Search results

There are uncertainties concerning how innovators can successfully venture into disruptive innovations and how incumbents can react to the emergence of such innovations. Disruptive digital innovations, which use information technology to disrupt business contexts and can evolve rapidly to either successes or failures, have unique challenges. The literature has largely remained silent concerning these. Also, existing studies often focus on innovations originating in developed economies and just on successful cases. There is a lack of comparative focus on successful and failure cases emerging across economies. The purpose of this paper is to fill these gaps.

This paper assesses the evolution of disruptive digital innovations in various contexts through a financial management-motivated conceptual framework. Contrary to existing works, this paper focuses on both successful and failure cases and regards the influence of various stakeholders further to innovators and incumbents to explain the successes or failures of the innovation.

There are some common success factors for disruptive digital innovation. These include an inherent focus on social value, alignment to financiers' interests and rivals' actions and strategic collaborations to create a synergy effect.

Innovators can cause effective digital disruption by focusing on social and financial values. Success can also largely depend on strategic partnerships rather than actions by an individual entity. Thus, venturing and managing disruptive digital innovation is not an isolated but a social process.

This paper recommends propositions for innovators and incumbents to venture into and confront disruptive digital innovations effectively. Its originality lies in focusing on both successful and failure cases, unexplored in literature, to develop the propositions.

Purpose – This chapter engages critically with the ideas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and irresponsibility (CSI) in order to examine their utility for the purposes of realizing more socially just and environmentally sustainable social and economic practices.

Methodology/approach – The chapter develops Marx's understanding of the twin pressures of class struggle and inter-capitalist competition in setting the limits of agency for corporate actors. It is thus theoretical and discursive in nature.

Findings – The findings of the chapter suggest that the scope for corporate agency in relation to responsibility/irresponsibility is severely limited by inter-capitalist competition and capitalist social relations. It therefore argues that those interested in social justice and environmental sustainability should focus on these structural pressures rather than theorizing corporate agency.

Social implications – The research suggests that the focus of academic and government attention should be on resolving the contradictions and exploitative social relations inherent in capitalism. Without this emphasis activism, corporate agency and government action will not eradicate the types of problem that advocates of CSR/CSI are concerned about.

Originality/value of paper – The value of the paper is that it contests and engages critically with the utility of the notion of CSR and the emergent concept of CSI. It asks proponents of these concepts to think seriously about the structural pressures and constraints within which business and policy makers act.

Despite the innovation and performance of venture capital (VC)-backed firms receiving extensive attention, how and under what conditions VC influences innovation and performance remains unclear. The present paper draws on organizational learning (OL) theory to examine the moderating effect of syndication on backed firms.

Drawing on a literature review that connects OL and innovation to the performance of VC-backed firms, this study examines the effects of OL on innovation and firm performance among these firms by questioning the moderating effect of VC syndication. A sample of 78 VC-backed firms was used to test the robustness of the proposed model and causal relationships through the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).

The empirical evidence demonstrates that the intervention of venture capitalists can not only stimulate innovation, but also have a significantly positive effect on firm performance. Furthermore, the evidence reveals that syndication of VC investment supports backed firms in improving the firms' performance and generating innovation from acquired knowledge.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study is the first in North Africa that focuses on the moderating effects of venture capital syndication on the relationships between OL, innovation and firm performance.

In this paper, a two‐sector model of production and reproduction with waste residuals and environmental pollution is developed. Assuming a subsistence real wage rate, a fixed method of production for each sector, a surplus of employable workers, and full utilisation of both produced inputs, the model is solved for aggregate output and employment, the level of environmental quality and the mass of surplus value. An hypothesis is advanced about the impact of recent technical innovations on profitability and environmental quality.

In this work, I deal – based on my memories and reflections on Lachmann’s teaching and the ideas that I discussed with him as my dissertation supervisor and member of his weekly departmental seminar – with the following two topics: first, what Lachmann understood by his subjectivist approach to economics and some of its consequences, including the use of the concept of equilibrium in economics; and second, my understanding of Lachmann’s intellectual relationship with Schumpeter. The work also raises questions about the absence in Lachmann’s work of an examination of the role of innovation in the economic process that he analyzed.

While the open innovation concept proposed by Henry Chesbrough a decade ago has had some striking successes, the myriad options for engaging external partners can be daunting, so leaders need a guide for getting started that matches the needs of their firm. This paper aims to address this issue.

The paper identifies that innovation processes involve three stages during which the business model elements are conceived and elaborated: idea‐generation, idea‐development, and commercialization. The question for leaders is: “In which of the three stages could your growth efforts benefit from an infusion of external ideas and expertise?”

The open‐innovation approach does not require a company to replace all its current research and development (R&D) efforts. But it does change the primary question leaders should be asking to “How can my company create significantly more value by leveraging external partners to bring many more innovations to market?”

The article shows executives how they can systematically assess an innovation process, understand where new venture business models are weakest, and select the points at which open innovation could add some needed spark.

The article leads executives through two‐step process for introducing a customized open innovation program: step one, assess where your company's innovation process would benefit from external input by using five key questions; and step two, learn how to manage external relationships.