Does a cluster promote innovation and productivity in its firms?<sup/>

Rocha, Rodrigo J. S.; Paula, Fábio O.; Silva, Jorge F.

doi:10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMR220103.en

home Sumário navigate_before Anterior Atual Seguinte navigate_next

home Sumário

Resources and Entrepreneurial Development • RAM, Rev. Adm. Mackenzie 23 (04) • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMR220103.en linkcopy

Does a cluster promote innovation and productivity in its firms?¹

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Objective: The fierce competition in a globalized market forces firms to adopt innovative strategies to obtain a competitive advantage over their competitors. However, innovating is a difficult task to accomplish in isolation. One way to mitigate this isolation is to separate organizations into sectoral clusters, facilitating the search for innovation and productivity. From this perspective, this research aims to compare the relationship between innovation performance (IP) and the productivity of Brazilian firms, considering whether they are inserted into clusters or not, and analyze their implemented internal and external research and development (R&D) strategies.

Originality/value: This article expands the literature’s understanding of open innovation, testing the complementary role of internal and external R&D for the implementation of innovation in firms using a relevant contextual condition: their presence or absence in a cluster. The study helps to enhance the understanding of several mechanisms by which the cluster helps to promote innovation and productivity.

Design/methodology/approach: To test the hypotheses, the study used multigroup structural equation modeling in a sample of 5,581 companies, with 1,878 cluster participants and 3,703 non-participants.

Findings: The results support a positive impact of both external and internal R&D on IP and support the notion that IP, regardless of whether or not the firm is part of a cluster, positively impacts its productivity. The external and internal R&D, in turn, proved to be complementary only for companies inside a cluster.

Keywords cluster; innovation performance; productivity; R&D; absorptive capacity

Construct	Proxy	Format	Year	Source
Moderation variable	Cluster	0 - no; 1 - yes.	2014	Rais 2019 (Ministério do Trabalho, 2020)
Internal R&D	PercSpenndR&D	R&D expenses/total revenues.	2014	Pintec 2014 (IBGE, 2019a)
	PercSpendTrain	Training expenses/total revenues.	2014	Pintec 2014 (IBGE, 2019a)
	PercEmpR&D	Employees in R&D/total employees.	2014	Pintec 2014 (IBGE, 2019a)
	EducR&D	(No. PhD ^* 3 + No. Msc ^* 2 + No. graduated) /total employees.	2014	Pintec 2014 (IBGE, 2019a)
Innovation performance (IP)	IProd	0 - no; 1 - yes.	2014	Pintec 2014 (IBGE, 2019a)
Innovation performance (IP)	InnovExt	0 - it did not introduce innovation; 1 - innovation to the firm; 2 - innovation to the country; 3 - innovation to the world.	2014	Pintec 2014 (IBGE, 2019a)
	InnovRad	0 - it did not introduce innovation; 1 - incremental innovation; 2 - radical innovaton.	2014	Pintec 2014 (IBGE, 2019a)
	PercRevInnov	Sales of new products/total sales.	2014	Pintec 2014 (IBGE, 2019a)
External R&D	Cli (importance)	0 - not used; 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high.	2014	Pintec 2014 (IBGE, 2019a)
	Supp (importance)	0 - not used; 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high.	2014	Pintec 2014 (IBGE, 2019a)
	Comp (importance)	0 - not used; 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high.	2014	Pintec 2014 (IBGE, 2019a)
	Consult (importance)	0 - not used; 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high.	2014	Pintec 2014 (IBGE, 2019a)
	Univ (importance)	0 - not used; 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high.	2014	Pintec 2014 (IBGE, 2019a)
Productivity	Productivity	Average of 2014, 2015, and 2016’s total revenues/total employees.	2014, 2015, and 2016	PIA 2014, 2015, and 2016 (IBGE, 2019b)

		Non-cluster (n = 3,703)		Cluster (n = 1,878)
Variable	Description	Average	Standard deviation (SD)	Average	SD
IProd	The firm introduced product innovation.	0.58	0.49	0.68	0.47
InnovExt	Innovation to the firm, to the market, or to the world.	0.80	0.81	1.02	0.89
InnovRad	Innovation is incremental or radical.	0.87	0.83	1.01	0.81
SpendR&D (BRL x 1,000)	Total R&D expenses.	1,213.52	9,269.98	5,968.24	66,238.18
SpendTrain (BRL x 1,000)	Total training expenses.	53.90	869.16	105.31	1,321.02
TotalEmpR&D	Total R&D employees.	5.35	25.53	19.51	136.02
PercEmpR&D	Percentage of employees working in R&D activities.	1.49%	4.77%	1.78%	4.45%
PercSpendR&D	Percentage of revenue invested in R&D.	0.79%	6.93%	1.09%	8.31%
PercSpendTrain	Percentage of revenue invested in training.	0.11%	0.66%	0.10%	1.03%
EducR&D	Level of education of employees in R&D.	0.23	0.41	0.34	0.48
PercRevInnov	Percentage of sales revenue generated by innovations.	17.29	27.77	21.50	30.62
Cli	How important the clients are for innovation activities.	0.43	1.00	0.61	1.15
Supp	How important the suppliers are for innovation activities.	0.50	1.06	0.67	1.17
Comp	How important the competitors are for innovation activities.	0.16	0.58	0.22	0.68
Consult	How important the consulting firms are for innovation activities.	0.23	0.70	0.33	0.81
Univ	How important the universities are for innovation activities.	0.23	0.72	0.35	0.87
SalesRev2014 (BRL x 1,000,000)	Sales revenue in 2014.	224	1,440.00	588.00	5,870.00
NumEmp2014	Number of employees at the end of 2014.	490.55	2,439.30	795.49	2,191.64
Productivity (BRL x 1,000,000)	2014 sales revenue/number of employees in 2014.	0.321	0.593	0.443	0.626

Non-cluster (n = 3,703)
Construct	Proxy	Std. R.W.	SE	p-value	AVE	CR
Innovation Performance	PercRevInnov	0.526			0.689	0.895
Innovation Performance	InnovRad	0.892	0.049	^***
Innovation Performance	InnovExt	0.834	0.046	^***
Innovation Performance	IProd	0.995	0.054	^***
External R&D - alliances	Cli	0.914	0.039	^***	0.570	0.837
External R&D - alliances	Supp	0.833	0.037	^***
External R&D - alliances	Comp	0.619	0.033	^***
External R&D - alliances	Univ	0.608
Cluster (n = 1,878)
Construct	Proxy	Std. R.W.	SE	p-value	AVE	CR
Innovation Performance	PercRevInnov	0.485			0.655	0.878
Innovation Performance	InnovRad	0.875	0.074	^***
Innovation Performance	InnovExt	0.806	0.075	^***
Innovation Performance	IProd	0.985	0.079	^***
External R&D - alliances	Cli	0.900	0.050	^***	0.567	0.835
External R&D - alliances	Supp	0.847	0.047	^***
External R&D - alliances	Comp	0.604	0.044	^***
External R&D - alliances	Univ	0.614

	Non-cluster (n = 3,703)		Cluster (n = 1,878)
Relationship	S. R. W.	p-value^*	S. R. W.	p-value^*
External R&D → IP	0.168	0.000	0.197	0.000
Internal R&D → IP	0.046	0.000	0.023	0.003
External R&D x internal R&D → IP	-0.038	0.000	0.012	0.024
IP → productivity	0.211	0.000	0.320	0.000

Non-cluster (n = 3,703)
Relationship	Low	High	Sig.	Hypotheses test
External R&D → IP	0.137	0.199	^**	H1: rejected
Internal R&D → IP	0.032	0.060	^**	H2: rejected
External R&D x internal R&D → IP	-0.050	-0.026	^**	H3: supported
IP → productivity	0.142	0.280	^**	H4: rejected
Cluster (n = 1,878)
Relationship	Low	High	Sig.
External R&D → IP	0.150	0.244	^**
Internal R&D → IP	0.007	0.039	^**
External R&D x internal R&D → IP	0.002	0.022	^**
IP → productivity	0.216	0.424	^**

vertical_align_top file_download show_chart

more_horizclose
- image
- translate
- link
- article
- vertical_align_top
- file_download
- show_chart
- image
- translate
- link
- article

location_on

Editora Mackenzie; Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie Rua da Consolação, 896, Edifício Rev. Modesto Carvalhosa, Térreo - Coordenação da RAM, Consolação - São Paulo - SP - Brasil - cep 01302-907 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista.adm@mackenzie.br

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Does a cluster promote innovation and productivity in its firms?1

Abstract

Does a cluster promote innovation and productivity in its firms?¹