Search results

Despite typically being regarded as “low tech”, the food manufacturing and technology sector is increasingly turning to open innovation practices involving collaboration with universities in order to innovate. Given the broad range of activities undertaken by this sector and the fact that it utilises analytical, synthetic and symbolic knowledge for innovation, it makes an interesting case study on the factors that influence the formation of university–industry (U–I) links. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

Using data from 249 collaborative projects that occurred between UK universities and food manufacturing and technology firms, the analysis utilises a logistic regression model based on a “synthetic counterfactual approach” to modelling the probability a collaborative link will be established with one university and not others.

The results suggest that organisational proximity, conceptualised through the presence of prior ties between actors, has the largest influence on the formation of U–I links. In addition, spatial and technological proximities between actors also have a positive influence on link formation. This result suggests that the specificity of knowledge of the food sector is important in the formation of these U–I links.

The results suggest that the open innovation practices of food manufacturing and technology firms are like other sectors, even though their innovation practices are considered to be different. However, the limitations of the paper mean that these findings may be specific to firms in the food manufacturing and technology sector in the UK.

The food sector is under-represented in empirical studies on university collaboration; this paper addresses this and provides new insights into the formation of these links.

As little is known about the productivity levels of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) engaging with universities and the relative changes in productivity of SMEs subsequent to these collaborations, the paper examines the following questions: (1) Does the relative productivity of SMEs engaging in university collaboration differ from those that do not? (2) Are subsequent changes in firm productivity following university collaboration related to their initial levels of productivity?

The paper utilises data on 254 SMEs from the Longitudinal Small Business Survey and uses two statistical techniques: First, bivariate tests of difference were used to inspect the relationships between productivity levels and whether the firm collaborated with a university to introduce its innovation. Second, ordinary least squares regressions were used to test whether the future productivity of SMEs that collaborated with universities was related to their initial productivity levels.

The analysis reveals that SME–university collaboration is unrelated to starting productivity. Furthermore, the analysis suggests a nonlinear relationship exists between the starting productivity of SMEs and their subsequent productivity following a university collaboration. Therefore, higher levels of subsequent productivity are observed among those SMEs where starting productivity was either relatively low or high, suggesting that collaborations have a transformative effect on SMEs with relatively lower initial levels of productivity and a maintenance effect for SMEs with relatively higher levels of initial productivity.

Given the fact that the extant literature also suggests that, overall, university collaboration is beneficial, policymakers should strive to encourage greater levels of collaboration involving SMEs. In light of the evidence that SME–university collaborations can transform less productive firms, it appears unjustified for practitioners and policymakers to only consider stronger-performing firms to be included in such programmes.

The study contributes new theoretical and practical knowledge to the understanding of the role of firm productivity in predicting the proclivity of firms to collaborate with universities. Furthermore, as few studies have examined the impact of these collaborations on the subsequent productivity of firms that collaborate with universities, this paper fills an existing gap in the literature.

The purpose of this paper is to contrast the historical rise of the managerial function and its reception in law. It thus contributes to the debates on the separation of ownership and control, by showing that managers were never recognized in law. As a result, the managerial function was not protected in law.

This paper brings together management history and the history of UK company law to study the emergence of management in the early twentieth century and the law’s response. The authors bring new historical evidence to bear on the company law reforms of the second half of the twentieth century and, in particular, on the changes inspired by the Cohen Committee report of 1945.

Scientific progress and innovation were important rationales for the emergence of managerial authority. They implied new economic models, new competencies and wider social responsibilities. The analysis of this paper shows that these rationales have been overlooked by company law. The lack of conceptualization of the management in law allowed reforms after 1945 that gave shareholders greater influence over corporate strategy, reducing managerial discretion and the scope for innovation.

This paper focuses on the UK. Further research is needed to confirm whether other countries followed a similar path, both in terms of the emergence of management and in terms of the law’s approach.

This paper is the first, to the authors’ knowledge, to examine the law’s historical approach to management. It calls for a reappraisal of the status of managers and the way corporate governance organizes the separation of ownership and control.

Critiques of international business (IB) have long pointed to the weaknesses in the understanding of context. This has ignited debate on the understanding of institutions and how they “matter” for IB. Yet how institutions matter ultimately depends on how IB applies institutional theory. It is argued that institutional-based research is dominated by a narrow set of approaches, largely overlooking institutional perspectives that account for institutional diversity. This paper aims to forward the argument that IB research should lend greater attention to comparing the topography of institutional configurations by bringing political economy “back in” to the IB domain.

Using principal components analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis, the authors provide IB with a taxonomy of capitalist institutional diversity which defines the landscape of political economies.

The authors show institutional diversity is characterised by a range of capitalist clusters and configuration arrangements, identifying four clusters with distinct modes of capitalism as well as specifying intra-cluster differences to propose nine varieties of capitalism. This paper allows IB scholars to lend closer attention to the institutional context within which firms operate. If the configurations of institutions “matter” for IB scholarship, then clearly, a quantitative blueprint to assess institutional diversity remains central to the momentum of such “institutional turn.”

This paper provides a comprehensive survey of institutional theory, serving as a valuable resource for the application of context within international business. Further, our taxonomy allows international business scholars to utilise a robust framework to examine the diverse institutional context within which firms operate, whilst extending to support the analysis of broader socioeconomic outcomes. This taxonomy therefore allows international business scholars to utilise a robust framework to examine the institutional context within which firms operate.

The effects of organisational change on a medium secure ward for women with developmental disabilities are examined. Intervention followed the BAITS model (Milne et al, 2003) in focusing on behavioural analysis, intervention, training and support as a way of amalgamating psychological perspectives to address problems and promote positive attitude change. The positive benefits of this programme are described in terms of pre‐ and post‐changes in the perceived work environment, job satisfaction and burn‐out, and levels of disturbed behaviour. The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of promoting positive evidence‐based practices in secure developmental disability services.

The entrepreneur is often conceptualised as an individualistic hero (Essers & Benschop, 2007; Gill, 2017). Although this portrayal has been criticised as highly romanticised (Acs & Audretsch, 2003) it is still influential in the contemporary entrepreneurship literature (Down, 2010). Consequently, prevailing social discourses around entrepreneurship may restrict and even prevent an individual to develop their own entrepreneurial identity (Down & Giazitzoglu, 2014; Gill, 2017). In order to explore this issue, this chapter presents insights into the entrepreneurial experience of student entrepreneurs by exploring the role of entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial identities in new venture creation. In-depth interviews were carried out with 11 student entrepreneurs who had, individually or in partnership with others, started a venture whilst they were enrolled in higher education courses.

These findings challenge the taken-for-granted assumptions entrenched in the characterisation of the homogenous entrepreneur (Jones, 2014) and suggest that individuals can arrive at entrepreneurship in different ways. In order to demonstrate the diversity of entrepreneurial identities, the chapter highlights those that fit the orthodox depiction of entrepreneurs through vignettes from Nicole and Georgie. This is then contrasted with alternative depictions through vignettes from Joanna, Christa, Darcie and Paige. The experience of the latter demonstrates how entrepreneurial identities are formed through role enactment and socialisation into entrepreneurial communities. The findings propose universities can support student entrepreneurship through both formal and informal activities. The broader conceptions of entrepreneurial identities with respect to the role of universities and enterprise education are considered.