Innovation climate, human capital and dynamic capacities: interrelations between innovation antecedents

Purpose – Thepurposeofthisarticleistoinvestigatetheinterrelationshipsbetweeninnovationclimateandhuman capital in the development of dynamic capabilities related to innovation. The study presents a set of concepts about variables involved in the innovation process and their interrelationship, addressing the analysis of international scientific production related to the antecedents of the innovation climate, human capital and dynamic capabilities. Design/methodology/approach – A review of the literature from 1998 to 2018 was carried out, using descriptive statistical methods, at first, and qualitative analysis of the results in order to visualize the current configuration of the field of study of innovation background. Findings – The results demonstrate a significant number of studies relating human capital and dynamic capabilities and little quantitative significance in studies relating to a climate of innovation and dynamic capabilities. The research describes how the dynamic capabilities of innovation have been approached in a conceptual model based on the perspective of human capital and innovation climate. Research limitations/implications – The study did not contemplate the analysis of the interrelationship betweentheresourceconfigurationconstructandthedynamicinnovationcapacities(partofthegappointedoutbyTuzovic,WirtzandHeracleous(2018),constitutingaperceptiblelimitationoftheanalyzescarriedoutinthisarticle. Practicalimplications – Theinfluenceoftheinnovationclimateconstructanditsrelationshipwithdynamic innovationcapabilitiesdeservesgreaterattentioninresearchwithanempiricalapproach,constitutingafieldtobeexploredbyscientificresearchinorganizations. Originality/value – The research sought to investigate the gap involving the interrelations between innovation climate and human capital in the development of dynamic capabilities related to innovation, indicating the need for further empirical studies on the subject.


Introduction
Innovative organizations manage to integrate, leverage and take advantage of the potential created by ideas, resources and knowledge, thus increasing the chances of success when delivering value to the market (Chesbrough, 2003;Singla, Stritch, & Feeney, 2018). For this reason, having a better control over factors which impact innovation and create competitive advantage has been rendered as a strategic asset for organizations (Chatzoglou & Chatzoudes, 2018;Barney, 1991). Among these factors, internal capacities and knowledge exchange were recognized as relevant for innovative performance (Caloghirou, Kastelli, & Tsakanikas, 2004). Companies investing in the development of internal competences and capacities have more chance to generate innovation (Souza, Tavares, Lucas, Philippe, & Leo, 2014). These organizations still need to handle the unpredictability of change and the environmental complexity, which imposes itself (Walker, Berry, & Avellaneda, 2015).
Among the many internal resources identified by the literature, there is importance for having an internal environment suitable for innovation in which all teams and managers are attentive to the environment's demands and opportunities (Garc ıa-Buades, Mart ınez-Tur, Ortiz-Bonn ın, & Peir o, 2016). This also includes the need for individuals who have skills, experiences, knowledge and training so that they can meet the demands brought by the organization's ventures (Hsu & Wang, 2012) and use the existing internal dynamic capabilities to re-configure the organization's resources to not only adapt to an ever-changing environment but also to creatively capitalize on opportunities and mitigate threats Kruyen & Van Genugten, 2017).
In this sense, based on a research gap indicating the need for studies on interrelations between innovation climate (covering the dimensions leadership and service culture), human capital and resource configurations (involving systems, structure and processes) in the development of dynamic capabilities related to innovation, as pointed out by , this study aims to answer the following question: How has the literature on interrelations between innovation climate and human capital in the development of dynamic capabilities been related to innovation?
To answer to this question, a literature review was conducted by means of a bibliographic research covering studies published in international journals from 1998 to 2018 in order to identify the presence of interrelations between antecedents of innovation.
This study has four sections besides the introduction, in which the first describes the theoretical basis of the background object being studied. The second section brings the description of the methodology used for selecting and analysing the articles, whereas the third presents the results of the bibliographic research and systematic literature review, thus demonstrating the patterns of interrelations found between the antecedents of innovation. Lastly, the fourth section of the study presents the final considerations. INMR 2. Literature review 2.1 Antecedents of innovation The companies' competitiveness is affected by their resources and their configurations (Barney, 1991), with the former being understood as antecedents of innovation, which encompass tangible and intangible assets (e.g. vision, culture, financial, human and technological resources) and are the basis for innovation in services (Hollebeek & Andreassen, 2018).
Studies point out that knowledge management, intellectual capital, organizational capabilities and organizational culture have significant direct and indirect effects on innovation (Chatzoglou & Chatzoudes, 2018), with Demirkan (2018) further highlighting the need to assess the resource integration at both internal (i.e. financial availability, human resources) and external levels (i.e. externally-formed networks and their characteristics such as size, diversity and strength).
Within an internally integrated perspective view,  point out the need for studies on the interrelations between innovation climate (covering the dimensions leadership and service culture), human capital and resource configurations (involving systems, structure and processes) in the development of dynamic capabilities related to innovation. For this study, among the three antecedents of innovation (i.e. climate of innovation, human capital and resource configurations), focus was also placed on innovation climate and human capital in an attempt to address part of the proposed gap from the perspective of studies already established in the theoretical field.
2.1.1 Innovation climate. The environment is related to a contextual situation at a determinate point in time and is connected with thoughts, feelings and behaviours of the members of the organization (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005). Thus, it can be said that innovation climate refers to the employees' inclination to actively accept and share ideas and knowledge where there is free flow of information and tolerance to failure, which enables the search for solutions (Bock et al., 2005). Within an innovation climate, the social interaction dynamics among employees favours organizational learning and enhances creative skills, which induces new practices and approaches .
In this sense, orientation to innovation, which is represented by the organization's willingness and openness to new ideas, is connected to the members who are encouraged to consider adopting innovation (Chen et al., 2009). Moreover, innovation climate increases not only the link between staff engagement and the functional and relational aspects of service quality (i.e. global and specific aspects) but also the overall levels of satisfaction and loyalty (Garc ıa-Buades et al., 2016). In the process and product innovation, innovation culture also appears to have a positive correlation (Padilha & Gomes, 2016).
Leadership constitutes one of the most influential factors for innovation in organizational culture (Castro et al., 2017) by changing the employees' attitudes, especially over time (Hansen, 2011), thus being a predictor for organizational innovation (Hughes, Lee, Tian, Newman, & Legood, 2018). Innovation climate is influenced by a leadership in this direction, which involves the subordinates in the pursuit of performance for innovation and creates an environment where the customers' needs are constantly met .
For Borchardt and Santos (2014), innovation is supposed to involve serious and effective efforts from the top management, including a resource allocation model which reflects the priority established for innovation. Among other things, the innovative process depends on the organizational ability to explore resources and also on the entrepreneurial and leadership capacities at both managerial and technical levels (Carvalho, Santos, & Neto, 2013).
However, there is the burden carried by the leadership factor in both private and public sectors, with the former focusing on managers and staff as sources of innovation and the latter depending on the role of policymakers and policyadvisors in the innovation process (Hartley, 2005;Pedersen, Hjelmar, & Bhatti, 2018). The adoption of innovative measures may Innovation antecedents not be uncontroversial (Alencar, 1995). In any case, Hansen (2011) correlated the adoption of innovations to the subjective element of management, either to a greater or lesser extent, in which managers are supposed to emphasize leadership, innovation and political relations by developing a positive relationship. Leadership is a determinant variable of innovation, with the relationship between the managers' leadership behaviour and successful innovation being increasingly explicit (Dom ınguez-Escrig, Mall en-Broch, Lapiedra-Alcam ı, & Chiva-G omez, 2018).
Although team autonomy is one of the factors for enhancing innovation, managerial leadership boosts the achievement of innovation success by directing organizational efforts in an increasingly globalized competitive world with profound technological and social changes (Jiang & Chen, 2018).
Yet, service culture is another component of innovation climate pointed out by . It can be defined as an organizational climate factor focusing on the company's goals and values of service excellence, thus, being an internal characteristic, managers must develop in order to position themselves to implement these ideals throughout the organization (Richey et al., 2015). Service culture is the extent to which employees at all levels perceive that the true purpose of their existence is to "serve customers" (Hoang, Igel, & Laosirihongthong, 2006).
2.1.2 Human capital. Human capital is considered to be one of the organizations' key resources and involves training, capabilities, skills, intelligence, experiences and insight of both managers and workers (Barney, 1991;Chatzoglou & Chatzoudes, 2018). Its profusion in the organizations allows them to have a faster perception of changes in the environment and facilitates the re-configuration of their actions to capture opportunities or evade threats . The process of human capital development is associated with education aimed at increasing knowledge and skills, which can lead to better performance of the individuals and, consequently, of the organization (Marimuthu, Arokiasamy, & Ismail, 2009).
Studies have concluded that the association between human capital and innovation capacity facilitates knowledge absorption . This emphasizes the importance of human capital for the development of innovation capacity (Leonard & Sensiper, 1998), thus being a key resource for the company's growth (Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001) as it drives the exploitation of new opportunities (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1998;Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000).
Human capital has been studied in the literature as a first order construct, but at other times, it is taken as an intellectual capital dimension encompassing knowledge, skills and competencies of the individuals (Omerzel & Jurdanab, 2016). Although an agreed definition of intellectual capital cannot be found in the literature, most authors seem to agree that intellectual capital is a multidimensional concept, which can be used to describe the company's knowledge (Campbell & Abdul Rahman, 2010) regarding intellectual material, skills, experience, intellectual property and information for creation of value (Dumay, 2016). In other words, intellectual capital is the sum of all knowledge or set of intangible assets used for achieving a superior performance (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998;Roos & Roos, 1997;.  recognized that intellectual capital is a key determinant of a company's current and future competitiveness. There is some agreement regarding the triple nature of the most common components of intellectual capital involving the dimensions human capital, relational capital and structural capital (Curado, 2008;. Human capital is defined as being the knowledge, experience, vocational and professional skills recorded in the files and which are used by the teams and executives of a company (Schultz, 1961;. Relational capital, on the other hand, refers to the embedded knowledge available and used during interactions with customers, suppliers, governments and other institutions (Hsu & Wang, 2012;Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998), whereas structural capital is defined as being the INMR reserves of non-human knowledge (e.g. databases, organizational charts, process instructions, strategies and intangible assets) aimed at increasing the company's value (Khani, Nor, Bahrami, Hakimpoor, & Salavati, 2011).
Taking into account the importance of the human capital dimension, the acquisition of adequate information on human resources of the organizations can contribute to the identification of existing skills and gaps, thus making the allocation of such resources more effective (Guthrie, 2001). In this study, it is noteworthy that both concepts of human capital and intellectual capital were considered for analyses of the interrelations with other antecedents, namely, innovation climate and dynamic capabilities.

Dynamic capacities
Dynamic capacity is the ability or competence a company has in order to adapt to the changing environment by reconfiguring its resources (Danneels, 2010). It is also defined as the organizational ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competencies to cope with fast-changing environments (Teece et al., 1998).
At a more macroscopic level, it can be said that detecting opportunities and threats, seizing opportunities and maintaining competitiveness by reconfiguring resources are three functions of the dynamic capacities. However, at a microscopic level one can cite skills, processes, procedures, organizational structures, decision rules and disciplines Teece, 2007), all of which involving the combination of organizational routines and entrepreneurial leadership (Teece, 2014).
This means that dynamic capacities involve the ability to understand and apply the combination of knowledge for business activities (Soosay & Hyland, 2008) in an attempt to maintain a competitive advantage through the process of continuous creation and recreation, resulting in benefits in ever-changing markets Zheng, Zhang, Wu, & Du, 2011).
For Ordanini and Parasuraman (2011), the companies' dynamic capacities to be customeroriented and innovation-oriented have primary interactive effects on the results of service innovation. Chuang and Lin (2015) show that the dynamic capabilities of e-service generation and cooperation promote knowledge development and are factors which positively influence e-service innovation, generating competitive advantage and affecting positively the cocreation of value and the company's value. Similarly, efforts for human capital development catalyse both external absorption and internal emergence of new capacities, which shapes the organization's ability to invent, develop and introduce market innovative products (Branzei & Vertinsky, 2006). Institutions which invest in a wide range of different innovation activities increase the likelihood of innovation success with financial benefits (Piening & Salge, 2015).

Proposal for theoretical analysis
For this study, we sought to analyse the presence of interrelations between innovation climate and human capital in terms of dynamic capacities of innovation (Figure 1) in order to fill part of the proposed gap from the perspective of the studies established in the theoretical field.

Methodology
The present bibliographic research through a literature review aims to investigate, first quantitatively and then qualitatively, the interrelation between the three antecedents of innovation known as innovation climate, human capital and dynamic capacities based on empirical studies.

Innovation antecedents
In order to the select studies to be investigated according to the methodology used by De Vries et al. (2016), we used a three-stage procedure in which the first stage was aimed at searching scientific articles on databases and the second one at establishing inclusion and exclusion criteria. The third stage aimed at assessing the included studies based on predefined criteria, as shown in Figure 2.
We searched for articles published between 1998 and 2018 (i.e. in the last 20 years) on CAPES, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases by using the following keywords and Boolean operators: "innovation climate" OR "human capital" AND "dynamic capabilit*". Our aim was to identify studies on the aforementioned antecedents without limiting to a sectorial perspective, that is, regardless of having private or public scope and of belonging to goods or service industry. The keywords could be inserted in the Abstract or title. A total of 195 articles were found, being 49 from CAPES, 49 from SCOPUS and 97 from Web of Science.
During the second stage, we established criteria to be met during the screening of the studies, thus discarding in advance those not meeting the following requisites: (1) Being an empirical article with strictly theoretical approach; (2) Having been peer-reviewed for publication in scientifically rigorous journals (  (4) Not being repeated in the searched databases.
After this, 96 studies were discarded, and the 99 remaining ones were submitted to the third stage, in which they were read to identify the existence of interrelations between the study variables, namely, innovation climate, human capital and dynamic capacity. In order to systematize the investigation in this stage and contribute to the analysis, we used electronic tables to compose a database with the variables extracted from the articles read, namely study reference, year of publication, methodological aspects (i.e. design, nature, type of method and research focus) and construct of the variable. In this way, it was possible to better analyse the adopted concepts, the sub-variables or dimensions in each variable, the existence or non-existence of interrelation between innovation climate and dynamic capacity, the existence or non-existence of interrelation between human capital and dynamic capacity, type of interrelation detected in the study (i.e. direct, indirect, mediation, moderate or nonexistent) and study comprehensiveness. It is important to highlight that only those studies effectively investigating or testing the hypothesis of interrelation between the variables in question were considered for presentation.
After tabulating the data, we identified that 44 studies were fit for the final analysis, as shown in Table 1. The studied antecedents were shown to be convergent regarding the theoretical constructs. In order to test their association degrees in the selected, we performed both single and multivariate quantitative analyses from bibliometric data and used the following analysis techniques: chi-square tests between the variables human capital and dynamic capacities, as well as between the variables innovation climate and dynamic capacities. We also used a graphical representation technique to analyse the variable quotes.

Results and discussion
Based on the analysis of the selected articles, it was possible to identify that most of them had correlational (68.2%), quantitative (72.7%) and cross-sectional (72.7%) designs, with predominance of surveys (68.2%), followed by the use of secondary data (18.2%) and case studies (13.6%). Only 12 of the 44 articles (27.3%) were longitudinal. Table 2 provides a descriptive summary of the main results.
Of the 44 articles selected for study, 38 investigated the interrelations between human capital and dynamic capacities related to innovation, representing 86.4% of the total. In total, 30 studies (68.2%) reported the existence of a direct interrelation between these two antecedents. Several studies, such as that conducted by , highlighted the importance of organizations to manage their human resources by enhancing competencies and capabilities for generation of innovative performance. In addition, three studies reported on the indirect impact of the interrelation between human capital and dynamic capabilities, whereas one pointed out the existence of a mediation interrelation in which dynamic capabilities have a mediating function between human capital and innovative performance . Other four studies did not explain the type of interrelation between them, despite addressing human capital and dynamic capability.
With regard to innovation climate and dynamic capabilities, the articles pointed out that most studies (81.8%) did not report or analysed the interrelation between these two variables (Appendix , Table A1). Only eight out of the 44 articles (18.2%) addressed these two antecedents, with five (11.4%) indicating a direct impact, two (4.5%) showing an indirect impact and one reporting no type of interrelation (Appendix , Table A2). Therefore, we can infer that interrelations between these two variables are rarely explored in the literature on innovation. By the way, this relationship seems to occur in an ambivalent dynamics Innovation antecedents whenever explored as there is a series of studies indicating an indirect impact, whereas another indicates a direct impact.
According to a simultaneous article on the three antecedents of innovation, only four empirical studies (9%) addressed innovation climate, human capital and dynamic capabilities in the same work (Appendix, Table A3).
The history of scientific production of articles in this bibliographic research is shown in the graph depicted in Figure 3. One can highlight the recently increased interest in the investigation of the interrelation between the antecedents analysed by this study, especially between human capital and dynamic capabilities, as 47.7% of the articles were published in the last three years of investigation (i.e. from 2016 to 2018) during a 20-year period.
With regard to the scope of the study fields, there is a greater incidence of data collection from several companies of a single country (38.6%) and from various companies within the  Table 2.

Descriptive statistic results
Innovation antecedents same sector (36.4%). In six articles (13.6%), data were collected from more than one country and only in five cases (11.4%) data came from a single company, which increases the likelihood of generalization of the results as several contexts of research are involved. In Table 3, the chi-square test showed significance in the intersection of the variables human capital and dynamic capabilities, with a Pearson's value of 5.436 and 1 degree of freedom, which indicates a high probability of association between such variables (Field, 2009). In other words, these results indicate that studies on antecedents of innovation have focused on the interrelation between human capital and dynamic capabilities.
However, when we performed a chi-square test between innovation climate and dynamic capacities, there was no significance (p > 0.05) as Pearson's value was 0.516 with 1 degree of freedom, which indicates a low probability of finding such interrelation in the analysed articles (see Table 4).
With rare exceptions, the construct dynamic capacity had a high convergence in its concept and was mostly addressed elsewhere. In order to allow a better view of this study field, we performed a quotation analysis of the results from the Web of Science database by using the CitNetExplorer tool, as shown in Figure 4.
It is noticeable that even though this theme was addressed by Penrose in 1959, it gained momentum in 1999, with Teece being one of the most quoted authors. The consensus among large part of the authors is that the definition of this construct is the company's capacity to integrate and restructure resources in order to adapt to environmental changes (Teece et al., 1998) by addressing processes of learning, identifying threats and opportunities and reconfiguring resources as dimensions of dynamic capacities .

INMR
The analysis performed in this study indicates that the scientific community has been having more interest in the interrelations between innovation climate, human capital and dynamic capabilities ( Figure 4). However, further empirical studies on the interrelation between innovation climate and dynamic capabilities should be carried out ( Figure 5) due to the few results available, which constitutes an academic research gap to be investigated.
Studies have confirmed the significant interrelation between human capital and innovation-driven dynamic capacities , with the former being understood as a set of characteristics involving intellectual skills, recruitment, training, development and incentives for employees and managers .
Directed investment in human capital has facilitated the innovative capacity , especially the radical innovation, in highly innovative companies and in the short term   It was shown that to have a sustainable innovative development process, companies must build dynamic capacities by combining their main organizational resources to enable creation, absorption, integration and reconfiguration of knowledge continuously and simultaneously. The ability to acquire and create knowledge is directly related to the presence of prior knowledge, which also involves training and qualification of human capital in combination with dynamic capacities (Teece et al., 1998;. Theoretically, the results suggest the importance of the interrelation between human capital and dynamic capacities for innovation, indicating that managers need to invest in the development of their human resources for a quick adaptation of the company in ever-changing environments. The results of the analysis of the variables demonstrated the need to conduct longitudinal studies on antecedents of innovation climate and human capital when related to dynamic capacities. On the other hand, the influence of the construct innovation climate and its relation with dynamic innovation capacities deserves an empirical study as this field should be further investigated by scientific research. It should be also considered that there was a small presence (18.2%) of studies seeking to explain this interrelation, despite being weak, obtained through Pearson's chi-square test. These studies confirmed the relevance of the construct in  Tamayo-Torres et al., 2016).
On the other hand, to delimitate the scope of the study because of the amplitude of the theoretical field of innovation, the present study did not analyse the interrelation between the construct resource configuration and dynamic capacities of innovation (part of the gap pointed out by , which was a noticeable limitation. Future studies can seek interrelations found elsewhere between resource configurations and dynamic capacities, thus contributing to close the gap partly investigated in this study. Furthermore, considering the lack of studies on the interrelation between human capital and innovation climate, it is suggested that this research gap should be further investigated. As already explained on the method used in this study, the context of innovation in services was not delimited at first, but we sought to investigate the literature based on the gap pointed out by , who proposed a model of institutional support for service innovation. From that point, theoretical concepts were sought by using the Boolean operators "innovation climate" OR "human capital" AND "dynamic capabilit*", with no filter context (e.g. services, industry or government). Perhaps this choice has limited the study as there may be a generalization of the results as to the interrelations found. On the other hand, we also did not delve into how the antecedents interrelate to each other and the effects of this on the innovative capacity of the organizations, which is also a limitation of the present work.
Dynamic capacities are intangible assets which allow orchestration and synchronization of resources from inside and outside the organization, thus being necessary for achievement of innovation and adaptation to the contemporary complex environment (Junfeng & Weiping, 2017;Symeonidou & Nicolaou, 2018). Innovation depends on dynamic capacities, which is why it is essential to identify relevant dynamic capacities to carry out the innovation process by selecting competencies according to criteria and methodological rigour.