Search results

Biotech companies are generally faced with the paradoxes of simultaneously managing growth and innovation, as well as addressing explorative and exploitative aspects of innovation. Scholars have urged them to re‐evaluate their business model. The purpose of this paper is to explore how biotech companies in emerging economies address these paradoxes, focusing upon the nascent biotech industry in India, in order to investigate their growth and innovation patterns, as well as identify the challenges that they may face.

A qualitative data collection, using in‐depth interviews with representatives of organizations that deal directly with improving the quality of the business environment for biotech industry in India, as well as biotech entrepreneurs and leaders were undertaken. A total of 13 interviews provided insights related to innovation and growth that is discussed in the paper.

Data indicate that Indian biotech companies are ambidextrous and have managed to transcend the aforementioned paradoxes by developing and maintaining distinct organizational capabilities. They were found to pursue an integrated model of efficiency and innovation and utilize both exploitative and explorative aspects of innovation to fuel growth and innovation. The authors also found evidence of some of the characteristics of the “India Way”, proposed by Cappelli et al.

The authors conclude that Indian companies offer an opportunity for learning for American biotech companies with respect to building new competencies and balancing growth and innovation in today's competitive environment.

Despite being labeled as the “industry of the decade”, biotechnology has been neglected in technology and innovation literature. It is hoped that the paper's findings will generate interest in the study of biotech industries in emerging economies, to help scholars develop interesting new theoretical models of innovation and aid managers in coping with the innovation and change paradoxes that they are faced with in developing new products and services.

Biotech companies stand as key actors in pharmaceutical innovation. The high risk and long timelines inherent with their R&D investments might hinder their access to funding, potentially stifling innovation. This study aims to explore into the appeal of biotech companies to capital market investors, whose financial backing could bolster the growth of the biotechnology sector.

This paper uses a dataset of 774 US publicly listed biotech firms to investigate their risk and return characteristics by comparing them to pharmaceutical firms and a sample of matched non-biotech R&D-intensive firms over the sample period 1980–2021. Tests show that the conclusions remain consistent across diverse methodological approaches.

The paper shows that biotech companies are riskier than the average firm in the market index but outperform on a risk-adjusted basis both the market and a matched group of R&D-intensive firms. This is particularly true for large capitalization biotech, which is also shown to provide a diversification benefit by reducing the downside risk in past crisis periods.

This paper provides insight relevant to the current debate about the overall performance of the biotech industry in terms of policy changes and their impact on small, early-stage biotech firms. While small and early-stage biotech firms are playing an increasing role in scientific innovation, this study confirms their greater vulnerability to financial risks and the importance of access to capital markets in enabling those companies to survive and evolve into larger biotech.

By taking conventionalist view of the evolution of biotechnology, we suggest that the process by which entrepreneurs determined what made biotechnology valuable and figured out how to organize around such an economic logic was contested. The shape that biotechnology has ultimately taken emerged from the resolution of these contests. Convention theory – as elaborated in Boltanski and Thévenot's (2006) On Justification ¹ – argues that our economy is shaped by participants affecting the rules of economic action. Whereas most economists would argue that the assignment of value underpins any system of exchange, conventionalists suggest that this value is not only given by the principles of optimization but instead can be derived from many possible spheres such as civic duty, attainment of fame, proof of technologic performance, and demonstration of creativity. More specifically, Boltanski and Thévenot (2006, p. 43) claim that the establishment of a particular logic “comes about as a part of a coordinated process that relies on two supports: a common identification of market goods, whose exchange defines the course of action, and a common evaluation of these objects in terms of prices that make it possible to adjust various actions.” Simply put, economic logics embody principles of economic coordination or conventions that guide interpretation of the technology and its value.

This chapter focuses on the relationship between biotechnology start-ups and larger pharmaceutical corporations when they work as partners in innovation strategic alliances. For three decades, these companies have become major players in innovation in the health sector. This means that the development of many products is a result of the cooperation they carry out. However, due to the great differences between these companies, certain problems can often arise. More specifically, our analysis explores the perceptions of the achievement expected by each partner. This is an important aspect to determine the satisfaction of these firms among strategic alliance. The authors follow qualitative methods to address the topic, conducting personal interviews with managers of these companies. Our findings reveal the concrete facts that can prevent reaching the proposed goals of these partners as well as stress the crucial importance of the human aspect to mitigate potential problems.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework for evaluating the relationship between China and Peru, drawing on dependency theory, against the backdrop of China’s explicit policies towards foreign direct investment. It seeks to transcend traditional interpretations of this relationship in the literature that focuses on China as either hegemon or a South–South partner to Latin American countries to highlight a more nuanced relationship.

The paper adopts a case study approach, focusing on China in Peru. The authors examine three areas of traditional, strategic and emerging industries drawing from Chinese national policies, reviewing these against characteristics of dependency: control of production, heterogeneity of actors, transfer of knowledge and delinking.

The authors find that Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) in Peru demonstrates mixed motives and collectively operates as an ambiguous player. Chinese firms appear to be willing to work with various actors, but this engagement does not translate into a decolonial development alternative in the absence of a Peruvian political will to delink and Chinese willingness to actively transfer control of production and knowledge.

This paper contributes to existing literature on China in Latin America by evaluating Chinese outward FDI in Peru against China’s strategic aims in terms of a re-evaluation of dependency theory.

Drawing upon Alfred Sohn-Rethel's work, we argue that, just as capitalism produces abstract labor, it coproduces both abstract mind and abstract life. Abstract mind is the split between mind and nature and between subject/observer and observed object that characterizes scientific epistemology. Abstract mind reflects an abstracted objectified world of nature as a means to be exploited. Biological life is rendered as abstract life by capitalist exploitation and by the reification and technologization of organisms by contemporary technoscience. What Alberto Toscano has called “the culture of abstraction” imposes market rationality onto nature and the living world, disrupting biotic communities and transforming organisms into what Finn Bowring calls “functional bio-machines.”

The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the impact of capital investments on new capabilities development during competence‐destroying change. The moderating role of uncertainty is also explored.

This paper utilizes two distinct but related research streams; the literature on organizational capabilities and real options, to build the theory and hypotheses.

Data from a sample of 767 alliances between incumbent pharmaceutical firms and new biotechnology firms reveal that incumbent firms who increase capital investments in emerging technological domains despite the uncertainty present in them, are more likely to develop new products based on emerging technology.

The results encourage future research on the nexus of managerial cognition, capital investments, uncertainty and the adaptation process.

Extant literature implicitly suggests that capital investments are critical for developing new capabilities; yet no prior study has addressed the relationship between capital investments and new capabilities development during competence‐destroying change. This paper addresses this gap in the literature.

Emerging biotechnology firms rely on a network of socio‐economic partnerships that can be classified as “interimistic” or close, collaborative but relatively short‐lived. Few studies have assessed the importance of relational governance to the performance of these partnerships. The purposes of this research were to determine the effect of relational governance on the performance of financial partnerships and to compare biotechnology manager assessments of their financial and non‐financial partnerships.

Interviews were conducted with managers of emerging biotechnology companies and lead investors in Canada, France and Germany. Relational governance was assessed by relational norms such as flexibility, information sharing, solidarity and fairness. Performance was assessed by overall effectiveness and partnership benefits. First, the contribution of relational governance to partnership effectiveness and benefits was examined. Second, for the financial partnerships, the perceptions of both biotech managers and lead investors were compared. Third, the biotech manager perceptions of their financial and non‐financial partnerships were compared.

Relational governance is positively associated with performance. Communication (information sharing) was most predictive of partnership performance. Biotech managers view their financial partnerships as being less relational than do their lead investors. Also, biotech managers view their financial partnerships to be less relational than those with their non‐financial partners.

The findings extend our knowledge of the positive influence of relational governance from longer lasting exchanges to “interimistic” technology partnerships. The communication of pertinent and timely information is particularly relevant for both biotech managers and lead investors and can allay fears of opportunistic behaviour and develop trust and commitment.

Building a bioeconomy requires efficient technology transfer and global linkages to exploit finite intellectual property exclusivity periods. Using a resource‐based view lens, this paper aims to assess the priorities, capabilities, and competitiveness of the emerging bioeconomy in India.

A triangulated design was used that involved interviews, case studies and a survey of 61 India biotechnology industry participants.

Two high priority capabilities were identified as being critical to fostering a competitive bioeconomy – access to talent and access to funding. Participants also identified the critical role of government in building and coordinating infrastructure, enabling critical capabilities, and accelerating bi‐directional technology and capital flows. This study reinforces the resource‐based view strategy framework regarding the importance of local context for biotechnology research.

Implications include the need for public‐private sector collaboration to strengthen industry infrastructure and enable biotechnology start‐ups, partnering between academia and government to accelerate technology transfer, and importance of seeking international investment and alliances early in a company's lifecycle to ensure sustainability.

These India‐centric lessons may be valuable in advancing knowledge for building successful biotechnology clusters, particularly for emerging market countries.

The purpose of this research is to investigate how the consumer’s trusting mechanism influences their behavioral adoption intention in the context of genetic testing.

Based on the technology acceptance theory and trust formation theory, the research posits and develops a comprehensive trust model by integrating trust-related factors that correlate to the consumer’s trusting beliefs and trusting intention. Survey data with 525 respondents allow to test and validate the model.

The tested model shows that technology institutional trust base, end-user’s cognitive trust base and social influence are significant determinants of trusting beliefs. The findings also reveal that mediation effects of performance expectancy and perceived risks exist in the relationship between trusting beliefs and trusting intention.

The foreseeable positive impact and rapid market growth of emerging healthcare technologies necessitate the strong need to study user acceptance. However, there is a lack of research on how consumers trust and their adoption intention of such innovations. Prior empirical evidence from different contexts and perspectives also show contradictory findings. This research extends the existing technology acceptance literature to a healthcare context, provides an improved generalized understanding of the consumer’s trusting mechanism in emerging biotechnology and discusses practical insights for regulatory authorities, healthcare institutes and medical professionals.