How Do Different Motives for R&D Cooperation Affect Firm Performance? An Analysis Based on Swiss Micro Data

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractStarting point of our analysis is the empirical fact that firms pursue different goals when getting engaged in R&D collaborations, often more than one goal at the same time. Given that firms are driven by different motives for R&D cooperation, the aim of this article is to investigate the differences related to different motives with respect (a) to the factors influencing the likelihood of R&D cooperation as postulated by theory; and (b) to the impact of R&D cooperation on firm innovativeness and firm productivity. On the whole, distinguishing various cooperation motives appears to be fruitful because it allows more differentiated insights with respect to the importance of factors determining cooperation that would remain hidden behind the overall variable "R&D cooperation yes/no". Not only R&D cooperation in general but also cooperation driven by each of the seven motives considered in this paper correlate positively with the sales share of innovative products. With respect to innovativeness the characterization of cooperation by the driving motive did not add much more insights that it could be gained through the overall variable 'R&D cooperation yes/no'.Technology-motivated collaborative activities show a weaker tendency to positive direct effects on productivity than cost-motivated cooperation. In this case, the distinction of several cooperation motives yields some additional insights as compared to the overall cooperation variable.3

How does open innovation enhance productivity? An exploration in the construction ecosystem

“…This research contributes to the OI literature through a CM that shows the direct and indirect effect of OI on productivity, enabling sensemaking on the topic. This is a compelling contribution since previous studies mainly focused on the single impact of specific OI forms on various measures for productivity (e.g., Arvanitis, 2012;Belderbos et al, 2006;de Leeuw et al, 2014;Mention and Asikainen, 2012), whereas the complexity of the OI-related factors impacting on productivity had not been elaborated before. In addition to the direct effect, the CM considers the positive effect of product and process innovation performance on productivity, since both new technologies and new work organisation can be pivotal to enhance productivity (Fernández Gual and Segarra-Blasco, 2013;Lööf and Heshmati, 2002;Mention and Asikainen, 2012).…”

“…In turn, innovation performance is a typical outcome stemming from OI activities (e.g., Lopes and de Carvalho, 2018), hence describing a first important indirect link from OI to productivity. OI also has a second-level indirect positive effect on productivity through innovation performance, since it reduces the R&D risks and costs that may hinder innovation (Arvanitis, 2012). Possible second-level negative effects of OI on productivity also involve innovation performance, since OI may favour opportunistic behaviour (de Leeuw et al, 2014) knowledge leakage (Coras and Tantau, 2014), and increase transaction costs (Zhao et al, 2016), which can hamper the development of innovations (Arvanitis, 2012;Kang and Kang, 2009).…”

“…OI also has a second-level indirect positive effect on productivity through innovation performance, since it reduces the R&D risks and costs that may hinder innovation (Arvanitis, 2012). Possible second-level negative effects of OI on productivity also involve innovation performance, since OI may favour opportunistic behaviour (de Leeuw et al, 2014) knowledge leakage (Coras and Tantau, 2014), and increase transaction costs (Zhao et al, 2016), which can hamper the development of innovations (Arvanitis, 2012;Kang and Kang, 2009). A key role to soften these negative side-effects is played by trust and formal agreements (Kale and Singh, 2009;Slowinski et al, 2006).…”

“…Regarding the direct positive effect, Arvanitis (2012) observed that engaging in at least one R&D collaboration positively affects the value-added per employee. Other studies found that horizontal collaboration (i.e.…”

“…Some negative moderators, i.e., factors that can reduce the positive effect of OI on productivity, need to be acknowledged. Even though OI allows to share R&D risks and costs with partners (Arvanitis, 2012;Miotti and Sachwald, 2003), it also increases the chances of opportunistic behaviours (Dahlander and Gann, 2010;Zhao et al, 2016), especially when the collaboration is between competitors (Park and Russo, 1996) or when many different partners are involved (de Leeuw et al, 2014). A partner could subtract technologies, knowledge or information that another firm does not want to disclose.…”