IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v39y2010i3p400-410.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Antecedents of cooperative commercialisation strategies of nanotechnology firms

Author

Listed:
  • Fiedler, Marina
  • Welpe, Isabell M.

Abstract

We examine the antecedents for cooperative behaviour in the commercialisation of nanotechnology for both small/medium and large firms. For small and medium firms (SMEs) our results confirm the influence of complementary assets and transaction costs, but surprisingly do not support any influence of intellectual property rights protection on cooperative behaviour. For large firms the results show a negative relationship for both intellectual property rights protection and ownership of complementary resources with cooperative behaviour. Overall, collaboration-based commercialisation in nanotechnology for both small/medium as well as large firms seems to follow antecedents previously identified in earlier studies. In addition, we find that in the current stage of the nanotechnology commercialisation environment, intellectual property rights protection for small/medium-sized enterprises is associated with the acquisition of other firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Fiedler, Marina & Welpe, Isabell M., 2010. "Antecedents of cooperative commercialisation strategies of nanotechnology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 400-410, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:39:y:2010:i:3:p:400-410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(10)00011-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 832-849, July.
    2. Jason Owen-Smith & Massimo Riccaboni & Fabio Pammolli & Walter W. Powell, 2002. "A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 24-43, January.
    3. Galambos, Louis & Sturchio, Jeffrey L., 1998. "Pharmaceutical Firms and the Transition to Biotechnology: A Study in Strategic Innovation," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(02), pages 250-278, June.
    4. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    5. Avenel, E. & Favier, A.V. & Ma, S. & Mangematin, V. & Rieu, C., 2007. "Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 864-870, July.
    6. 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..
    7. repec:hal:journl:hal-00424531 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 248-270, Summer.
    9. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    10. Kollmer, Holger & Dowling, Michael, 2004. "Licensing as a commercialisation strategy for new technology-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1141-1151, October.
    11. Luukkonen, Terttu, 2005. "Variability in organisational forms of biotechnology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 555-570, May.
    12. WHC Knol, 2005. "Micro and nanotechnology commercialization: balance between exploration and exploitation," Development and Comp Systems 0501002, EconWPA.
    13. Greis, Noel P. & Dibner, Mark D. & Bean, Alden S., 1995. "External partnering as a response to innovation barriers and global competition in biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 609-630, July.
    14. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Thoma, Grid, 2007. "Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 813-831, July.
    15. Autio Erkko & Yli--Renko Helena, 1998. "New, technology--based firms as agents of technological rejuvenation," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 71-92, January.
    16. Sobrero, Maurizio & Roberts, Edward B., 2002. "Strategic management of supplier-manufacturer relations in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 159-182, January.
    17. Goldfarb, Brent & Henrekson, Magnus, 2003. "Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 639-658, April.
    18. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    19. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Grid Thoma, 2005. "Scientific and Technological Regimes in Nanotechnology: Combinatorial Inventors and Performance," LEM Papers Series 2005/13, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    20. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 2005. "Socio-economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and NanoBank," NBER Working Papers 11181, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Oxley, Joanne E, 1997. "Appropriability Hazards and Governance in Strategic Alliances: A Transaction Cost Approach," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 387-409, October.
    22. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2001. "Markets for Technology and Their Implications for Corporate Strategy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 419-451, June.
    23. repec:adr:anecst:y:2005:i:79-80:p:06 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Michael Keenan, 2003. "Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: the UK experience," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 129-160.
    25. Brush, Candida G. & Vanderwerf, Pieter A., 1992. "A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates of new venture performance," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 157-170, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Symeonidou, Noni & Bruneel, Johan & Autio, Erkko, 2017. "Commercialization strategy and internationalization outcomes in technology-based new ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 302-317.
    2. Alexiev, Alexander S. & Volberda, Henk W. & Van den Bosch, Frans A.J., 2016. "Interorganizational collaboration and firm innovativeness: Unpacking the role of the organizational environment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 974-984.
    3. repec:eee:tefoso:v:122:y:2017:i:c:p:289-302 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Kay, Luciano & Youtie, Jan & Shapira, Philip, 2014. "Signs of things to come? What patent submissions by small and medium-sized enterprises say about corporate strategies in emerging technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 17-25.

    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:eee:respol:v:39:y:2010:i:3:p:400-410. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.