IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v44y2015i7p1283-1295.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?

Author

Listed:
  • Simeth, Markus
  • Lhuillery, Stephane

Abstract

Many profit-oriented companies publish research outcomes in scientific literature. However, very few studies have focused on the capabilities that enable firms to engage in scientific disclosure with consequent potential benefits for the firm. We propose that specific investments are required in order to engage in scientific disclosure activities, since the disclosure process requires distinctive capabilities. This paper empirically analyses the relationship between the composition of industrial research labs’ personnel, basic research and scientific disclosure capabilities. Our econometric analysis provides evidence that scientific disclosure requires specific human resource allocations, which supports the view that scientific disclosure is not just a by-product of standard R&D activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:44:y:2015:i:7:p:1283-1295
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733315000657
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Jeremy C. Stein, 2008. "Academic freedom, private‐sector focus, and the process of innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 617-635, September.
    2. Pierpaolo Parrotta & Dario Pozzoli & Mariola Pytlikova, 2014. "The nexus between labor diversity and firm’s innovation," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 27(2), pages 303-364, April.
    3. Jeff S. Armstrong & Michael R. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 2003. "Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture and firm performance in biotechnology," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Sep, pages 149-170.
    4. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Cassiman, Bruno, 2005. "R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(5-6), pages 355-379, June.
    5. Jennifer Hunt & Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle, 2010. "How Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation?," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 31-56, April.
    6. Stephane Lhuillery, 2006. "Voluntary technological disclosure as an efficient knowledge management device: An empirical study," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4-5), pages 465-491.
    7. Murray, Fiona, 2002. "Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1389-1403, December.
    8. Liu, Christopher C. & Stuart, Toby, 2014. "Positions and rewards: The allocation of resources within a science-based entrepreneurial firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1134-1143.
    9. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Malva, Antonio Della & Hussinger, Katrin, 2012. "Corporate science in the patent system: An analysis of the semiconductor technology," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 118-135.
    11. Julien Pénin, 2007. "Open Knowledge Disclosure: An Overview Of The Evidence And Economic Motivations," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 326-347, April.
    12. Raffo, Julio & Lhuillery, Stéphane, 2009. "How to play the "Names Game": Patent retrieval comparing different heuristics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1617-1627, December.
    13. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
    14. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    15. repec:wip:wpaper:6 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Dirk Czarnitzki & Hanna Hottenrott, 2011. "Financial Constraints: Routine Versus Cutting Edge R&D Investment," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 121-157, March.
    17. Lim, Kwanghui, 2004. "The relationship between research and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries (1981-1997)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 287-321, March.
    18. Hicks, Diana, 1995. "Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 401-424.
    19. Cockburn, Iain M & Henderson, Rebecca M, 1998. "Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 157-182, June.
    20. Patrick Gaulé & Mario Piacentini, 2013. "Chinese Graduate Students and U.S. Scientific Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(2), pages 698-701, May.
    21. Lazear, Edward P, 1999. "Globalisation and the Market for Team-Mates," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(454), pages 15-40, March.
    22. Roach, Michael & Sauermann, Henry, 2010. "A taste for science? PhD scientists' academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 422-434, April.
    23. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    24. Wesley M. Cohen & Daniel A. Levinthal, 1994. "Fortune Favors the Prepared Firm," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(2), pages 227-251, February.
    25. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    26. Gerard George, 2005. "Learning to be capable: patenting and licensing at the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation 1925--2002," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 119-151, February.
    27. Henry Sauermann & Wesley M. Cohen, 2010. "What Makes Them Tick? Employee Motives and Firm Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(12), pages 2134-2153, December.
    28. 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.
    29. Pavitt, Keith, 1991. "What makes basic research economically useful?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 109-119, April.
    30. Fontana, Roberto & Geuna, Aldo & Matt, Mireille, 2006. "Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 309-323, March.
    31. Scott Stern, 2004. "Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 835-853, June.
    32. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    33. Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 211-253, June.
    34. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    35. Faems, Dries & Subramanian, Annapoornima M., 2013. "R&D manpower and technological performance: The impact of demographic and task-related diversity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1624-1633.
    36. Pierre Azoulay, 2002. "Do Pharmaceutical Sales Respond to Scientific Evidence?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(4), pages 551-594, December.
    37. Michelle Gittelman & Bruce Kogut, 2003. "Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 366-382, April.
    38. Iain Cockburn & Rebecca Henderson & Scott Stern, 1999. "Balancing Incentives: The Tension Between Basic and Applied Research," NBER Working Papers 6882, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    39. Nightingale, Paul, 2000. "Economies of Scale in Experimentation: Knowledge and Technology in Pharmaceutical R&D," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 315-359, June.
    40. James D. Adams & J. Roger Clemmons, 2008. "The Origins of Industrial Scientific Discoveries," NBER Working Papers 13823, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    41. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    42. Bercovitz, Janet & Feldman, Maryann, 2011. "The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 81-93, February.
    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. Adamu Jibir & Musa Abdu, 0. "Human Capital and Propensity to Protect Intellectual Properties as Innovation Output: the Case of Nigerian Manufacturing and Service Firms," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 0, pages 1-25.
    2. Adamu Jibir & Musa Abdu, 2021. "Human Capital and Propensity to Protect Intellectual Properties as Innovation Output: the Case of Nigerian Manufacturing and Service Firms," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(2), pages 595-619, June.
    3. Helene Dernis & Petros Gkotsis & Nicola Grassano & Shohei Nakazato & Mariagrazia Squicciarini & Brigitte van Beuzekom & Antonio Vezzani, 2019. "World Corporate Top R&D investors: Shaping the Future of Technologies and of AI," JRC Working Papers JRC117068, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    4. Vincent Larivière & Benoit Macaluso & Philippe Mongeon & Kyle Siler & Cassidy R Sugimoto, 2018. "Vanishing industries and the rising monopoly of universities in published research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-10, August.

    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. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    2. repec:wip:wpaper:6 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Markus Simeth & Michele Cincera, 2016. "Corporate Science, Innovation, and Firm Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1970-1981, July.
    4. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do Firms Publish? A Multi-Sectoral Analysis," SPRU Working Paper Series 2018-21, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2013. "Conflicting Logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 889-909, June.
    6. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    7. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    8. Hsu, David H. & Hsu, Po-Hsuan & Zhao, Qifeng, 2021. "Rich on paper? Chinese firms’ academic publications, patents, and market value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    9. Henry Sauermann & Michael Roach, 2011. "Not All Scientists pay to be Scientists:," DRUID Working Papers 11-03, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    10. Salandra, Rossella, 2018. "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1215-1228.
    11. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    12. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi, 2015. "Killing the Golden Goose? The Decline of Science in Corporate R&D," NBER Working Papers 20902, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Sauermann, Henry & Roach, Michael, 2014. "Not all scientists pay to be scientists: PhDs’ preferences for publishing in industrial employment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 32-47.
    14. Jong, Simcha & Slavova, Kremena, 2014. "When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 645-654.
    15. Añón Higón, Dolores, 2016. "In-house versus external basic research and first-to-market innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 816-829.
    16. Soh, Pek-Hooi & Subramanian, Annapoornima M., 2014. "When do firms benefit from university–industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 807-821.
    17. Pellens, Maikel & Della Malva, Antonio, 2016. "Changing of the guard: Structural change and corporate science in the semiconductor industry," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-050, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2012. "Individual preferences, organization, and competition in a model of R&D incentive provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 550-570.
    19. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Nicola Lacetera, 2003. "Incentives and spillovers in R&D activities: an agency-theoretic analysis of industry-university relations," Microeconomics 0312004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Subramanian, Annapoornima M. & Lim, Kwanghui & Soh, Pek-Hooi, 2013. "When birds of a feather don’t flock together: Different scientists and the roles they play in biotech R&D alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 595-612.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    R&D capabilities; Scientific disclosure; Basic research; Team composition; Appropriation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    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:eee:respol:v:44:y:2015:i:7:p:1283-1295. 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: . 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 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.