Search results

The purpose of this study is to shed further light on determinants of the openness degree to give a more conclusive evidence to the research in the field. In particular, the influence exerted by the technological strategy is still debated, in that evidence on the relationship between the technological strategy and openness is conflicting.

The authors put forward a structural equation model which enriches the state-of-the-art literature by explicitly testing the interplay among technological strategy, openness (innovatively measured in terms of partner intensity, phase intensity and variety in terms of partners, phases and contents) and innovation performance. Our study relies on data from 415 firms based on a research survey developed in Finland, Italy and Sweden.

Findings show that openness, if measured in terms of partner intensity and phase intensity, fully mediates the relationship between technological strategy and innovation performance, by suggesting that the effectiveness of a firm’s technologically aggressive behavior is strongly related to the intensification of collaboration with the partners along the innovation funnel. Conversely, openness variety seems to play an opposite role and is influenced differently by partner and phase intensity. This result likely emphasizes how the cost-side of open behavior becomes harder to manage, and thus costly, when it involves too many different types of partners, phases and contents.

Firms that adopt a technologically aggressive strategy are recommended to deeply open their innovation process to foster innovation performance. However, because of the fact that a high level of openness variety could generate some drawbacks, managers should be very careful in the management of different phases, sources and content. Therefore, what clearly emerges is a call to find adequate strategies for effectively managing the collaboration process to avoid the waste of resources and initiatives.

Originality and the value of the paper reside in a more fine-grained definition of the openness concept, which takes into consideration other facets of openness compared to those usually analyzed in the literature, and a powerful statistical model, such as structural equation modeling, offering great advantages and flexibility in matching the theoretical model with the data.

The purpose of the current research seeks to understand what role supply chain (SC) collaboration plays in effectively managing customers of a firm. The research also investigates what role industry competitive intensity plays on SC collaboration formation.

The current research utilizes empirical survey data from professionals whose companies collaborate within a SC. Structural equations modeling is employed to assess the relationship of collaborative process competence on SC collaboration as well as the moderating impact of industry competitive intensity. A further boundary condition is examined with the partner interdependence SC collaboration relationship. Additionally the SC collaboration account management relationship is also investigated.

The paper provides empirical insights on how SC collaboration contributes to focal firm customer account management. Additionally, results suggest that collaborative process competence and its relationship with SC collaboration works differently in the presence of partner interdependence and the moderator of industry competitive intensity.

While the findings help to promote the generalizability of the new research, future research could seek to understand how firms could develop specific account management value propositions through SC collaboration in specific contexts.

The main contributions of the work include empirical analysis of a proposed theoretical model, a better understanding of the role collaborative process competence plays on SC collaboration formation and the discussion of customer account management as an outcome of SC collaboration.

The sustainability performance of multinational enterprises (MNEs) is often judged from their participation in distinct sustainability standards initiatives. But MNEs interact with a variety of sustainability standards in their value chains. This chapter proposes a partnering-intensity continuum to categorize the MNE–standards interactions to explore the benefits of a more firm-based approach for the assessment of MNEs’ contributions to sustainability.

The chapter describes standardization in coffee and biofuels industries and presents the case of a single firm to compose a continuum that reflects how MNEs move between standards attached to operations of single firms, bilateral arrangements with certification schemes, and multistakeholder partnerships. It elaborates this observed continuum by linking international business (IB) literature with the literature on global value chains (GVCs) and partnerships.

Choices about how to partner in and how to handle control over the implementation of standards shape the contributions MNEs make to sustainable development. Specifying how MNEs interact with different standards, with varying degrees of partnering and combined logics, is proposed as a better way to assess how MNEs contribute to sustainable development compared to evaluating standards per se.

This chapter draws attention to the phenomenon that international “lead firms” engage with a variety of standards. The chapter proposes that looking at partnering intensity and the subsequent level of influence over the implementation of standards enables assessing how and to what extent lead firms contribute to addressing sustainability problems.

A key argument in transaction cost economics (TCE) is that transactions are aligned with governance structures so as to effect a discriminating – mainly transaction cost economizing – match (Williamson, 1991). The archetypical problem in TCE is the vertical integration or “make-versus-buy” decision, and the focus of transaction cost economizing in this context is on mitigation of “holdup” problems associated with investments in specific assets (Klein, Crawford, & Alchian, 1978; Williamson, 1985). However, this asset specificity condition in only one example (albeit a significant one) of a more general class of contractual hazards. Indeed, in his most recent discussion of the TCE agenda, Williamson (1996, p. 3) suggests that “identification, explication, and mitigation of contractual hazards – which take many forms, many of which long went unremarked – are central to the exercise.”

In a context each day more global, a new paradigm has emerged – open innovation (OI) – which may be understood as an innovation strategy in which organizations use internal and external knowledge to leverage their business value, thus maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage. This article aims to contribute to understanding this phenomenon, suggesting an integrated vision of OI strategies.

This paper systematically reviews and analyzes a sample of 66 articles from Scopus and Web of Science databases related to open innovation strategies.

The results obtained enabled us to group the existing literature into six different clusters: (1) Performance; (2) Open business model; (3) Intellectual Property; (4) Knowledge Management; (5) Innovation; and (6) Culture. Furthermore, this study identifies the major research gaps and provides suggestions for future research.

The paper presents the main elements that interfere and interact in the innovation strategy providing a conceptual model that can be useful in understanding the phenomenon of open innovation.

The purpose of this article is to introduce a framework for internet supported inter‐organizational product development, which enables companies to efficiently configure their development processes according to their needs.

Three ideal types of partner integration are identified and specific design guidelines for each type are proposed. Current approaches for product development collaboration are analysed. Based on their shortcomings the main approach of this paper evolves. Additionally the main results of interviews with experts are used to develop and introduce a framework which has been tested partially in the shipbuilding industry.

The paper identifies three types of partner integration and proposes specific design guidelines.

The framework introduced in this paper provides guidance for future research in the area of product development collaboration.

The framework further supports managers in designing efficient and effective inter‐organizational product development collaboration by choosing the appropriate level of partner integration.

The paper presents a practical and usable framework for internet supported inter‐organizational product development collaboration. The main focus is on designing the partnership interaction.

This paper seeks to identify collaboration elements and evaluate their intensity in the Brazilian supermarket retail chain, especially the manufacturer‐retailer channel.

A structured questionnaire was elaborated and applied to 125 representatives from suppliers of large supermarket chains. Statistical methods including multivariate analysis were employed. Variables were grouped and composed into five indicators (joint actions, information sharing, interpersonal integration, gains and cost sharing, and strategic integration) to assess the degree of collaboration.

The analyses showed that the interviewees considered interpersonal integration to be of greater importance to collaboration intensity than the other integration factors, such as gain or cost sharing or even strategic integration.

The research was conducted solely from the point of view of the industries that supply the large retail networks. The interviews were not conducted in pairs; that is, there was no application of one questionnaire to the retail network and another to the partner industry.

Companies should invest in conducting periodic meetings with their partners to increase collaboration intensity, and should carry out technical visits to learn about their partners' logistic reality and thus make better operational decisions.

The paper reveals which indicators produce greater collaboration intensity, and thus those that are more relevant to more efficient logistics management.

The study aims to test the success of university-industry (U-I) collaboration in terms of innovation process efficiency. Then, this study explores the moderating role of a set of organizational routines in the U-I relationship, which can help in overcoming the issues undermining the collaboration success.

The study is based on an international Open Innovation (OI) survey. The survey investigated the items to build the main variables of the conceptual framework, measured through seven-point Likert scales. Steps to ensure the reliability and validity of the variables were conducted. Then, hypotheses were tested with an ordinary least squares regression.

Results show that the higher the collaboration intensity (depth) with universities, the higher the innovation process efficiency. Furthermore, organizational routines aimed at improving firms' assimilation absorptive capacity further strengthen the positive effects of intensive collaboration on innovation process efficiency.

Findings indicate that R&D managers should strive to build deep collaborations with universities to enhance process efficiency and invest in the quality of these relationships. Managers should create and maintain an internal environment that further enhances the positive effects of intensive collaboration on innovation process efficiency.

The OI literature has not reached a shared view on the positive contribution of universities toward industrial firms' innovation performance. The study adopts a process-efficiency view, rarely used by other OI studies usually focused on output indicators; this study unpacks, respectively, the role of the intensity of collaboration and the organizational routines, thus disclosing the benefit of U-I collaboration on innovation efficiency.

Based on the principles of stakeholder theory, the purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between the information reported to stakeholders in corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports and companies’ CSR reputation (CSRR).

The paper implements two regression models to test how reporting to stakeholders influences the CSRR of 84 companies included in the Spanish “MercoEmpresas Responsables” reputation index.

The results demonstrate that greater global reporting intensity to stakeholders does not necessarily mean a better CSRR. Contrarily, the reporting-reputation link depends on the intensity of reporting to specific stakeholders such as investors, regulators and the media. The findings are explained largely by the institutional, political and business characteristics of Spain after the Great Recession of 2007-2008.

The evidence reported in this paper confirms stakeholder theory as an adequate framework to understand corporate reporting to stakeholders and its relationship with CSRR. The findings suggest that stakeholder salience (i.e. power, legitimacy and urgency) is a key concept for understanding the reporting-reputation link better in future research.

In the light of the findings, companies willing to use reporting to stakeholders as a tool to improve CSRR should establish regular mechanisms for monitoring stakeholder power, legitimacy and urgency, provide complete information to investors in their CSR reports and minimize the amount of detail provided to regulators and the media in their CSR reports.

There is still little empirical evidence concerning how the information to stakeholders contained in CSR reports influences the processes by which CSRR is built or destroyed. This paper contributes to the previous literature by describing how the global intensity of reporting to stakeholders and the intensity of reporting to different stakeholder groups relate to CSRR.

This conceptual paper uses the resource-based theory (RBT) of the firm to argue that for competitors to improve their innovation through a cooperative relationship – coopetitive relationship – they need to work on building a stable relationship with each other by investing a special type of resources, namely locked-in resources.

The authors draw on RBT criteria to argue that when the antecedent – the locked-in resources – and the mediator – the relationship stability – are valuable, rare, inimitable and organized (VRIO), they will help the parties involved achieve sustained competitive advantage from the coopetitive relationship.

This paper argues that locked-in resources lead to higher coopetitive relationship stability by reducing the impact of opportunistic behavior from any of the partners. More stable relationship leads to more innovations especially radical innovations. In addition, the nature of the industry plays a moderating role. The industry's competitive intensity affects the relationship between locked-in resources and relationship stability. The industry's age affects the relationship between stability and innovation quantity and type.

This conceptual paper anchors its arguments within the RBT related to the firm's strategic resources (VRIO) characteristics and applies the same arguments (VRIO) beyond the firm level to the coopetitive relationship level. The model invites researchers and practitioners to consider two new constructs namely locked-in resources and coopetitive relationship stability in order to build successful coopetitive relationships.

This paper contributes considerably and in a practical manner to managers as it draws their attention to the importance of investing a special type of resources, namely locked-in resources and ensuring the relationship stability with their coopetitors to achieve the desired outcome. It also draws the managers' attention to the impact industry's competitive intensity and industry's age have on the quality of the relationship and on the innovation outcomes.

A distinct contribution of this conceptual paper is the introduction of two new constructs: locked-in resources and coopetitive relationship stability. Locked-in resources are valuable within the coopetitive relationship and they improve the second construct or relationship stability. Relationship stability is different from relationship strength as it leads to more trust between partners over longer periods of time.