Article

Innovating against European rigidities: Institutional environment and dynamic capabilities

Bren School, University of California-Santa Barbara, 4670 Physical Sciences North, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5131, USA
The Journal of High Technology Management Research 01/2002;

ABSTRACT European firms are confronted to the paradox of a strong R&D in many areas but a low level of innovation. Building on the dynamic capability approach, I propose an institutional approach where innovation is linked to cultural, organizational, and regulatory factors. These include managers' attitude toward risk and uncertainty, the ability to develop capabilities and access complementary assets, and a favorable regulatory environment. Using European microdata on how 6860 managers perceive factors hampering innovation, this paper shows that the risk-averse attitude of European firms and their difficulty to develop dynamic capabilities may explain the weakness of European innovation. Institutional factors such as pervasive rigidities and distortions that hamper the functioning of markets, may also prevent innovative responses. The use of manager's perceptions seems particularly well suited in the context of innovation where choices are taken with limited information. Conclusions drawn from this perspective call for policies that will take into account the system in which innovation can take place.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Magali A. Delmas, Apr 29, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
110 Views
  • Source
    • "Innovation differs from improvement or development due to the level of uncertainty and adoption time it entails. Innovation is a quest into the unknown, and it involves taking risks, searching, probing, and reprobing of opportunities (Delmas, 2002). Innovation is about the introduction of novelty in ordinary or disruptive times by breaking with established routines and by overcoming social and cultural barriers (Tushman and Rielly, 1996). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose ‐ The purpose of this paper is to investigate the nexus of relationships linking firm innovativeness, innovation magnitude, disruption severity, and supply chain resilience. These relationships are examined within a supply chain disruptions context. Design/methodology/approach ‐ This study employed between subjects scenario-based experimental methodology combined with a survey method. Participants in the study were senior level logistics/supply chain and operations managers in US and European manufacturing companies. The hypotheses were tested via linear regression models. Findings ‐ Findings suggest that both firm innovativeness and innovation magnitude are positively associated with supply chain resilience. In addition, it was found that disruption severity is positively associated with innovation magnitude. Research limitations/implications ‐ Based on the findings, the authors expect that firm innovativeness as a dynamic capability should have a positive impact on achieving supply chain resilience. The more severe the disruption faced, the higher the magnitude of innovation adopted by firms. Therefore, firm innovativeness and innovation magnitude work in tandem to positively influence supply chain resilience. Originality/value ‐ This paper contributes to the supply chain risk management literature by enhancing the understanding of both positive outcomes of firm innovativeness and drivers of supply chain resilience. It responds to the question, "What enables firms to respond effectively to supply chain disruptions?" from an innovation perspective that has been ignored in the previous literature.
    Supply Chain Management 11/2013; 18(6):604-617. DOI:10.1108/SCM-10-2012-0331 · 3.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Most studies have focused on the influence of external stakeholders, such as regulators, customers, or environmental non-governmental organizations, but have devoted less attention to the general economic conditions surrounding the firm. These studies have investigated how the adoption of pollution prevention strategies is influenced by environmental legislation and regulations (Carraro et al., 1996; Delmas, 2002a,b; Delmas and Montes-Sancho, 2010; Delmas, et al., 2007; Majumdar and Marcus, 2001; Rugman and Verbeke, 1998; Russo, 1992), customer demand (Christmann and Taylor, 2001; Delmas and Montiel, 2009), and the desire to improve or maintain relations with their communities (Florida and Davison, 2001; Henriques and Sadorsky, 1996). Other studies have "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this paper we analyze the factors that drive the adoption of innovative resource efficiency strategies to reduce energy and material use, under different market conditions. We uncover the “paradox” of lower adoption of resource efficiency strategies in an economic downturn and identify the characteristics of firms that adopt these strategies. Using data from a French survey with responses from 5,877 firms, we show that only 10% of the firms in our sample adopt resource efficiency strategies in perceived economic downturn as compared to 46% in perceived steady or growing market conditions. However, the probability of adopting such strategies in downturn conditions rises to 24% for firms that focus on cost leadership strategies, have adopted environmental standards, conduct their research internally and are vertically integrated. We provide recommendations to encourage more widespread adoption of resource efficiency strategies.
    Long Range Planning 09/2013; 48(2). DOI:10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.014 · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Most studies have focused on the influence of external stakeholders, such as regulators, customers, or environmental non-governmental organizations, but have devoted less attention to the general economic conditions surrounding the firm. These studies have investigated how the adoption of pollution prevention strategies is influenced by environmental legislation and regulations (Carraro et al., 1996; Delmas, 2002a,b; Delmas and Montes-Sancho, 2010; Delmas, et al., 2007; Majumdar and Marcus, 2001; Rugman and Verbeke, 1998; Russo, 1992), customer demand (Christmann and Taylor, 2001; Delmas and Montiel, 2009), and the desire to improve or maintain relations with their communities (Florida and Davison, 2001; Henriques and Sadorsky, 1996). Other studies have "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this paper we analyze the factors that drive the adoption of energy and resource efficiency practices in constrained economic times. We uncover the ‘paradox’ of lower investments in resource efficiency practices in a downturn market and identify the characteristics of firms that seek the opportunity to invest more in such conditions. Building on contingency theory, we argue that energy and resource efficiency practices require complementary capabilities, strategies and organizational structures for their successful adoption. We test our hypotheses using data from a French survey with responses from 5, 877 firms. Our results show that only 10% of the firms in our sample invest in energy and resource efficiency practices in perceived downturn markets as compared to 21% in perceived growing market conditions. However, the probability to invest in downturn conditions rises to 24% for firms that focus on cost leadership strategies, have adopted environmental standards, conduct their research internally and are vertically integrated. We provide recommendations to encourage more widespread adoption of resource efficiency strategies in different economic conditions.
    SSRN Electronic Journal 09/2012; DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2148766
Show more