IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/csc/cerisp/201301.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Managerial capacity in the innovation process and firm profitability

Author

Abstract

This paper studies at firm level the relation between managerial capacity in doing innovation and profitability. Moving along the intersection between the evolutionary/neo-Schumpeterian theory and the Resource-Based-View of the firm, we prove econometrically that managerial efficiency in mastering the production of innovation is an important determinant of firm innovative performance and market success, and that it complements traditional Schumpeterian drivers. By using a Stochastic Frontier Analysis, we provide a “direct” measure of innovation managerial capacity, then plugged into a profit margin equation augmented by the traditional Schumpeterian drivers of profitability (size, demand, market size and concentration, technological opportunities, etc.) and other control-variables. We run both a OLS and a series of Quantile Regressions to better stress the role played by companies’ heterogeneous response of profitability to innovative managerial capacity at different points of the distribution of the operating profit margin.Results find evidence of an average positive effect of the innovation managerial capacity on firm profitability, although quantile regressions show that this “mean effect” is mainly driven by a stronger magnitude of the effect for lower quantiles (i.e., for firms having negative or low positive profitability). It means that lower profitable firms might gain more from an increase of managerial efficiency in doing innovation than more profitable businesses.

Suggested Citation

  • Giovanni Cerulli & Bianca Potì, 2013. "Managerial capacity in the innovation process and firm profitability," CERIS Working Paper 201301, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
  • Handle: RePEc:csc:cerisp:201301
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.byterfly.eu/islandora/object/librib:343679
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2010. "How Much Should Society Fuel the Greed of Innovators? On the Relations between Appropriability, Opportunities and Rates of Innovation," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    3. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Andy Cosh & Xiaolan Fu & Alan Hughes, 2005. "Management characteristics, collaboration and innovative efficiency: evidence from UK survey data," Working Papers wp311, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    5. Bughin, J. & Jacques, J. M., 1994. "Managerial efficiency and the Schumpeterian link between size, market structure and innovation revisited," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 653-659, November.
    6. Jennifer Percival & Brian Cozzarin, 2008. "Complementarities Affecting the Returns to Innovation," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 371-392.
    7. Gantumur, Tseveen & Stephan, Andreas, 2010. "Do External Technology Acquisitions Matter For Innovative Efficiency and Productivity?," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 222, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    8. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-158.
    9. Jacques Mairesse & Pierre Mohnen, 2002. "Accounting for Innovation and Measuring Innovativeness: An Illustrative Framework and an Application," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 226-230, May.
    10. Richard N. Langlois, 1994. "Cognition and Capabilities: Opportunities Seized and Missed in the History of the Computer Industry," Industrial Organization 9406003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Elena Cefis & Matteo Ciccarelli, 2005. "Profit differentials and innovation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1-2), pages 43-61.
    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. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(6), pages 1105-1145, December.
    2. Elena Cefis, 2010. "The impact of M&A on technology sourcing strategies," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 27-51.
    3. Gérard Ballot & Fathi Fakhfakh & Fabrice Galia & Ammon Salter, 2011. "The Fateful Triangle Complementarities between product, process and organizational innovation in the UK and France," Working Papers halshs-00812141, HAL.
    4. Francesco Bogliacino & Matteo Lucchesex & Leopoldo Nascia & Mario Pianta, 2015. "The Virtuous Circle of Innovation in Italian Firms," Documentos de Trabajo, Escuela de Economía 12630, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID.
    5. Robin, Stéphane & Schubert, Torben, 2013. "Cooperation with public research institutions and success in innovation: Evidence from France and Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 149-166.
    6. Ballot, Gérard & Fakhfakh, Fathi & Galia, Fabrice & Salter, Ammon, 2015. "The fateful triangle: Complementarities in performance between product, process and organizational innovation in France and the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 217-232.
    7. Schmiedeberg, Claudia, 2008. "Complementarities of innovation activities: An empirical analysis of the German manufacturing sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1492-1503, October.
    8. Stephane Lhuillery & Julio Raffo & Intan Hamdan-Livramento, 2016. "Measuring creativity: Learning from innovation measurement," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 31, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    9. Bettina Peters & Rebecca Riley & Iulia Siedschlag & Priit Vahter & John McQuinn, 2014. "Innovation and Productivity in Services: Evidence from Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2014-04, Joint Research Centre.
    10. Christian Rammer & Gastón P Fernández & Dirk Czarnitzki, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence and Industrial Innovation: Evidence from Firm-Level Data," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven 674605, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    11. Andrés Barge-Gil & Alberto López, 2015. "R versus D: estimating the differentiated effect of research and development on innovation results," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 93-129.
    12. Seppä, Elina, 2007. "Innovation Performance of Firms in Manufacturing Industry: Evidence from Belgium, Finland and Germany in 1998-2000," Discussion Papers 414, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    13. Dziallas, Marisa & Blind, Knut, 2019. "Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 80, pages 3-29.
    14. Frank, Alejandro Germán & Gerstlberger, Wolfgang & Paslauski, Carolline Amaral & Lerman, Laura Visintainer & Ayala, Néstor Fabián, 2018. "The contribution of innovation policy criteria to the development of local renewable energy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 353-365.
    15. Love, James H. & Roper, Stephen & Du, Jun, 2009. "Innovation, ownership and profitability," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 424-434, May.
    16. Marco Grazzi & Chiara Piccardo & Cecilia Vergari, 2020. "Concordance and complementarity in IP instruments," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(7), pages 756-788, August.
    17. Fatima BOUHELAL & Lakhdar ADOUKA, 2022. "Shift from Product Innovation Strategy to Marketing Innovation Strategy to Add Value to the Firm," Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, College of Management, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, vol. 10(2), pages 167-178, June.
    18. Bettina Peters & Rebecca Riley & Iulia Siedschlag & Priit Vahter & John McQuinn, 2018. "Internationalisation, innovation and productivity in services: evidence from Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 154(3), pages 585-615, August.
    19. Jacques Mairesse & Pierre Mohnen, 2005. "The Importance of R&D for Innovation: A Reassessment Using French Survey Data," Springer Books, in: Albert N. Link & F. M. Scherer (ed.), Essays in Honor of Edwin Mansfield, pages 129-143, Springer.
    20. Roberto Antonietti, 2011. "From creativity to innovativeness: micro evidence from Italy," Openloc Working Papers 1117, Public policies and local development.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Innovation; Firm profitability; Managerial capacity; Firm capabilities; Evolutionary/Neo-Schumpeterian theory; Stochastic frontier analysis; Quantile regression;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • D22 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
    • C22 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:csc:cerisp:201301. 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: Anna Perin or Giancarlo Birello (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cerisit.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.