IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aoq/ekonom/y2023i1p51-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introducing the open innovation model in Polish biopharmaceutical companies: major drivers and barriers

Author

Listed:
  • Małgorzata Runiewicz-Wardyn
  • Joanna Lesniowska

Abstract

Innovation is one of the most critical determinants of economic success and one of the most important elements in building a competitive advantage. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the development of new strategic partnerships, including open innovation alliances, in the biopharmaceutical industry. The adoption of open innovation strategies has been a persistent trend, although these strategies vary onsiderably from one country to another. The lowest level of open cooperation and R&D collaboration in the biopharmaceutical industry can be observed in Central and Eastern Europe, including Poland. The main barriers to, and challenges facing, open innovation cooperation in the Polish biopharmaceutical sector, however, are not well understood. This study analyses the major drivers of, and barriers to, engaging in open innovation cooperation. A survey was conducted and established that open innovation cooperation and R&D collaboration do not necessarily suffer from a lack of financial resources, but are definitely dependent on such socio-behavioural factors as motivation for collaboration, value systems, and trust between partners.

Suggested Citation

  • Małgorzata Runiewicz-Wardyn & Joanna Lesniowska, 2023. "Introducing the open innovation model in Polish biopharmaceutical companies: major drivers and barriers," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 1, pages 51-77.
    • Handle: RePEc:aoq:ekonom:y:2023:i:1:p:51-77
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ekonomista.pte.pl/pdf-161834-88675
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marisa Smith & Marco Busi & Peter Ball & Robert Van Der Meer, 2008. "Factors Influencing An Organisation'S Ability To Manage Innovation: A Structured Literature Review And Conceptual Model," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 12(04), pages 655-676.
    2. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
    3. Maskell, Peter & Malmberg, Anders, 1999. "Localised Learning and Industrial Competitiveness," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 23(2), pages 167-185, March.
    4. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    5. Malik, Tariq, 2012. "Disparate association between alliance social capital and the global pharmaceutical firm's performance," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 1017-1028.
    6. Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro & Pier-Paolo Saviotti, 2014. "The dynamics of knowledge-intensive sectors’ knowledge base: Evidence from Biotechnology and Telecommunications," Post-Print halshs-01225834, HAL.
    7. Woo Jin Lee & Rose Mwebaza, 2020. "The Role of the Climate Technology Centre and Network as a Climate Technology and Innovation Matchmaker for Developing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-16, September.
    8. Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro & Pier Paolo Saviotti, 2014. "The Dynamics of Knowledge-intensive Sectors' Knowledge Base: Evidence from Biotechnology and Telecommunications," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 215-242, April.
    9. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich & Ernst, Holger, 2007. "Developing reputation to overcome the imperfections in the markets for knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 37-55, February.
    10. Frank T. Rothaermel & David L. Deeds, 2004. "Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 201-221, March.
    11. Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro & Pier-Paolo Saviotti, 2014. "The dynamics of knowledge-intensive sectors' knowledge base: Evidence from Biotechnology and Telecommunications," Post-Print hal-02118411, HAL.
    12. Frank T. Rothaermel, 2001. "Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 687-699, June.
    13. Katarzyna Łobacz & Paweł Głodek & Edward Stawasz & Piotr Niedzielski, 2016. "Utilisation of Business Advice in Small Innovative Firms: the Role of Trust and Tacit Knowledge," Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, Centre for Strategic and International Entrepreneurship at the Cracow University of Economics., vol. 4(2), pages 117-138.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sándor Juhász & Tom Broekel & Ron Boschma, 2021. "Explaining the dynamics of relatedness: The role of co‐location and complexity," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(1), pages 3-21, February.
    2. Orsatti, Gianluca & Pezzoni, Michele & Quatraro, Francesco, 2017. "Where Do Green Technologies Come From? Inventor Teams’ Recombinant Capabilities and the Creation of New Knowledge," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201711, University of Turin.
    3. Orsatti, Gianluca & Quatraro, Francesco & Pezzoni, Michele, 2020. "The antecedents of green technologies: The role of team-level recombinant capabilities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    4. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    5. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2010. "Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 55-66, February.
    6. Franco Malerba & Maureen McKelvey, 2020. "Knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship integrating Schumpeter, evolutionary economics, and innovation systems," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 503-522, February.
    7. Golonka, Monika, 2015. "Proactive cooperation with strangers: Enhancing complexity of the ICT firms' alliance portfolio and their innovativeness," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 168-178.
    8. Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2016. "The role of diversification profiles and dyadic characteristics in the formation of technological alliances: Differences between exploitation and exploration in a low-tech industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 517-532.
    9. Mirna Kordab & Jurgita Raudeliūnienė & Ieva Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, 2020. "Mediating Role of Knowledge Management in the Relationship between Organizational Learning and Sustainable Organizational Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Mazzola, Erica & Perrone, Giovanni & Kamuriwo, Dzidziso Samuel, 2015. "Network embeddedness and new product development in the biopharmaceutical industry: The moderating role of open innovation flow," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 106-119.
    11. Alistair R. Anderson & Jialin Hardwick, 2017. "Collaborating for innovation: the socialised management of knowledge," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 1181-1197, December.
    12. Francesco Quatraro, 2016. "Co-evolutionary Patterns in Regional Knowledge Bases and Economic Structure: Evidence from European Regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(3), pages 513-539, March.
    13. Valeriy Kryukov & Anatoliy Tokarev, 2022. "Spatial trends of innovation in the Russian oil and gas sector: What does patent activity in Siberia and the Arctic reflect?," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 127-146, February.
    14. Manuel Villasalero, 2018. "Multi-Business Firms, Knowledge Flows and Intra-Network Open Innovations," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(1), pages 162-179, March.
    15. Francesco Bogliacino & Mario Pianta, 2016. "The Pavitt Taxonomy, revisited: patterns of innovation in manufacturing and services," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(2), pages 153-180, August.
    16. Su, Hsin-Ning & Moaniba, Igam M., 2017. "Investigating the dynamics of interdisciplinary evolution in technology developments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 12-23.
    17. Elizabeth J. Altman & Frank Nagle & Michael L. Tushman, 2013. "Innovating Without Information Constraints: Organizations, Communities, and Innovation When Information Costs Approach Zero," Harvard Business School Working Papers 14-043, Harvard Business School, revised Sep 2014.
    18. Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Li, Ying & Van de Vrande, Vareska, 2009. "The dual role of external corporate venturing in technological exploration," MPRA Paper 26488, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2010.
    19. Ekaterina Prytkova, 2021. "ICT's Wide Web: a System-Level Analysis of ICT's Industrial Diffusion with Algorithmic Links," Jena Economics Research Papers 2021-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    20. Dolata, Ulrich, 2014. "Märkte und Macht der Internetkonzerne: Konzentration - Konkurrenz - Innovationsstrategien," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2014-04, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    development; biopharmaceutical industry; open innovation strategies;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O12 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aoq:ekonom:y:2023:i:1:p:51-77. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tomasz Kwarcinski (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/pteeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.