IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v12y2025i1d10.1057_s41599-025-04808-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of enterprises’ scientific capabilities on innovation performance: evidence from an empirical analysis and simulation model

Author

Listed:
  • Weijie Zhu

    (University of Electronic Science and Technology of China)

  • Wucheng Han

    (Western China Transformation Center for Advanced Technological Achievements)

  • Ruoyu Lu

    (University of Electronic Science and Technology of China)

  • Jiasu Lei

    (Tsinghua University)

Abstract

As the interaction between science and technology intensifies, the role of science in driving technological innovation has become increasingly significant. Enterprises, as key actors in market competition and innovation, can gain a substantial competitive advantage and contribute to industrial transformation by engaging in basic research. This study focuses on science-based enterprises, defining enterprises’ scientific capabilities in two dimensions: internal scientific capabilities and external scientific capabilities. Through a combination of empirical and simulation research, this study examines the mechanisms by which scientific capabilities influence innovation performance. The results demonstrate that internal scientific capabilities significantly enhance enterprise innovation, underlining the importance of engaging in basic research to foster scientific innovation performance. External scientific capabilities, particularly in terms of quantity, also contribute positively to innovation performance, emphasizing the value of industry-university-research collaborations and the effective absorption of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, scientific innovation intensity mediates the relationship between scientific capabilities and innovation performance, with science-based innovation acting as a bridge between scientific discoveries and technological advancement. While scientific research funding moderates the impact of internal scientific capabilities on innovation performance, it shows no significant moderating effect on external scientific capabilities. Based on these findings, the study proposes four pathways for enterprises to enhance innovation performance: independent innovation, collaborative R&D, scientific knowledge absorption, and technical iteration. This research advances both enterprise capability theory and technological innovation theory by addressing the gap in understanding how enterprises’ scientific capabilities influence innovation and providing actionable insights for the development of science-based enterprises.

Suggested Citation

  • Weijie Zhu & Wucheng Han & Ruoyu Lu & Jiasu Lei, 2025. "The impact of enterprises’ scientific capabilities on innovation performance: evidence from an empirical analysis and simulation model," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04808-w
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-04808-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-025-04808-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-025-04808-w?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhao, Shengchao & Zeng, Deming & Li, Jian & Feng, Ke & Wang, Yao, 2023. "Quantity or quality: The roles of technology and science convergence on firm innovation performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    2. Fedderke, J.W. & Goldschmidt, M., 2015. "Does massive funding support of researchers work?: Evaluating the impact of the South African research chair funding initiative," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 467-482.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Ji-ping Gao & Cheng Su & Hai-yan Wang & Li-hua Zhai & Yun-tao Pan, 2019. "Research fund evaluation based on academic publication output analysis: the case of Chinese research fund evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 959-972, May.
    6. Murray, Fiona, 2004. "The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: sharing the laboratory life," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 643-659, May.
    7. Carpenter, Mark P. & Narin, Francis, 1983. "Validation study: Patent citations as indicators of science and foreign dependence," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 180-185.
    8. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    9. Pavitt, K, 2001. "Public Policies to Support Basic Research: What Can the Rest of the World Learn from US Theory and Practice? (And What They Should Not Learn)," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(3), pages 761-779, September.
    10. Du, Jingshu & Leten, Bart & Vanhaverbeke, Wim, 2014. "Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 828-840.
    11. 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.
    12. Fritjof Karnani, 2013. "The university’s unknown knowledge: tacit knowledge, technology transfer and university spin-offs findings from an empirical study based on the theory of knowledge," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 235-250, June.
    13. Sung, Hui-Yun & Wang, Chun-Chieh & Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2015. "Measuring science-based science linkage and non-science-based linkage of patents through non-patent references," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 488-498.
    14. Xu, Haiyun & Winnink, Jos & Yue, Zenghui & Liu, Ziqiang & Yuan, Guoting, 2020. "Topic-linked innovation paths in science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    15. Benjamin Coriat & Fabienne Orsi & Olivier Weinstein, 2003. "Does Biotech Reflect a New Science-based Innovation Regime?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 231-253.
    16. Bernard L. Simonin, 1999. "Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(7), pages 595-623, July.
    17. Abdullah Gök & John Rigby & Philip Shapira, 2016. "The impact of research funding on scientific outputs: Evidence from six smaller European countries," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(3), pages 715-730, March.
    18. Maribel Guerrero & David Urbano & Fernando Herrera, 2019. "Innovation practices in emerging economies: Do university partnerships matter?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 615-646, April.
    19. Wenwen Shen & Yuankun Nie & Chao Long & Zibo Song & Qian Zhang & Decai Tang, 2022. "Research on the Mechanism of Collaborative Value Co-Creation of Enterprise–Science Community: A Case Study Based on the Green Brand Maoduoli," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-19, November.
    20. Åstebro, Thomas & Bazzazian, Navid & Braguinsky, Serguey, 2012. "Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 663-677.
    21. Hicks, Diana, 1995. "Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 4(2), pages 401-424.
    22. Sorenson, Olav & Fleming, Lee, 2004. "Science and the diffusion of knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1615-1634, December.
    23. Paul Almeida & Jan Hohberger & Pedro Parada, 2011. "Individual scientific collaborations and firm-level innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1571-1599, December.
    24. Chen, Xi & Mao, Jin & Ma, Yaxue & Li, Gang, 2024. "The knowledge linkage between science and technology influences corporate technological innovation: Evidence from scientific publications and patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    25. Bart Van Looy & Koenraad Debackere & Julie Callaert & Robert Tijssen & Thed van Leeuwen, 2006. "Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(2), pages 295-310, February.
    26. Fernando Ubeda & Marta Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado & Eva-María Mora-Valentín, 2019. "Do firms located in science and technology parks enhance innovation performance? The effect of absorptive capacity," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 21-48, February.
    27. Jacques Michel & Bernd Bettels, 2001. "Patent citation analysis.A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 185-201, April.
    28. 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.
    29. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    30. T. Aldridge & David Audretsch & Sameeksha Desai & Venkata Nadella, 2014. "Scientist entrepreneurship across scientific fields," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 819-835, December.
    31. Sadao Nagaoka, 2007. "Assessing the R&D Management of a Firm in Terms of Speed and Science Linkage: Evidence from the US Patents," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 129-156, March.
    32. Cassiman, Bruno & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Arts, Sam, 2018. "Mind the gap: Capturing value from basic research through combining mobile inventors and partnerships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1811-1824.
    33. Reihlen, Markus & Ringberg, Torsten, 2013. "Uncertainty, pluralism, and the knowledge-based theory of the firm: From J.-C. Spender’s contribution to a socio-cognitive approach," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 706-716.
    34. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers & Pluvia Zuniga, 2008. "In search of performance effects of (in)direct industry science links," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(4), pages 611-646, August.
    35. Marcela Miozzo & Lori DiVito, 2020. "Productive opportunities, uncertainty, and science-based firm emergence," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 539-560, February.
    36. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    37. Harhoff, Dietmar & Scherer, Frederic M. & Vopel, Katrin, 2003. "Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1343-1363, September.
    38. Álvarez-Bornstein, Belén & Bordons, María, 2021. "Is funding related to higher research impact? Exploring its relationship and the mediating role of collaboration in several disciplines," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    39. Toole, Andrew A., 2012. "The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-12.
    40. 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..
    41. Keye Wu & Ziyue Xie & Jia Tina Du, 2024. "Does science disrupt technology? Examining science intensity, novelty, and recency through patent-paper citations in the pharmaceutical field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5469-5491, September.
    42. 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.
    43. Liliana Herrera, 2020. "Effect Of Corporate Scientists On Firms’ Innovation Activity: A Literature Review," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 109-153, February.
    44. Antonio Malva & Stijn Kelchtermans & Bart Leten & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2015. "Basic science as a prescription for breakthrough inventions in the pharmaceutical industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 670-695, August.
    45. Annika Rickne, 2006. "Connectivity and Performance of Science-based Firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 393-407, May.
    46. Hyun Woo Park & Jay Kang, 2009. "Patterns of scientific and technological knowledge flows based on scientific papers and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 811-820, December.
    47. Ramin Vandaie, 2022. "Basic and applied research collaboration trends in the pharmaceutical industry [Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 31(6), pages 1387-1396.
    48. Yang Liu & Xu Wang & Youde Yang, 2023. "The impact of strategic knowledge disclosure on enterprise innovation performance," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(5), pages 2582-2592, July.
    49. Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Yang, Hsiao-Wen & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2015. "Increasing science and technology linkage in fuel cells: A cross citation analysis of papers and patents," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 237-249.
    50. Naomi Fukuzawa & Takanori Ida, 2016. "Science linkages between scientific articles and patents for leading scientists in the life and medical sciences field: the case of Japan," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 629-644, February.
    51. Martin Meyer, 2002. "Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(2), pages 193-212, June.
    52. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    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. Wang, Fang, 2024. "Does the recombination of distant scientific knowledge generate valuable inventions? An analysis of pharmaceutical patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    2. Hohberger, Jan, 2016. "Diffusion of science-based inventions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 66-77.
    3. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    4. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2017. "Academic knowledge quality differentials and the quality of firm innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(5), pages 821-844.
    5. 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.
    6. Zhao, Shengchao & Zeng, Deming & Li, Jian & Feng, Ke & Wang, Yao, 2023. "Quantity or quality: The roles of technology and science convergence on firm innovation performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    11. Keye Wu & Ziyue Xie & Jia Tina Du, 2024. "Does science disrupt technology? Examining science intensity, novelty, and recency through patent-paper citations in the pharmaceutical field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5469-5491, September.
    12. Lorenzo Ardito & Roger Svensson, 2024. "Sourcing applied and basic knowledge for innovation and commercialization success," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 959-995, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    15. Chul Lee & Gunno Park & Jina Kang, 2018. "The impact of convergence between science and technology on innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 522-544, April.
    16. Quatraro, Francesco & Scandura, Alessandra, 2020. "Regional patterns of unrelated technological diversification: the role of academic inventors," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 202001, University of Turin.
    17. Basse Mama, Houdou, 2018. "Nonlinear capital market payoffs to science-led innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1084-1095.
    18. Blind, Knut & Krieger, Bastian & Pellens, Maikel, 2022. "The interplay between product innovation, publishing, patenting and developing standards," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    19. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    20. René Belderbos & Nazareno Braito & Jian Wang, 2024. "Heterogeneous university research and firm R&D location decisions: research orientation, academic quality, and investment type," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1959-1989, October.

    More about this item

    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:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04808-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.