervás Oliver, JL.; González-Alcaide, G.; Rojas-Alvarado, R.; Monto-Mompo, S. (2021). Emerging regional innovation policies for industry 4.0: analyzing the digital innovation hub program in European regions. Competitiveness Review. 31(1):106-129. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-12-2019-015910612931

Does Technological Innovation Drive Corporate Sustainability? Empirical Evidence for the European Financial Industry in Catching-Up and Central and Eastern Europe

[EN] In the financial industry, two relationships are well-researched: (i) innovation and financial performance and, (ii) sustainability and financial performance, both focused primarily on Western and advanced countries. The relationship between innovation and sustainability, however, is underresearched. This study's purpose consists of determining whether there is a relationship between innovation and corporate sustainability in the financial industry. In doing so, this study responds to a critical question: are the most innovative firms also the most sustainability-oriented? We empirically explore sustainability-oriented innovation in the financial industry of 11 catching-up countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Using Community Innovation Survey (CIS) data for 2012-2014, this study empirically analyzes a large sample of 1574 firms in the financial industry. Our results suggest that innovation is positively linked to corporate sustainability, pointing out that innovation capabilities are positively related to sustainability. Our study proposes a framework for analyzing innovation and sustainability from a capability-perspective.This research was funded by MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, INNOVATION AND UNIVERSITY, grant number RTI2018-095739-B-100. We acknowledge EUROSTAT data support. Francisca Sempere-Ripoll thanks. Davide Parrilli from the Faculty of Management at Bournemouth University and "Salvador Madariaga Program" funded by the Spanish Ministry Science, Innovation and Universities (ref: PRX19/00538).Sempere-Ripoll, F.; Estelles Miguel, S.; Rojas-Alvarado, R.; Hervás Oliver, JL. (2020). Does Technological Innovation Drive Corporate Sustainability? Empirical Evidence for the European Financial Industry in Catching-Up and Central and Eastern Europe. Sustainability. 12(6):1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062261S119126Forcadell, F. J., & Aracil, E. (2019). Can multinational companies foster institutional change and sustainable development in emerging countries? A case study. BUSINESS STRATEGY & DEVELOPMENT, 2(2), 91-105. doi:10.1002/bsd2.45Amore, M. D., Schneider, C., & Žaldokas, A. (2013). Credit supply and corporate innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, 109(3), 835-855. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.04.006Hsu, P.-H., Tian, X., & Xu, Y. (2014). Financial development and innovation: Cross-country evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 112(1), 116-135. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.12.002Laukkanen, T. (2016). Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar service innovations: The case of the Internet and mobile banking. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2432-2439. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.013Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M.-J. (2003). Improving Sustainability Performance: Specifying, Implementing and Measuring Key Principles. Journal of General Management, 29(1), 15-31. doi:10.1177/030630700302900101Simpson, W. G., & Kohers, T. (2002). Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 97-109. doi:10.1023/a:1013082525900Wu, M.-W., & Shen, C.-H. (2013). Corporate social responsibility in the banking industry: Motives and financial performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(9), 3529-3547. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.04.023Esteban-Sanchez, P., de la Cuesta-Gonzalez, M., & Paredes-Gazquez, J. D. (2017). Corporate social performance and its relation with corporate financial performance: International evidence in the banking industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 1102-1110. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.127Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., & Overy, P. (2015). Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(2), 180-205. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12068Yip, A. W. H., & Bocken, N. M. P. (2018). Sustainable business model archetypes for the banking industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 150-169. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.190Fijałkowska, J., Zyznarska-Dworczak, B., & Garsztka, P. (2018). Corporate Social-Environmental Performance versus Financial Performance of Banks in Central and Eastern European Countries. Sustainability, 10(3), 772. doi:10.3390/su10030772Furrer, O., Egri, C. P., Ralston, D. A., Danis, W. M., Reynaud, E., Naoumova, I., … Furrer-Perrinjaquet, A. (2010). Attitudes toward Corporate Responsibilities in Western Europe and in Central and East Europe. Management International Review, 50(3), 379-398. doi:10.1007/s11575-010-0034-3Castellacci, F., & Archibugi, D. (2008). The technology clubs: The distribution of knowledge across nations. Research Policy, 37(10), 1659-1673. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.006Cai, W., & Zhou, X. (2014). On the drivers of eco-innovation: empirical evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 79, 239-248. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.035Cainelli, G., De Marchi, V., & Grandinetti, R. (2015). Does the development of environmental innovation require different resources? Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 94, 211-220. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.008Awaysheh, A., Heron, R. A., Perry, T., & Wilson, J. I. (2020). On the relation between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 41(6), 965-987. doi:10.1002/smj.3122Barney, J. B. (1996). The Resource-Based Theory of the Firm. Organization Science, 7(5), 469-469. doi:10.1287/orsc.7.5.469Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199708)18:73.0.co;2-zPark, E., Kim, K. J., & Kwon, S. J. (2017). Corporate social responsibility as a determinant of consumer loyalty: An examination of ethical standard, satisfaction, and trust. Journal of Business Research, 76, 8-13. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.02.017Bansal, P., & Song, H.-C. (2017). Similar But Not the Same: Differentiating Corporate Sustainability from Corporate Responsibility. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 105-149. doi:10.5465/annals.2015.0095Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441. doi:10.1177/0170840603024003910Surroca, J. A., Aguilera, R. V., Desender, K., & Tribó, J. A. (2020). Is managerial entrenchment always bad and corporate social responsibility always good? A cross‐national examination of their combined influence on shareholder value. Strategic Management Journal, 41(5), 891-920. doi:10.1002/smj.3132Luo, X., & Du, S. (2014). Exploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility and firm innovation. Marketing Letters, 26(4), 703-714. doi:10.1007/s11002-014-9302-5Horbach, J. (2008). Determinants of environmental innovation—New evidence from German panel data sources. Research Policy, 37(1), 163-173. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.08.006Lu, B., Li, B., Wang, L., Yang, J., Liu, J., & Wang, X. V. (2014). Reusability based on Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Case Study on WEEE. Procedia CIRP, 15, 473-478. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.06.046Urban, M., & Wójcik, D. (2019). Dirty Banking: Probing the Gap in Sustainable Finance. Sustainability, 11(6), 1745. doi:10.3390/su11061745Chih, H.-L., Chih, H.-H., & Chen, T.-Y. (2009). On the Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility: International Evidence on the Financial Industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 115-135. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0186-xWang, J., Wang, Y., Li, S., & Qin, D. (2016). Climate adaptation, institutional change, and sustainable livelihoods of herder communities in northern Tibet. Ecology and Society, 21(1). doi:10.5751/es-08170-210105Hurley, J. A., Green, T. A., Gouge, D. H., Bruns, Z. T., Stock, T., Braband, L., … Crane, L. (2014). Regulating Pesticide Use in United States Schools. American Entomologist, 60(2), 105-115. doi:10.1093/ae/60.2.105De Marchi, V. (2012). Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 41(3), 614-623. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.002Orsatti, G., Quatraro, F., & Pezzoni, M. (2020). The antecedents of green technologies: The role of team-level recombinant capabilities. Research Policy, 49(3), 103919. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.103919Bossink, B. A. . (2007). Leadership for sustainable innovation. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 6(2), 135-149. doi:10.1386/ijtm.6.2.135_1Zhao, Q., Tsai, P.-H., & Wang, J.-L. (2019). Improving Financial Service Innovation Strategies for Enhancing China’s Banking Industry Competitive Advantage during the Fintech Revolution: A Hybrid MCDM Model. Sustainability, 11(5), 1419. doi:10.3390/su11051419Apanasovich, N., Alcalde Heras, H., & Parrilli, M. D. (2016). The impact of business innovation modes on SME innovation performance in post-Soviet transition economies: The case of Belarus. Technovation, 57-58, 30-40. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2016.05.001Szczygielski, K., Grabowski, W., Pamukcu, M. T., & Tandogan, V. S. (2017). Does government support for private innovation matter? Firm-level evidence from two catching-up countries. Research Policy, 46(1), 219-237. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.10.009Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2005). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131-150. doi:10.1002/smj.507Evangelista, R., & Vezzani, A. (2010). The economic impact of technological and organizational innovations. A firm-level analysis. Research Policy, 39(10), 1253-1263. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.08.004Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A., & Tribó, J. A. (2009). Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 38(1), 96-105. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.10.022Heidenreich, E. (2008). Spaces of flow as technical and cultural mediators between society and nature. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11(6), 1145-1154. doi:10.1007/s10668-008-9171-2Rammer, C., Czarnitzki, D., & Spielkamp, A. (2009). Innovation success of non-R&D-performers: substituting technology by management in SMEs. Small Business Economics, 33(1), 35-58. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9185-7Grillitsch, M., & Hansen, T. (2019). Green industry development in different types of regions. European Planning Studies, 27(11), 2163-2183. doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1648385Heyman, F., Norbäck, P.-J., Persson, L., & Andersson, F. (2019). Has the Swedish business sector become more entrepreneurial than the US business sector? Research Policy, 48(7), 1809-1822. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.007Isaksen, A., & Trippl, M. (2017). Innovation in space: the mosaic of regional innovation patterns. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 122-140. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grw035Dyduch, J., & Krasodomska, J. (2017). Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An Empirical Study of Polish Listed Companies. Sustainability, 9(11), 1934. doi:10.3390/su9111934Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? an institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946-967. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.25275684Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D and External Knowledge Acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68-82. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0470Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128. doi:10.2307/2393553Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). PERSPECTIVE—Absorbing the Concept of Absorptive Capacity: How to Realize Its Potential in the Organization Field. Organization Science, 21(4), 931-951. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0503Hervas-Oliver, J.-L., Sempere-Ripoll, F., Rojas Alvarado, R., & Estelles-Miguel, S. (2017). Beyond product innovation: deciphering process-oriented innovators, complementarities and performance effects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(5), 582-595. doi:10.1080/09537325.2017.1347623Rivkin, J. W. (2000). Imitation of Complex Strategies. Management Science, 46(6), 824-844. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.6.824.11940Hervas-Oliver, J.-L., Albors Garrigos, J., & Gil-Pechuan, I. (2011). Making sense of innovation by R&D and non-R&D innovators in low technology contexts: A forgotten lesson for policymakers. Technovation, 31(9), 427-446. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.06.006Clausen, T. H., Korneliussen, T., & Madsen, E. L. (2013). Modes of innovation, resources and their influence on product innovation: Empirical evidence from R&D active firms in Norway. Technovation, 33(6-7), 225-233. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2013.02.002Marzucchi, A., & Montresor, S. (2017). Forms of knowledge and eco-innovation modes: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Ecological Economics, 131, 208-221. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.032Stieglitz, N., & Heine, K. (2006). Innovations and the role of complementarities in a strategic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 28(1), 1-15. doi:10.1002/smj.565Del Río, P., Tarancón Morán, M. Á., & Albiñana, F. C. (2011). Analysing the determinants of environmental technology investments. A panel-data study of Spanish industrial sectors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(11), 1170-1179. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.05.001Hervas-Oliver, J.-L., Sempere-Ripoll, F., & Boronat-Moll, C. (2014). Process innovation strategy in SMEs, organizational innovation and performance: a misleading debate? Small Business Economics, 43(4), 873-886. doi:10.1007/s11187-014-9567-3Leiponen, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2009). Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 224-236. doi:10.1002/smj.807Bencivenga, V. R., & Smith, B. D. (1991). Financial Intermediation and Endogenous Growth. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 195. doi:10.2307/2297964Damanpour, F. (2014). Footnotes to Research on Management Innovation. Organization Studies, 35(9), 1265-1285. doi:10.1177/0170840614539312Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1995). Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19(2-3), 179-208. doi:10.1016/0165-4101(94)00382-fScholtens, B. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility in the International Banking Industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2), 159-175. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9841-xHervas-Oliver, J.-L., Sempere-Ripoll, F., Estelles-Miguel, S., & Rojas-Alvarado, R. (2019). Radical vs incremental innovation in Marshallian Industrial Districts in the Valencian Region: what prevails? European Planning Studies, 27(10), 1924-1939. doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.163888

Who are those new entrants? Dissecting types of foreign capital entrance in traditional industrial districts

This paper explains the effects originated by the massive entrance of foreign capital in the ceramic tile district of Castellon (Spain). Cross-fertilizing multinational acquisitions and industrial districts' literature, and using mix-methods on a focal case study, our article explores the effects that those multinationals have on districts, and whether the type of multinationals (financially- oriented vs industrial) presents different impacts on a focal industrial district. Our results point out that the massive entrance of foreign capital alters the local system. Overall, positive perceived attitudes are evidenced, along with negative attitudes associated with potential risks of lack of local-embedded ownership and the reduction of local cooperative ties

Radical vs incremental innovation in marshallian industrial districts in the valencian region: what prevails?

This study’s objective consists of deciphering whether collocation in MIDs, exerts a potential effect on a firm’s discontinuous or radical innovative performance. The study explores and integrates economic geography with innovation literature in order to explore the relationship between Marshalllian Industrial Districts (MIDs) and firm innovation. Specifically, we encompass radical or discontinuous innovation, as opposed to an incremental or imitative one. We build a framework from which MIDs’ effect on discontinuous innovation is approached. Using CIS data in Spain in district and non-district firms in a region, our results show that: (i) collocated firms’ innovative performance is positively related to the District effect, as long as the innovation pursuit is incremental; (ii) collocation in MIDs does not facilitate the pursuit of radical innovation but mainly supports an incremental one, and (iii) district firms show asymmetric capabilities and innovative output, as long as the innovation pursuit is incremental, nor discontinuous. Implications for the MID framework are discussed

Estudio de cooperación entre Colombia y Corea del Sur en el sector textil-confecciones

En el presente artículo se identifican las oportunidades comerciales, en el sector textil-confección, entre Colombia y Corea del Sur. Para tal fin, se analiza el flujo internacional de materia prima y productos terminados entre dichas economías. Asimismo, se considera el output innovador (expresado a través de sus patentes nacionales e internacionales) y se llevan a cabo diversas entrevistas a expertos del sector. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22518/16578953.9

Estudio de cooperación entre Colombia y Corea del Sur en el sector textil-confecciones

En el presente artículo se identifican las oportunidades comerciales, en el sector textil-confección, entre Colombia y Corea del Sur. Para tal fin, se analiza el flujo internacional de materia prima y productos terminados entre dichas economías. Asimismo, se considera el output innovador (expresado a través de sus patentes nacionales e internacionales) y se llevan a cabo diversas entrevistas a expertos del sector. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22518/16578953.9

Sustainability-Oriented Transition in Clusters: A Multilevel Framework from Induction

[EN] The aim of this paper is based on understanding how sustainability-oriented transition occurs in clusters. This study focuses on both drivers and actors of that transition. Empirical results based on induction, using mixed-methods on the Serra Gaucha wine cluster in the South of Brazil, suggest that, at the micro-level, the mobility and adoption of knowledge about sustainability and individual awareness will support sustainability-oriented strategies as a new source of competitive advantage. Then, at the meso-level, collective actors¿ efforts towards sustainability in the cluster legitimize, disseminate and facilitate the adoption of new sustainable-oriented practices, creating a new cluster sub-identity (sustainability) compatible with the existing one. These actors utilize leading local firms in order to disseminate new practices and signal change in the territory. Lastly, macro-level governmental regulations, market pressures, and other environmental changes facilitate that clusters develop a collective-minded strategy towards sustainabilityThis research was partially (Hervas-Oliver) funded by Ministry of Science, Innovation and University, grant number RTI2018-095739-B-100 and Generalitat Valenciana, AICO2020/123.Zen, AC.; Bittencourt, BA.; Hervás Oliver, JL.; Rojas-Alvarado, R. (2022). Sustainability-Oriented Transition in Clusters: A Multilevel Framework from Induction. Sustainability. 14(7):1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1407426511914

On the joint effect of technological and management innovations on performance: increasing or diminishing returns?

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Technology Analysis and Strategic Management on 2018, available online: http://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2017.1343462[EN] Most studies on innovation are aimed at covering technological innovation, neglecting other modes of innovation based on non-technological drivers. The latter, referred to as management innovation, consists of the implementation of new management practices, processes or organisational tasks. This work advances knowledge on the topic by exploring the joint effect of simultaneously introducing technological and management innovations on performance. Based on an analysis of 12,563 Spanish firms drawn from CIS data, our findings suggest that firms frequently pursue the simultaneous or joint introduction of both technological and management innovations and that integration impacts positively on a firm s performance, evidencing an inverted U-shape that suggest positive but diminishing returns. A theoretical framework using the capability-based view embraces the emerging conversation on management innovation issues and its relationship with the well-researched technological one.Financially supported by Ministerio de Economia (Spanish Government) [grant number ECO2015-63645-R], Open Innovation in Clusters.Hervás Oliver, JL.; Sempere-Ripoll, F.; Boronat Moll, C.; Rojas Alvarado, RJ. (2018). On the joint effect of technological and management innovations on performance: increasing or diminishing returns?. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 30(5):569-581. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2017.1343462S56958130

Beyond product innovation: deciphering process-oriented innovators, complementarities and performance effects

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Technology Analysis and Strategic Management on 2018, available online: http://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2017.1347623[EN] Relatively little attention has been paid to the understanding of process innovation, compared to the well-researched product innovation. This paper contributes to improve our understanding of process innovation and its specific process capabilities and performance by exploring, across many industries, 4,608 process-oriented innovators. Process innovation is defined as adoption of technologically new or significantly improved production methods, including changes in equipment, organisation or methods of product delivery. Process-oriented innovators or process seekers are those firms which usually only introduce process innovation, and no product innovation. These have received less attention by scholars. Results show that process innovation without also organisational innovation complements constrains innovative performance. Complex process-based innovation complementarities result from the simultaneous development and integration of new machinery and organisational innovations.This work was supported by Spanish Ministry of Economics [grant number ECO2015-63645-R].Hervás Oliver, JL.; Sempere-Ripoll, F.; Rojas Alvarado, RJ.; Estelles Miguel, S. (2018). Beyond product innovation: deciphering process-oriented innovators, complementarities and performance effects. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 30(5):582-595. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2017.1347623S58259530