Are there any differences between family and non-family firms in the open innovation era? Lessons from the practice of European manufacturing companies

Abstract

Although there is an increased interest in studies on FFs and open innovation (OI) the existing knowledge is rather limited. This study explores the open innovation choices, their determinants and the relative innovation performance in FFs with respect to non-family firms. By means of an European survey involving Italian, Swedish, Finnish and UK family and non-family firms we aim at investigating whether FFs are adopting a peculiar behaviour in the open innovation era. In order to achieve this goal, we rely on concepts and constructs already defined by open innovation literature and we explore the behaviour of FFs and non-family firms. Analysis of differences show that family firms are in general less open than non-family firms, when we consider openness in terms of breadth, while they show a higher intensity of collaboration behaviour when we consider the measures of depth. FFs perceive as slightly higher the competitive pressure, but very similar is the perceived technological pressure. Also drivers of collaboration and innovation strategy are on average very similar. Significant differences between FFs and non-FFs are found as concerns the use of IP legal rights (lower for FFs). On average, FFs declare a slightly higher novelty performance. A first type of regressions shows the contribution of some environmental and internal firm-specific factors as explanatory variables of openness degree and thus allow to depict the specific profile of FFs. When we explore differences on the supposed mediating factors of the relationship between openness and innovation performance, the organizational-managerial mechanisms emerge as factors over which FFs exert particular care. A second type of regressions shows that, beside the external social capital, organizational-managerial mechanisms emerge for FFs as a relevant mediator in the relationships between OI depth and innovation performance.

Integrating Business, Social, and Environmental Goals in Open Innovation through Partner Selection

“…In order to surpass some of these limitations, other studies have included more details, by referring, for instance, to in-depth case studies on a specific type of OI and CN partner, such as crowdsourcing (e.g., [39,40]), or even those regarding the innovation related to the crossindustry [41]. Other studies have suggested specific partner types, regarding determined innovation problems (e.g., [42][43][44][45][46]). This study also accounts for these approaches with the aim of increasing generalizability.…”

Open innovation in family firms: a systematic literature review

“…In line with this reasoning, De , through a cross-case study between family and non-family firms, show that family firms are more inclined to rely on a higher number of external collaboration when scientific partners and/or suppliers/customers rather than competitors are involved. Lazzarotti et al (2017) provide an additional and new perspective concerning OI strategies in family firms. Indeed, despite the lower search breadth explored among the family firm sub-sample, when it comes to the depth, higher levels of intensity in the family firms' collaboration process with external partners emerged.…”

“…As might be assumed, active participation of family members in the ownership, management and board shape family firms' discretion over decision-making process and so the strategy of the firm. Thus, differences among the level of family member involvement, the inclusion of non-family members in the ownership, management and board (Classen et al, 2012;Lazzarotti et al, 2017), may increase or decrease the family firms' ability to engage in OI activities. Also, the family generation in control, intergenerational involvement or even specific characteristics of family managers, such as level of education, external professional experiences, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) duality (Classen et al, 2012;Alberti et al, 2014;Serrano-Bedia et al, 2016), may lead to interesting findings.…”

“…In this regard, studies' findings suggest both positive (seven) and negative (two) relationships between external social capital and the propensity of family firms' collaborative innovative behavior. Thus, the superior ability to build trust over time (De Clercq and Belausteguigoitia, 2015;Casprini et al, 2017;Lazzarotti et al, 2017), to improve communication skills (Broekaert MRJIAM 17,3 et al, 2016), to nurture long-term relationships (Llach and Nordqvist, 2010;De Massis et al, 2015;Lazzarotti and Pellegrini, 2015;Lambrechts et al, 2017) and to raise visibility and reputation among stakeholders (De Massis et al, 2015) lead family firms to rely on a higher number of external collaboration and to a higher intensity of collaboration during innovation projects. Keeping higher external social capital complements the lack of internal family firms' resources, technology or people to achieve innovation (Bayona-Sáez et al, 2002).…”

“…external technology sourcing, search breadth, search depth, etc.) (Classen et al, 2012;Kotlar et al, 2013;Alberti et al, 2014;Lazzarotti et al, 2017), the topic remains still scant and controversial (Feranita et al, 2017;Calabrò et al, 2018). On the one hand, relying on the resource-based view perspective many scholars provide evidence that family firms are more open than non-family firms as they rely on a higher number of external partners given their strong social and marketing capital (Llach and Nordqvist, 2010).…”