Search results

The purpose of this paper is to test the major determinants of technological (product and process) innovation persistence and provides evidence of the significant role of organizational innovation.

Data came from two waves of the Luxembourg Community Innovation Survey (CIS): CIS2006 for 2004-2006 and CIS2008 for 2006-2008. The longitudinal data set resulted in a final sample of 287 firms. A multinomial probit model estimates the likelihood that each firm belongs to one of three longitudinal innovation profiles: no, sporadic, or persistent innovators.

The determinants have differentiated impacts on process and technological innovation persistence. Organizational innovation influences technological innovation persistence. In the analysis of detailed organizational practices, strong evidence emerged that knowledge management exerts a crucial effect on product innovation persistence; workplace organization instead is associated with process innovation persistence.

The relationships of innovation persistence, organizational innovation, and firms’ economic performance demand further exploration. The different persistence patterns of complex (process and product) and simple (process or product) innovators also are worth investigating.

Organizational innovation matters for technological innovation persistence. However, the effects of non-technological innovation differ depending on whether the firm wants to innovate in processes or products. Managers must acknowledge these various effects and select appropriate strategies.

Few works account for the impact of organizational innovation strategies on technological innovation. This study is the first, based on recent CIS data, to address the role of organizational innovation practices for technological innovation persistence, which appears necessary for the sustainable dynamics of firms, industries, and regions.

This paper aims to provide evidence of the major role of non‐technological activities in the innovation process. It seeks to highlight the effects of marketing and organizational innovation strategies on technological innovation performance.

The paper tests theoretical hypotheses on a sample of 555 firms of the Fourth Community Innovation Survey (CIS 4) in 2006 in Luxembourg. Data are analyzed through a generalized Tobit model.

Evidence is found to support the impact of innovation in the marketing and organization fields on a firm's capacity to innovate, but not on the innovative performance. The paper also statistically shows that the effects of non‐technological innovation differ depending on the phase of the innovation process.

The causal link and the question of time frame between the various innovations could be further investigated, especially through longitudinal studies. Further research should also focus on the differences between large versus small firms, and service versus industrial firms.

The effects of non‐technological innovation are not the same according to whether the firm is in the first step of the innovation process (i.e. being innovative), or in a later step (i.e. innovative performance). Managers should be aware of these various effects in order to efficiently adopt non‐technological innovation strategies.

Few works have taken into account the role of other innovative strategies such as marketing and organization. As far as is known, this is the first study based on recent CIS data that looks at the interrelations between different types of innovation.

This study aims to examine how disruptive and incremental innovations mediate the link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and financial performance from a dynamic capability perspective. Moreover, this study uncovers the moderating effect of business type on the CSR–innovation relationship.

The authors conduct a quantitative research design through surveying 536 managers of enterprises in Vietnam.

The findings show the crucial mediating effect of disruptive innovation on the CSR–financial performance link. The authors observe that the influence of CSR on incremental innovation is stronger for state-owned businesses.

These findings offer valuable insights for firms aiming to align their CSR strategies with financial objectives and enhance their dynamic capabilities to drive innovation in rapidly changing business environment.