No abstract

Radical innovation is an important driver of the growth, success, and wealth of firms and nations. Because of its importance, authors across various disciplines have proposed many theories about the drivers of such innovation, including government policy and labor, capital, and culture at the national level. The authors contrast these theories with one based on the corporate culture of the firm. They test their theory using survey and archival data from 759 firms across 17 major economies of the world. The results suggest the following: First, among the factors studied, corporate culture is the strongest driver of radical innovation across nations; culture consists of three attitudes and three practices. Second, the commercialization of radical innovations translates into a firm's financial performance; it is a stronger predictor of financial performance than other popular measures, such as patents. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for research and practice.

Inclusive innovation, which we define as innovation that benefits the disenfranchised, is a process as well as a performance outcome. Consideration of inclusive innovation points to inequalities that may arise in the development and commercialization of innovations, and also acknowledges the inequalities that may occur as a result of value creation and capture. We outline opportunities for the development of theory and empirical research around this construct in the fields of entrepreneurship, strategy, and marketing. We aim for a synthesis in views of inclusive innovation and call for future research that deals directly with value creation and the distributional consequences of innovation.

Radical innovations are engines of economic growth and the focus of much academic and practitioner interest, yet some fundamental questions remain unanswered. The authors use theoretical arguments on the risk associated with radical innovations, and the resources needed for them, to answer the following questions on the sources and financial consequences of radical innovation: (1) Who introduces a greater number of radical innovations: dominant or nondominant firms? (2) How great are the financial rewards to radical innovations, and how do these rewards vary across dominant and nondominant firms? (3) Is it only a firm's resources in the aggregate or also its focus and leverage of resources that make its innovations more financially valuable? and (4) Which are more valuable: innovations that incorporate a breakthrough technology or innovations that provide a substantial increase in customer benefits? The authors pool information from a disparate set of sources in the pharmaceutical industry to study these questions. Results indicate that a large majority of radical innovations come from a minority of firms. The financial rewards of innovation vary dramatically across firms and are tied closely to firms' resource base. Firms that provide higher per-product levels of marketing and technology support obtain much greater financial rewards from their radical innovations than do other firms. Firms that have greater depth and breadth in their product portfolio also gain more from their radical innovations.