Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
QUALITATIVE AND CASE STUDY
Citation preview
Management DecisionInnovation in social economy firmsM. José Rodríguez Carmen Guzmán
Article information:To cite this document:M. José Rodríguez Carmen Guzmán, (2013),"Innovation in social economy firms", Management Decision, Vol. 51 Iss 5 pp.986 - 998Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2012-0538
Downloaded on: 23 December 2015, At: 15:54 (PT)References: this document contains references to 46 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1109 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Knut J. Ims, Laszlo Zsolnai, (2014),"Ethics of social innovation", Society and Business Review, Vol. 9 Iss 2 pp. 186-194http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SBR-11-2013-0076Punita Bhatt, Levent Altinay, (2013),"How social capital is leveraged in social innovations under resource constraints?",Management Decision, Vol. 51 Iss 9 pp. 1772-1792 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2013-0041Vesa P. Taatila, Jyrki Suomala, Reijo Siltala, Soili Keskinen, (2006),"Framework to study the social innovation networks",European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9 Iss 3 pp. 312-326 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601060610678176
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:581774 []
For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
Innovation in social economyfirms
M. Jose RodrıguezDepartment of Applied Economics I, University of Seville, Seville, Spain, and
Carmen GuzmanDepartment of Economics, University of Huelva, Huelva, Spain
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine whether the determinant factors of innovations broadlyaccepted for traditional firms – the personal traits of the entrepreneurs, the features of the firms andthe environment – also influence innovation in social economy companies.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on a sample carried out between small cooperatives andworker-owned companies – which are the most representative legal forms in the Spanish socialeconomy collective – the authors develop an empirical study using a logistic regression model.
Findings – The results show that, on the whole, innovation in these kinds of firm seems to bedetermined by the same set of variables as in the case of traditional firms. In addition to this, thepresent research reveals that the influence of these variables on entrepreneurial innovations dependson the kind of innovation. Finally, the findings also give evidence about the existence of aninter-dependence among the different types of innovation in social economy firms.
Research limitations/implications – The study is limited to small firms within the Spanishindustrial and service sectors, but provides future researchers with further replication opportunities.
Originality/value – Taking into account the relevant contribution of social economy companies tothe Spanish economy, and having noted the scarce number of studies about innovation in the socialeconomy sector, this research offers a significant contribution by specifying the innovative behavior ofsocial economy firms in Spain.
Keywords Innovation, Social economy firms, Logistic regression, Human capital, Spain, Social capital
Paper type Research paper
1. IntroductionSocial economy, which represents part of social reality separate from that of the publicand private sectors, has become a widespread concept in Europe. The “third sector”, asthis reality is commonly known, is composed of a wide variety of legal forms, developsnumerous activities, and operates in almost all markets. Despite this great range ofdifferences, all organizations belonging to the social economy share common traits,including the primacy of the individual over capital, the combination of the interests ofmembers/users with the general interest. Social entrepreneurs, therefore, are driven notby the need to maximize profit for shareholders or owners, but by the creation of socialvalue (Williams and Nadin, 2012).
Within the social economy sector, differentiation is possible between “marketorganizations” and “non-market organizations”. This study focuses on the former
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm
This article is part of the “Excellence” research project entitled “Analyzing the qualitativeaspects shaping the quality of entrepreneurs and SMEs: implications for economic developmentof the Spanish regions” (P09-SEJ-4857), which has been funded by the Department of Economy,Innovation and Science of the Regional Government of Andalusia (Spain).
MD51,5
986
Management DecisionVol. 51 No. 5, 2013pp. 986-998q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0025-1747DOI 10.1108/MD-08-2012-0538
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
group, since the number of firms and their contribution to economic development isgreater. These companies act in the market, which is why they are subject to itsdemands in terms of productivity, competitiveness and efficiency. As in the case oftraditional capitalist firms, their main resources come from market sales. Likewise,these organizations have to make the necessary profits in order to guarantee theireconomic viability and payments to their members and workers (Doherty et al., 2009).Hence, “third sector” companies put into practice entrepreneurial strategies that allowthem to improve their management and their profits. One way to attain thisimprovement is through innovation, which becomes a key factor in social economyfirms (Leadbeater, 1997).
As in Europe, the Spanish social economy entrepreneurial sector now plays asignificant role in terms of the number of firms and activities, and its contribution tonational wealth. Thus, the social economy sector is 2.4 percent of Spanish GDP(Monzon, 2010).
In spite of the relevant contribution of “third sector” companies to the Spanisheconomy, and having proved the importance of innovation in the improvement ofproductivity and competitiveness levels in companies, the number of studies oninnovation in the social economy sector remains low. This research therefore analyzesthe innovative behavior of social economy firms. In line with this objective, thedefinition of the concept of “entrepreneurial innovation” is taken as the introduction ofa new product or service in a company, improvements in those products that alreadyexist, the introduction of a new production process, or the implementation of a newmethod of commercialization or organization in the internal function of the company.These changes can take place in the workplace or in external relationships(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2005).
2. Literature review and conceptual frameworkSince Joseph Schumpeter (1934) used the adjective “innovative” to identify andcharacterize the role of the entrepreneur, “innovation” has held a key position in theentrepreneurial literature. Innovation improves entrepreneurial productivity andreturns (Salavou and Avlonitis, 2008). Innovation also qualifies firms to act inenvironments that are becoming increasingly dynamic and to discover and exploit newbusiness opportunities. In this way, companies can develop new sources of value inorder to maintain a solid competitive position and to achieve survival and evenprofitability ( Johannessen et al., 2001). Thus, entrepreneurial innovation is now themost likely sign of value creation in a firm (Hitt et al., 1996) and also the main source ofeconomic growth in a territory (Wong et al., 2005).
Companies differ in the kinds and levels of innovation they introduce and also in theimpact these innovations have on their results (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990;Zortea-Johnston et al., 2012). With regard to the types of innovation, the basis of themost expanded classification is the nature of innovation (Schumpeter, 1934) or itsimpact, which depends on how risky and new the innovation is (Damanpour, 1991). Afocus on the nature of innovation can distinguish between innovation in products(important changes in the features of the produced goods and services), innovation inprocesses (changes in production methods and distribution), managerial innovations(changes in the practices of the company, in the organization of the workplace or in theexternal relationships of the companies), and market innovations (new methods of
Social economyfirms
987
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
commercialization and the opening up of new markets). The first two categories referto productive activities and usually contain an important technological component.The rest of the categories focus on managerial activities and relate more to theadministrative tasks that support and boost the innovation in the company(Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan, 2001).
Certain studies point out managerial innovations as a requirement for the creationof technological innovations (Lam, 2004). Following this idea, other papers show thatthe joint incorporation of both technological and managerial innovations has anadditional effect on the firm’s productivity and performance (Damanpour et al., 2009).This effect is especially important for the services sector, where technologicalinnovations are mainly incremental, and contact networks with clients and suppliersplay an important role.
Innovation depends on two kinds of factors:
(1) internal factors, which relate to the characteristics of the firm and theentrepreneur; and
(2) external factors, which are subject to the environment surrounding thecompany (Rogers, 1983; Drucker, 1994).
These factors are not independent: their intrinsic value depends on the industry orbusiness area in which the firm is launched (Canina et al., 2012). These are inter-relateddimensions regarding the innovative phenomenon in companies (Romero andMartınez, 2012). Although internal factors are relevant for any kind of organization,their influence is greater in small firms (Hadjimanolis, 2000). Furthermore,entrepreneurs capture the influence of the external environment through theirperceptions, generating attitudes that determine their behaviors (Linan et al., 2011).
Regarding the generally accepted personal traits of entrepreneurs, which determinethe innovative activity of small and medium-sized firms, the literature emphasizesthose traits that relate to the entrepreneurs’ human capital, their education and skills,and knowledge acquired through work experience (Lasch et al., 2007). These elementsaffect the entrepreneur’s decision about combining the available resources in order tocreate innovation. In this sense, Fernandez and Pena (2009) studied the determinants ofinnovation in Spanish cooperatives and found evidence for the positive and significanteffect of the members’ education on technological innovation.
Other characteristics of entrepreneurs mentioned in the literature as being relevantin the introduction of innovations in a firm refer to social capital. This is amultidimensional concept that includes the firm’s contact network with otherinstitutions or entrepreneurs, and the information, knowledge and resources that it canaccess through these contacts (Zheng, 2010; Bergh et al., 2011; Fornoni et al., 2011).Social capital promotes cooperation among the members of a group (Fukuyama, 2001).This situation stimulates the creation of a network of entrepreneurs, which, in the caseof social economy companies such as cooperatives and worker-owned firms, allowscollective learning, which in turn facilitates information flow and promotes innovation(Vargas, 2004).
These two factors, social and human capital, are part of the concept of “intellectualcapital”, which is the set of intangible resources and capacities with regard to adifferent kind of knowledge that adds competitive advantages to the company(Hormiga et al., 2011).
MD51,5
988
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
The following hypotheses are in accordance with the information collected after theliterature review about the personal features of the entrepreneur that gives rise toinnovation in firms:
H1. The better the entrepreneur’s human capital (training and experience), thehigher the tendency to innovate in social economy firms.
H2. The greater the relational social capital of entrepreneurs (information andknowledge acquired through their relationships with other agents), the higherthe tendency to innovate in social economy firms.
Among the features of firms that can affect their innovative activity, the size andthe activity sector stand out (Caceres et al., 2011). The aspect of size relates to theresources available to introduce innovation (Acs and Audretsch, 1990; Agarwal andAudretsch, 2001). Large firms usually have more resources, skills, experience andpotential for innovation. However, it has been observed that expectations concerningthe growth of a company also have a positive influence on innovation (Gonzalez andPena, 2007). Companies with faster growth are generally more innovative( Jones-Evans and Westhead, 1996). These ventures normally seek to increasetheir size in order to take advantage of innovation and to obtain higher levels ofefficiency and productivity.
The activity sector determines the opportunity for the introduction of innovation,the profits derived from an innovation, and the possibilities of the accumulation andappropriation of technology and knowledge (Dosi, 1988). Within the innovationprocess in a sector, a differentiation between the exploratory phase and the exploitationphase can be made (Acs and Audretsch, 1990). Companies in the exploratory phasededicate a high percentage of resources to investing in R&D&i with the aim ofdeveloping and commercializing innovation (Gonzalez and Pena, 2007). This actionusually takes place in sectors which are in the incipient phase of the firm’s life cycle, insectors intensive in technology or knowledge. Nevertheless, other sectors concentrateon exploiting those products or services that belong to an already mature or stablesector rather than focusing on the development of innovations. The consideration alsoexists that size and sector relate to the kind of innovation created by the company.Thus, small firms producing low-technology goods or low knowledge-intensive goodsaim to create managerial innovation, whereas larger industrial companies based onproducing high-technology goods prefer technological innovations (Tether, 2005).
Another factor to consider is the business strategy for innovation. The moreproactive the company is in seeking opportunities for innovation and adoptingbehavior favorable to innovation, the more innovative the company will be. In thissense, establishing cooperative arrangements with other companies may favor thetransmission and exchange of knowledge and experience. An association existsbetween this exchange and the development of innovations (Cabrera and Cabrera,2002).
The formulation of the following hypotheses is in accordance with the ideas theliterature exposes about the managerial characteristics that affect a firm’s innovativeactivity:
H3. The larger the expected growth of the company, the greater the propensity toinnovate in social economy ventures.
Social economyfirms
989
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
H4. The more intensive the behavior of “exploration” of innovation in theeconomic sector in which the company operates, the greater the propensity toinnovate in social economy ventures.
H5. The greater the number of formal or written cooperation agreements hold bythe social economy firm, the greater the propensity to innovate in the venture.
Among the external factors of the company that can influence its innovative activity,an emphasis exists on the features of the environment that favor the exchange anddissemination of knowledge among economic agents (Mas-Verdu et al., 2010).Examples include:
. building a regional innovation system to channel the supply of innovation to itsdemand (Edquist, 2001);
. developing close relationships with universities or research centers to enableknowledge to be captured (Singh, 2006); and
. the existence of an institutional framework conducive to innovation, with astrong educational system and policies to support business innovation (Porterand Scott, 2001).
Social Economy enterprises are characterized by their close links to their nearest localenvironment and to local development, especially in the case of small-sized cooperativesand worker-owned firms operating in the services sector. The local environment is thuslikely to affect the innovation capacity of these businesses more strongly than theregional or national environment. Then again, certain authors highlight the advantagesarising from a city’s diverse and concentrated entrepreneurial structure (Audretsch,1998), and also from the fact that a city is the center of attraction for people with a varietyof skills, knowledge and cultures, which promotes creative, artistic and industrialprocesses (Johnson, 2011). Thus, a firm located in a rural environment experiencesgreater difficulties introducing or developing an innovation due to the lack ofgeographical proximity to R&D&i organizations.
The formulation of the following hypothesis is based on the findings in theliterature about the characteristics of a business’s environment and how they affect itsinnovative activity:
H6. The location of a company has an effect on its innovation capacity, thiscapacity being higher in the case of businesses located in urban areas.
3. Empirical analysis3.1 Data collection, variables and methodThe testing of the hypotheses is performed through a series of logistic regression modelsusing an SPSS statistical program. Data for this study comes from a survey of Spanishentrepreneurs of small businesses in the social economy sector between the end of 2010and the beginning of 2011. The interviewees were entrepreneurs, defined as businessowners who also assumed managerial functions. The survey includes small firmsoperating in the industry and services sectors, but not in the primary sector. The finalsample contained 81 observations. Most of the firms were long-established companies ofmore than ten years old (69 percent), belonging to the commercial sector or otherlow-knowledge-intensive services (77 percent), and employing fewer than ten workers.
MD51,5
990
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
The questionnaire included queries about the innovative activities of smallbusinesses and about certain variables that, according to the literature review,potentially determine their innovation capacity. The dependent variables constitutedthe many kinds of innovation. The entrepreneurs interviewed were asked whether theyhad carried out any technological innovation, including product and processinnovation, and any managerial innovation in the previous three years.
Thus, in this paper, the following three dummy variables are dependent variables:
(1) technological innovation (tech_inn) – this variable takes a value of 1 if the firmundertook any product or process innovation in the previous three years, andtakes the value 0 otherwise.
(2) Managerial innovation (manag_inn) – this variable takes a value of 1 if the firmundertook any managerial innovation in the previous three years, and 0otherwise; and
(3) technological and managerial innovation (both.inn) – this variable takes avalue of 1 if the firm undertook both technological and managerial innovation inthe previous three years, and 0 in the negative case.
The explanatory or independent variables that this study includes can be classifiedinto three groups:
(1) Entrepreneurs’ personal characteristics:. Tertiary education (Ter_edu) – this variable takes a of value 1 for those
entrepreneurs who have a university degree or higher professional training,and a value of 0 for the remainder.
. Previous experience as an employee (Exp) – this variable takes a value of 1for those interviewed who had previously worked as an employee, and avalue of 0 otherwise.
. Customer and supplier network (Network) – this variable takes a value of 1for interviewees who have acquired information or knowledge via theircustomer or supplier networks, and 0 otherwise.
(2) Managerial characteristics – this group includes indicators to explore thepossible effect of different management practices on innovative behavior.
(3) Cooperation (Coop) – the variable takes a value of 1 in the case of formalcollaboration agreements existing between firms, and 0 otherwise.
(4) Expected growth (Exp_growth) – The dichotomous variable takes a value of 1if the firm expects to grow in size over the next five years (measured in numberof employees).
(5) Sector (Sector) – This variable takes a value of 1 for a firm operating in sectorsin which the R&D spending with regard to GDP is above the overall averagespending by the other sectors.
Including one control variable in the model isolates the influence of the main variablesand guarantees empirical results of a more consistent nature. This variable concernsthe firm’s external characteristics. The control variable in this study was the localenvironment (Local_env). This variable takes a value of 1 for those social economyfirms located in urban areas, and 0 for those firms operating in rural areas. In Spain, an
Social economyfirms
991
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
urban area is defined as an area whose population is over 10,000 inhabitants (accordingto the Spanish Statistics Institute).
3.2 Analysis and resultsDescriptive indicators for the variables included in the analysis and the correlationcoefficients between these variables are presented in Table I. Of the entrepreneursinterviewed, 46.9 percent had introduced a technological innovation, 32.1 percenthad introduced a managerial innovation, and 24.7 percent had introduced bothkinds of innovation. Technological innovation is therefore more common in socialeconomy companies than managerial innovation. Regarding the entrepreneurs’human capital, 29.6 percent of those people interviewed had a university degree orhigher professional training, and 25.9 percent had profited from previous experienceas employees. In terms of social capital, 69.1 percent of entrepreneurs had acquiredinformation towards innovation via customers and suppliers. Regarding managerialcharacteristics, only 18.5 percent of social economy firms included in the samplehave plans to grow in the next five years, and 28.4 percent have set up a formalcooperation agreement with other companies operating in the same sector. Thenagain, 16 percent of social economy companies belong to sectors tending towardsexploratory innovation, in which the expense on R&D compared to GDP is higherthan that of the overall average of the sectors. Finally, 70.4 percent of the firms arein urban areas.
Some correlation coefficients between the variables are statistically significant. Inparticular (see Table I), the entrepreneurs’ personal characteristics, such as theireducational background and previous work experience, have a direct influence on theirbusiness strategy towards innovation; towards the social capital variable to be precise.Likewise, a close link exists between the expectations for the growth of the firm and theactivity sector to which the company belongs. The coefficients between theseexplanatory variables always remain below 0.5 and the variance inflation factors areall below 10, indicating that multicollinearity is not a concern.
On the other hand, what is notable is that the correlation coefficients between thevarious kinds of innovation are statistically significant. This result reinforces the needto use a multivariate analysis approach in order to determine the factors for theintroduction and creation of innovation in social economy firms.
Variable Valuea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Both_Inn 24.7 12. Techn_Inn 46.9 0.41 * * 13. Manag_inn 32.1 0.61 * * 0.83 * * 14. Local_env 70.4 0.23 * 0.21 0.18 15. Sector 16 0.20 0.35 * * 0.45 * * 0.13 16. Exp_growth 18.5 0.25 * 0.42 * * 0.54 * * 20.11 0.40 * * 17. Coop 28.4 0.23 * 0.45 * * 0.47 * * 0.17 0.10 0.12 18. Network 69.1 0.41 * * 0.35 * * 0.32 * * 0.15 0.07 0.11 0.18 19. Ter_edu 29.6 0.37 * * 0.19 0.26 * 0.07 0.16 0.04 0.19 0.38 * * 1
10. Exp 25.9 0.29 * * 0.32 * * 0.32 * * 20.05 20.03 0.01 0.32 * * 0.21 0.11 1
Notes: aPercentage of 1 (affirmative answers); *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01
Table I.Descriptive indicatorsand correlation matrix
MD51,5
992
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
Table II shows the results obtained after running the logistic regression models. TheNagelkerke R 2 and Hosmer-Lemeshow tests reveal the goodness-of-fit of the threemodels. The three models are defined in order to verify the influence of the selectedvariables on the various kinds of innovation in social economy firms. Thus, adifferentiation can be made between companies that carry out both technological andmanagerial innovation (Model 1), companies that only incorporate or createtechnological innovation (Model 2), and companies that only perform managerialinnovation (Model 3). After running the logistic regressions, the three models obtainedexplain a very high percentage of the innovative capacity of social economy firms.
H1 refers to the positive influence of human capital on the capacity for theintroduction of innovation in social economy companies. The results allow a partialacceptance of this hypothesis. Concerning the two human capital variables understoodin this research as having a positive influence on innovation (i.e. Ter_edu and Exp),only the latter seems to explain the all range of innovation. According to this result,technological and managerial innovation in the social economy sector can becharacterized by those entrepreneurs with a set of skills and knowledge about theentrepreneurial activity acquired via previous experience developed from beingself-employed. However, higher educational levels are significant only fortechnological innovation. This result is logical since kinds of entrepreneurs areprepared to assimilate new technological changes.
H2 positively relates social capital (network) to the introduction of innovation insocial economy firms. The results allow the acceptance of this hypothesis in all threemodels. Thus, there is a positive influence of social capital on the introduction and/ordevelopment of technological and managerial innovation. In this way, the evaluation ofinformation acquired through the networks involving suppliers and clients is timely,since to this information increases the possibilities of incorporating innovation.
Both innovationsTechnological
innovationManagerialinnovation
Variables b SE b SE b SE
ControlEnt_Local 3.870 * * 1.58 0.512 * * 0.72 2.387 * 1.05
Managerial characterSector 4.964 * * 2.05 0.376 0.86 1.906 * 1.06Persp_crec 7.189 * * * 2.48 1.918 * * 0.91 3.568 * * * 1.24Coop 3.759 * * 1.50 0.052 0.67 2.059 * * 0.80
Entrepreneur characterNetwork 4.415 * 2.58 1.337 * * 0.70 2.054 * 1.10Ter_edu 0.842 1.17 1.360 * 0.66 20.038 0.76Exp 3.488 * * 1.52 1.397 * * 0.75 1.798 * * 0.84Constant 213.597 * * * 4.41 23.388 * * * 0.88 26.425 * * * 1.6522 log likelihood 24.467 77.532 52.760x 2 66.278 * * * 34.499 * * * 48.914 * * *
Nagelkerke R 2 0.829 0.462 0.634Percentage correct predictions 93.8 76.5 84.0
Notes: *Significant at the 0.10 level; * *significant at the 0.05 level; * * *significant at the 0.01 levelTable II.
Logistic regression
Social economyfirms
993
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
Regarding the firm’s characteristics, the results support H3. Hence, the higher thecompany’s growth expectations (Exp_growth), the higher the capacity for introducingboth technological and managerial innovation.
However, the support of H4 and H5 is only partial. The economic sector (Sector) andthe existence of formal cooperation agreements (Coop) do not seem to determine thefirm’s capacity for introducing technological innovation, but they do in the case ofmanagerial innovations and that of both technological innovation and managerialinnovation at the same time.
H6 relates the geographical environment (Local_env) to the capacity for introducinginnovation. According to the significant result, the acceptance of this hypothesis ispossible. Consequently, the assumption exists that the geographical environmentinfluences technological innovation in social economy firms.
Those firms that introduced both technological innovation and managerialinnovation (Model 1) are now considered. The explanatory variables which have astatistically significant effect on the innovative behavior at confidence levels of either0.05 or 0.01 include:
. local environment (Local_env);
. managerial characteristics of the company (Sector, Exp_growth, Coop); and
. the entrepreneur’s previous experience (Exp).
In addition to this, contact network (Network) is a marginally significant factorexplaining innovation activities (with a level of confidence of 0.10). The largestcoefficients belong to those variables that relate the growth expectations(Exp_growth), sector (Sector) and contact network of the firm with clients andsuppliers (Network).
Model 2, which includes firms that only carry out technological innovations, isappreciably different. Statistically significant variables at the confidence levels ofeither 0.05 or 0.01 are: the growth expectations of the firm (Exp_growth), the contactnetwork with clients and suppliers (Network), and the entrepreneur’s previousexperience (Exp). Moreover, the entrepreneur’s tertiary educational level (Ter_edu) ismarginally significant when explaining innovation activities (with a confidence level of0.10).The largest coefficient between these variables is the variable of growthexpectation (Exp_growth).
Model 3 is similar to Model 1. The statistically significant variables at theconfidence levels of either 0.05 or 0.01 are the following:
. managerial characteristics of the company (Exp_growth, Coop); and
. the entrepreneur’s previous experience (Exp).
In addition, the sector in which the company acts (Sector), the variable of localenvironment (Local_env) and its contact network (Network), are marginally significantfactors explaining innovation activities (with a confidence level of 0.10). The largestcoefficients belong to those variables relating to the growth expectation (Exp_growth),local environment (Local_env) and the contact network of the firm with clients andsuppliers (Network).
MD51,5
994
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
4. Discussion and conclusionsTaking into account that the philosophy of performance of social economy firms isdifferent to that of capitalist ventures, the aim of this research is to verify if thedeterminants of the innovation capacities in social economy companies are similar tothose determinants in the case of traditional ventures.
The results show that, on the whole, the determinants influencing the introductionand the creation of innovation in social economy firms appear to be identical to thosefor traditional companies. They are in line with findings from previous research on therelationship between ownership structure and innovativeness in companies (De Cleynand Braet, 2012). Nevertheless, certain additional findings stand out:
. The innovation capacity in social economy ventures in Spain depends on bothexternal and internal factors.
. The influence of the factors determining innovation in these kinds of firms variesdepending on the kind of innovation that the firm is going to incorporate. Thus,this situation provides evidence on the existence of several models according tothe kind of innovation incorporated: technological, managerial or both.
. A possible explanation for the fact of common factors influencing the differenttypes of innovation is the dependence that may exist between managerialinnovation and technological innovation. What justifies this aspect may be thefact that the firm’s managerial capacity to incorporate new technologydetermines technological innovations (Damanpour and Evan, 1984).
. The relevance of human capital (especially previous experience) and socialcapital (in its contact network approach) is a key factor in the innovative capacityof social economy firms.
. Cooperation agreements appear to be a determinant of innovation for socialeconomy firms that include managerial innovation and both kinds of innovation(managerial and technological), but not for companies which only carry outtechnological innovation. This feature provides evidence once more of theimportance of good internal organization in the company in order to takeadvantage of the different knowledge acquired through the external partners andused in the innovation process.
. The growth expectations also play an important role in the capacity forinnovation of social economy companies when introducing managerial,technological or both kinds of innovation. This result is logical since the aimof introducing an innovation tends to be to advance in the business.
. A location in an urban area favors the innovation capacity in social economyfirms. The tendency to innovate is higher if a company’s location is near anemplacement with a high entrepreneurial concentration.
. Finally, the sector in which a social economy company operates appears toinfluence the development of solely managerial innovation and that of both kindsof innovation, but fail to hold any influence for solely technological innovation.
This last finding and that concerning cooperation may be due to the limitations of thisresearch, which are the features and size of the sample used. Most firms included in thesample are microcompanies dedicated to the low- knowledge-intensive services sector.
Social economyfirms
995
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
This fact explains why the sector and cooperation variables hold no influence ontechnological innovation. Since the sample size is small, all the indicators show a highlevel of confidence. Notwithstanding, future research is planned in order to overcomethese limitations.
References
Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D. (1990), Innovation and Small Firms, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Agarwal, R. and Audretsch, D. (2001), “Does entry size matter?”, Journal of Industrial Economics,Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 21-43.
Audretsch, D. (1998), “Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity”, Oxford Review ofEconomic Policy, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 18-29.
Bergh, P., Thorgren, S. and Wincent, J. (2011), “Entrepreneurs learning together: the importanceof building trust for learning and exploiting business opportunities”, InternationalEntrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 17-37.
Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E. (2002), “Knowledge-sharing dilemma”, Organization Studies, Vol. 23No. 5, pp. 687-710.
Caceres, R., Guzman, J. and Rekowski, M. (2011), “Firms as source of variety in innovation:influence of size and sector”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 357-372.
Canina, L., Palacios, D. and Devece, C. (2012), “Management theories linking individual andorganizational level analysis in entrepreneurship research”, InternationalEntrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 271-284.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), “Absorptive-capacity – a new perspective on learningand innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-152.
Damanpour, F. (1991), “Managerial innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants andmoderators”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-590.
Damanpour, F. and Evan, M. (1984), “Organizational innovation and performance: the problem of‘organizational lag’”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 392-409.
Damanpour, F. and Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001), “The dynamics of the adoption of product andprocess innovations in organizations”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 1,pp. 45-65.
Damanpour, F., Walker, R. and Avellaneda, C. (2009), “Combinative effects of innovation typesand organizational performance: a longitudinal study of service organizations”,The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 4, p. 650.
De Cleyn, S.H. and Braet, J. (2012), “Do board composition and investor type influenceinnovativeness in SMEs?”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 285-308.
Doherty, B., Foster, G., Mason, C., Meehan, J., Meehan, K. and Rotheroe, N. (2009), Managment ofSocial Enterprises, Sage Publications, London.
Dosi, G. (1988), “Sources, procedures and microeconomics effects of innovation”, Journal ofEconomic Literature, Vol. 26, pp. 1120-1171.
Drucker, P. (1994), “Knowledge work and knowledge society”, The 1994 Edwin L. GodkinLecture, Vol. 1994, JFK School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Edquist, Ch. (2001), “The systems of innovation approach and innovation policy: an account ofthe state of the art”, paper presented at the DRUID Conference, Aalborg, June 12-15.
MD51,5
996
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
Fernandez, M.V. and Pena, I. (2009), “Estrategia de innovacion como factor Determinante delexito de las cooperativas Vitivinıcolas de Castilla La Mancha”, Revesco, No. 98.
Fornoni, M., Arribas, I. and Vila, J.E. (2011), “Measurement of an individual entrepreneur’s socialcapital: a multidimensional model”, International Entrepreneurship and ManagementJournal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 495-507.
Fukuyama, F. (2001), “Social capital, civil society and development”, Third World Quarterly,Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Gonzalez, J.L. and Pena, I. (2007), “Determinantes de la capacidad de innovacion de los negociosemprendedores en Espana”, Economıa Industrial, Vol. 363, pp. 129-147.
Hadjimanolis, A. (2000), “A resource-based view of innovativeness in small firms”, TechnologyAnalysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 263-281.
Hitt, M., Hoskisson, R., Johnson, R. and Moesel, D. (1996), “The market for corporate control andfirm innovation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1084-1092.
Hormiga, E., Batista-Canino, R.M. and Sanchez-Medina, A. (2011), “The role of intellectual capitalin the success of new ventures”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Johannessen, J.A., Olsen, B. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2001), “Innovation as newness: what is new, hownew, and new to whom?”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4 No. 1,pp. 20-31.
Johnson, B. (2011), “Organization and innovation: the topic of creative cities”, in Asheim, B. andParrilli, M.D. (Eds), Innovation and Learning for Innovation: A Key Driver within Clustersand Innovation Systems, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Jones-Evans, D. and Westhead, P. (1996), “The high-technology small firms in the UK”,International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 15-39.
Lam, A. (2004), “Organizational innovation”, BSBM Working Papers, Vol. 1 No. 2, BrunelBusiness School, Brunel University, Uxbridge, pp. 8-45.
Lasch, F., Le Roy, F. and Yami, S. (2007), “Critical growth factors of ICT start-ups”, ManagementDecision, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 62-75.
Leadbeater, C. (1997), The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur, Demos, London.
Linan, F., Santos, F.J. and Fernandez, J. (2011), “The influence of perceptions on potentialentrepreneurs”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3,pp. 373-390.
Mas-Verdu, F., Ribeiro Soriano, D. and Roig Dobon, S. (2010), “Regional development andinnovation: the role of services”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 633-641.
Monzon, J.L. (Dir.) (2010), Las Grandes Cifras de la Economıa Social en Espana, CIRIEC, Valencia.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005), “The measurement of scientificand technological activities: proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technologicalinnovation data”, Oslo Manual, available at: www.oecd.org/science/inno/2367580.pdf
Porter, M.E. and Scott, S. (2001), “Innovation: location matters”, MIT Sloan Management Review,Vol. 42 No. 4.
Rogers, E. (1983), The Diffusion of Innovation, 3rd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Romero, I. and Martınez, J.A. (2011), “Self-employment and innovation. Exploring thedeterminants of innovative behavior in small businesses”, Research Policy, Vol. 41 No. 1,pp. 178-189.
Salavou, H. and Avlonitis, G. (2008), “Product innovativeness and performance: a focus onSMEs”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 969-985.
Social economyfirms
997
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,Cambridge, MA.
Singh, L. (2006), “Innovations and economic growth in a fast changing global economy:comparative experience of Asian countries”, MPRA Papers No. 80, available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/80/.
Tether, B.S. (2005), “Do services innovate (differently)? Insights from the EuropeanInnobarometer survey”, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 153-184.
Vargas, A. (2004), “Empresas cooperativas, ventaja competitiva y tecnologıas de la informacion,CIRIEC-Espana”, Revista de Economıa Publica, Social y Cooperativa, Vol. 49, pp. 13-29.
Williams, C.C. and Nadin, S. (2012), “Entrepreneurship in the informal economy: commercial orsocial entrepreneurs?”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 8No. 3, pp. 309-324.
Wong, P.K., Ho, Y.P. and Autio, E. (2005), “Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth:evidence from GEM data”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 335-350.
Zheng, W. (2010), “A social capital perspective of innovation from individuals to nations: whereis empirical literature directing us?”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12No. 2, pp. 151-183.
Zortea-Johnston, E., Darroch, J. and Matear, S. (2012), “Business orientations and innovation insmall and medium sized enterprises”, International Entrepreneurship and ManagementJournal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 145-165.
About the authorsM. Jose Rodrıguez has a PhD in Economics and is an Associate Professor at the University ofSeville (Spain), where she is a member of the “SMEs and Economic Development’ research groupand the Bancaja Chair “Young Entrepreneurs”. She is a participant in the International project“ENDEAVOR – Entrepreneurial Development as a Vehicle to Promote European HigherEducation”. Her research interests include entrepreneurship, social economy firms, innovation,gender, social capital and network, and the role of SMEs in regional development. M. JoseRodrıguez is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Carmen Guzman is a Teacher Assistant in the Department of Economics in the University ofHuelva. She belongs to the research group “Research Techniques and Economic Development”and she is a member of the “Research Center International Territorial Intelligence” (C3it). Herresearch interests include entrepreneurship, social economy firms, entrepreneurial quality, socialcapital and network, and the role of SMEs in regional development. Currently, she is developinga study about the quality of the social economy entrepreneurial structure versus the traditionalentrepreneurial structure in Spain.
MD51,5
998
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Antonio Padilla-Meléndez, Ana Rosa Del Aguila-Obra, Nigel Lockett. 2014. All in the mind:understanding the social economy enterprise innovation in Spain. International Journal of EntrepreneurialBehaviour & Research 20:5, 493-512. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Sladjana Cabrilo, Leposava Grubic Nesic, Slavica Mitrovic. 2014. Study on human capital gaps for effectiveinnovation strategies in the knowledge era. Journal of Intellectual Capital 15:3, 411-429. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
I T
EK
NO
LO
GI
MA
LA
YSI
A A
t 15:
54 2
3 D
ecem
ber
2015
(PT
)
