IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v45y2016i2p427-441.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patterns of innovation and organizational demography in emerging sustainable fields: An analysis of the chemical sector

Author

Listed:
  • Epicoco, Marianna

Abstract

This paper examines the patterns of environmental innovation in the chemical sector and focuses in particular on detecting whether the rise of sustainable chemistry technologies (SCT) has stimulated the emergence of new organizations. This question is important to assess the extent to which SCT are sustaining the technological advantage of industry incumbents or are creating opportunities for new firms aspiring to develop radically new environmental innovations. We found that SCT still represent a relatively low proportion of chemical technologies and that they have not stimulated, in a significant way, the emergence of new firms. However, the importance of new firms has grown in the last 20 years and their technologies seem to have a higher potential of radicalness than incumbents’ technologies. This indicates that, although incumbents’ advantage remains strong, a small group of young firms has started to weaken such advantage. Moreover, the important role played by research organizations in generating SCT may signal that technological opportunities are expanding and that some governments, in particular the US government, are committed to develop SCT. These results suggest that, if supported by effective policies, technological ferment in the field, which at the present appears still limited, has a potential of growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Epicoco, Marianna, 2016. "Patterns of innovation and organizational demography in emerging sustainable fields: An analysis of the chemical sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 427-441.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:45:y:2016:i:2:p:427-441
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733315001663
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    2. Christensen, Clayton M. & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1995. "Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 233-257, March.
    3. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    4. Nameroff, T. J. & Garant, R. J. & Albert, M. B., 2004. "Adoption of green chemistry: an analysis based on US patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 959-974, September.
    5. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
    6. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2001. "The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," NBER Working Papers 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Smith, Adrian & Raven, Rob, 2012. "What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1025-1036.
    8. Keith Smith, 2009. "Climate change and radical energy innovation: the policy issues," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20090101, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    9. Bergek, Anna & Berggren, Christian & Magnusson, Thomas & Hobday, Michael, 2013. "Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1210-1224.
    10. Berggren, Christian & Magnusson, Thomas & Sushandoyo, Dedy, 2015. "Transition pathways revisited: Established firms as multi-level actors in the heavy vehicle industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1017-1028.
    11. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1997. "University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 19-50.
    12. Georg Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner & Dietmar Harhoff, 2013. "Incidence and Growth of Patent Thickets: The Impact of Technological Opportunities and Complexity," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 521-563, September.
    13. Vanessa OLTRA (GREThA) & Maïder SAINT JEAN (GREThA), 2007. "Incrementalism of environmental innovations versus paradigmatic change: A comparative study of the automotive and chemical industries," Cahiers du GREThA 2007-14, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée.
    14. Epicoco, Marianna, 2013. "Knowledge patterns and sources of leadership: Mapping the semiconductor miniaturization trajectory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 180-195.
    15. Mina, A. & Ramlogan, R. & Tampubolon, G. & Metcalfe, J.S., 2007. "Mapping evolutionary trajectories: Applications to the growth and transformation of medical knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 789-806, June.
    16. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    17. Roberto Fontana & Alessandro Nuvolari & Hiroshi Shimizu & Andrea Vezzulli, 2012. "Schumpeterian patterns of innovation and the sources of breakthrough inventions: evidence from a data-set of R&D awards," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 785-810, September.
    18. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1996. "Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology-specific," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 451-478, May.
    19. Vanessa Oltra & Maïder Saint Jean, 2007. "Incrementalism of environmental innovations versus paradigmatic change: a comparative study of the automotive and chemical industries," Post-Print hal-00155039, HAL.
    20. Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz) & Krop, Pieter, 2012. "Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1357-1374.
    21. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    22. Sterzi, Valerio, 2013. "Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 564-576.
    23. Marianna Epicoco & Vanessa Oltra & Maïder Saint Jean, 2014. "Knowledge dynamics and sources of eco-innovation: Mapping the Green Chemistry community," Post-Print hal-01135463, HAL.
    24. Giovanni Dosi & Marco Grazzi, 2009. "Energy, Development and the Environment: An Appraisal Three Decades After the ‘Limits to Growth’ Debate," Chapters,in: Recent Advances in Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, chapter 2 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    25. Geels, Frank W. & Schot, Johan, 2007. "Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 399-417, April.
    26. Breschi, Stefano & Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2000. "Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 388-410, April.
    27. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1969. "The Direction of Technological Change: Inducement Mechanisms and Focusing Devices," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(1), pages 1-24, Part I Oc.
    28. Nelson, Andrew & Earle, Andrew & Howard-Grenville, Jennifer & Haack, Julie & Young, Doug, 2014. "Do innovation measures actually measure innovation? Obliteration, symbolic adoption, and other finicky challenges in tracking innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 927-940.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:45:y:2016:i:2:p:427-441. 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.