Search results

Following the contextual approach to intellectual capital, this study analyzed the specific types of external relational capital that foster product/service, process and managerial innovativeness in organic farming as key drivers of sustainable food production.

Survey data from 358 organically certified Spanish farmers were analyzed using structural equation modeling based on partial least squares. A total of three models, one for each type of innovativeness, were developed to analyze the impact of external relational capital. These models took into account four specific types of relational capital: vertical relationships, horizontal relationships, relationships with government institutions and relationships with knowledge-intensive institutions.

Although relational capital and innovativeness are clearly underdeveloped, knowledge generated through and embedded in external relationships plays a substantial role in promoting innovativeness in organic farming. Moreover, depending on the type of innovation to be developed, the type of external relational capital that is relevant differs.

This study's findings indicate that organic farmers prioritize process innovation over product/service and managerial innovation. For the latter categories, building relationships with customers, consumers and government institutions is key. Policymakers should encourage farmer-engaging socialization spaces that emphasize family farms and their knowledge contribution.

Past studies have examined the overall degree of association between external relational capital and innovation, often overlooking the nuances of contextual factors. In contrast, this research delves into the unique contributions of knowledge sourced from various external relationships, focusing specifically on how these relationships influence different types of innovation within the specific context of organic farming.

The purpose of the study is to investigate how small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can effectively collaborate for eco-innovation using the business modes of innovation framework to emphasise three types of collaboration: “science, technology, and innovation” (STI), “learning by doing, using, and interacting” (DUI)-Vertical and DUI-Horizontal.

This analysis uses data from 838 SMEs in the Basque Country (2018–2020) to evaluate the effects of the three types of collaboration on eco-innovation. The authors employ a propensity score-based method to address potential bias associated with endogeneity in innovation studies.

The findings suggest that DUI-Vertical collaboration has a positive relationship with the development of product, process and marketing eco-innovation. Furthermore, DUI-horizontal collaboration is the most effective collaboration mode for SMEs, positively impacting their overall eco-innovation portfolio. Finally, STI collaboration is positively associated with product eco-innovation.

Policymakers should support SMEs by designing programmes that facilitate collaboration between competing firms to stimulate eco-innovation, but potential challenges of coopetition must be addressed. Rather than a generic, one-size-fit-all approach, SMEs' managers should identify the most appropriate partners corresponding to their specific eco-innovation goal, ensuring a more effective and targeted. Collaboration between science partners and SMEs should be reinforced by approximating the SMEs' needs more effectively.

This study contributes twofold. Firstly, the authors investigate whether the STI and DUI modes of innovation are determinant factors in the introduction of various types of eco-innovation. Secondly, the authors contribute to the literature on business modes of innovation by differentiating between DUI-Vertical (i.e. suppliers, customers and consultancy) and DUI-Horizontal (i.e. competitors) collaboration, thus highlighting the complexity of DUI collaboration forms.

Most literature on ambidexterity has focused on large firms and on the influence of internal issues in this strategy, that is, organizational structures, top management integration, or internal knowledge management processes (Lutbatkin et al., 2006; Chang et al., 2011; Lee and Huang, 2012). The purpose of this paper is to assess small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)’ ambidexterity strategies during economic recession periods in comparison with those of large firms and identify the managerial external capabilities which are associated with the development of SMEs’ ambidexterity.

A multinomial logit model and a probit model are proposed and tested using data collected from 2,150 Spanish firms during the period of 2009-2013.

The data analysis reveals that SMEs develop more ambidextrous innovation strategies in recession periods than larger firms do. Moreover, two managerial external capabilities have been identified as drivers of SMEs’ ambidextrous behavior in crisis periods: first, the capability of top management to anticipate scenarios; and second, the capacity to acquire adequate external resources through co-operation.

The results show that SME managers wanting to develop ambidextrous strategies in recession periods have to forecast scenarios in terms of innovation difficulties and strengthen their resources through co-operation. Implementation of public policy is encouraged to support these capabilities, thus enhancing SME sustainability in uncertain contexts.

Prior studies have paid little attention to the role of external capabilities. Although their role was revealed as a relevant dimension in the study of SME ambidexterity in adverse contexts by Cao et al. (2010), it remained underexplored. This paper aims to fill this gap.

The literature stresses the importance of collaboration patterns and the role of public funding in regional competitiveness. This study aims to contribute to a better understanding of this subject by focusing on two key dynamics of technological cooperation. First, the authors focus on the ability of public funding to support regional technological demand through the promotion of science and technology-based innovation (STI) and innovation based on learning-by-doing, learning-by-using, learning-by-interacting (DUI) cooperation. Second, the authors investigate whether such cooperation patterns influence the companies’ ability to support the development of novel products through the effective transfer of knowledge.

The data used in this longitudinal study are taken from the Basque statistics agency’s (EUSTAT) technological innovation survey, which compiles activities, personnel, funding sources, support institutions and other innovation-related aspects of businesses in the Basque region. The survey was carried out following the methodology of the community innovation survey (CIS). CIS data are used to generate official innovation statistics for the EU and its member countries and have been used extensively for analysis in economics. The sample included an unbalanced panel of 17,431 companies that reported research and development expenditure for the period 2013‐2017.

The results of the analysis confirm that the relationship between STI cooperation and regional funding is positive (Piñeiro-Antelo and Lois-González, 2019), but regional DUI cooperation will have a greater impact than STI cooperation on a company’s ability to generate novel products. The authors can, therefore, say that public funding is successful at supporting cooperation between science and technology agents and firms but fails to promote the transfer of knowledge and subsequent development of novel products in companies in the region.

Following a quadruple helix approach, it is important to underline the need for public policies to strengthen the connections between all the key agents in the ecosystem (where the research community, industry, public sector and citizens are all active actors), promoting technology transfer and dissemination, as well as trust among the parties, absorptive capacity and business access to resources and financing. Thus, the design of public policies should be oriented to support a firm’s innovation, balancing the exploration and exploitation of STI and DUI regional cooperation.

The contribution of this research is threefold. First, it serves to emphasize the importance of the impact of regional innovation systems on business innovation modes and their performance. Second, it takes the study of innovation systems and their impact on companies a step further by examining the impact of public funding on the companies’ ability to explore and exploit regional innovation modes. Thirdly, the authors offer a dynamic view of the region’s ability to support its own demand for technology and study the impact of regional business modes on the firms’ ability to support novel products.

This paper aims to propose an analytical framework in which to study ambidexterity in the management of policy networks. The paper is inspired by the concept of organizational ambidexterity in the public sector (Smith and Umans, 2015). By focusing on policy networks fostered by public administration with the aim of supporting small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) innovation, the paper elaborates on the links between firm innovation and performance and regional development. The cases analyzed are policy networks fostered by two publicly owned county development agencies in the Basque Country (Spain). An analytical framework emerges from bridging the gap between theory and practice. By understanding ambidexterity as a dynamic capability, the authors found that key ambidexterity drivers are related to network features (motivation to balance exploration and exploitation and diversity in terms of participants) and the individual feature of diversity within the network management group. However, other individual characteristics (leadership style) and territorial features (local institutional capacity) did not provide conclusive insights, calling for a deeper analysis and complex models to capture specific nuances.

The method used in the empirical part of the paper is the case study, as it considers the contextual conditions pertaining to a phenomenon (Yin, 2009) and helps understand present dynamics in specific contexts (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009). Flyvbjerg (2006) examines common misunderstandings about case studies to conclude that social science may be strengthened by the execution of greater number of good case studies. Following his arguments, the authors consider that practical knowledge is also valuable together with theory, that is why the framework is not derived exclusively form theory but from the interaction and mutual influence of theory and practice.

The case studies lead to a discussion on the effect of network, territorial and individual characteristics (including management/facilitation modes) on network outcomes, including innovation performance of firms and network sustainability. Additionally, these cases show the importance of different factors as necessary conditions and key discriminants when supporting ambidextrous networks. The case analysis and the integration of the theory in this analysis allow observing the evolution of both networks, developing some conclusions on the core factors that influenced these trajectories, thus proposing an analytical framework. Specifically, it can be seen that some of the factors conditioned the ambidextrous strategy of the network.

The main implication of the paper in practice is that the concept of ambidexterity and the framework developed to understand some of its features are a useful tool to diagnose policy networks. The impact in society inspired in this implication is that authors, through the discussion workshops mentioned in the methodology section, have helped the community of policy network managers in Gipuzkoa reflect and improve their strategies and consider the potential of not exclusively focusing on exploration or exploitation. Consequently, the impact on society, in this case on policy networks in the region, has gone beyond the cases studied.

The paper proposes the concept of ambidexterity as one that helps analyze the ability of policy networks to foster SMEs innovation. Managerial literature has extensively analyzed the importance of modes to foster ambidexterity within organizations (Gibson and Birkenshaw, 2004; He and Wong, 2004; Levinthal and March, 1993; Lubatkin et al., 2006) and also its individual dimension (Volery et al., 2015). Managerial focus on policy networks and its link to organizational ambidexterity thus remain understudied. Although private sector literature has explored both concepts, the relation between them has not been analyzed (Smith and Umans, 2015).

The purpose of this paper is to provide a patent-based framework for investigating the effect of previous and current open innovation (OI) adoption on firms’ knowledge management strategies and type of innovation output.

Patent data are employed for gauging innovation practices, exploitation vs exploration strategies, specialization vs diversification choices and type of innovation. The study is performed on a sample of 1,280 patents granted to 66 top R&D spending bio-pharmaceutical companies. The year of analysis is 2010.

The previous recourse to specific innovation practices influences the current practice selection. R&D collaboration, outsourcing and mergers and acquisitions are employed to pursue exploration. Past purchase of patents increases the likelihood to achieve architectural and radical innovation in current activities.

The work recommends the use of patent data to gauge many key elements for knowledge and innovation management. Results exhort scholars to investigate innovation practices at the knowledge domain level in order to detect specific behaviors.

The study provides a methodology for supporting decision-makers in assessing firms’ OI adoption, also performing the benchmark with competitors and R&D partners. Given the high computational effort required for applying the methodology, the authors are planning to give access to the software specifically developed for this study.

The work contributes to the current debate considering the effect of a combination of innovation practices on knowledge management strategies and type of innovation output, with a particular focus on OI activities. Moreover, the separation between the impact of previous and current innovation practices provides useful insights.