Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Uncorking knowledge- purposeful spillovers as a strategic tool for capability enhancement in the cork industry

  • Published:
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is a growing body of research linking knowledge spillovers to strategic entrepreneurship in multiple contexts, yet the existence of purposeful spillovers has been largely ignored. This study analyses the value-accretive potential of knowledge spillover strategies, where a selected body of knowledge is purposefully and strategically disclosed to competitors. The cork industry provides the empirical context, with the many small firms possessing limited innovation capabilities in an industry under threat from rival alternative technologies. The successful fight-back against the onslaught on cork by synthetic and screwcap closures is led by the Portuguese company Corticeira Amorim, the world’s largest stopper manufacturer, whose knowhow then selectively spills-over to the rest of the industry. This multiple-case study involving 14 firms, unfolds in the context of two layers of underlying tensions. By exploring why and how knowledge selectively spillovers across filters from the industry leader to others, and knowledge revealing within small firms, the study contributes to extant literature by extending to the phenomenon of selected and purposeful spillover in the context of capability enhancement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acs, Z. J., & Plummer, L. A. (2005). Penetrating the “knowledge filter” in regional economies. The Annals of Regional Science, 39(3), 439–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2004). The missing link: The knowledge filter and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. (Working Paper)

  • Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 757–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., April, F., & Sarkar, M. (2004). Knowledge transfer through inheritance: spin-out generation, development and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 501–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2010). Knowledge spillovers and strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 271–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexy, O., George, G., & Salter, A. J. (2013). Cui bono? The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 270–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology new vistas for qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. J. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42(3), 422–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1242–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology. The American Economic Review, 641–652.

  • Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Aldridge, T. T., & Oettl, A. (2006). The knowledge filter and economic growth: the role of scientist entrepreneurship. Kauffman Foundation Large Research Projects Research.

  • Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 15–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blome, C., & Schoenherr, T. (2011). Supply chain risk management in financial crises—A multiple case-study approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 134(1), 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois III, L. J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1988). Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science, 34(7), 816–835.

  • Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2001). Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 975–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buser, H. R., Zanier, C., & Tanner, H. (1982). Identification of 2,4,6-trichloroanisole as a potent compound causing cork taint in wine. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 30, 359–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bygrave, W. D. (2007). The entrepreneurship paradigm (I) revisited. Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship, 17–48.

  • Cameron, Kim S., Myung U. Kim, & David A. Whetten. 1987. Organizational effects of decline and turbulence. Administrative Science Quarterly: 222–240.

  • Carlsson, B., & Friedh, A.-C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1–2), 199–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(4), 373–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggers, J. P., & Kaplan, S. (2013). Cognition and capabilities: a multi-level perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 295–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes, C., & Ferreira, J. (2013). Knowledge spillovers: cooperation between universities and KIBS. R&D in Management, 43(5), 461–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465–1474.

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative inquiry. Chicago: Aldin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Henkel, J., & Von Hippel, E. (2003). Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Research Policy, 32(10), 1753–1769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, J. (2006). Selective revealing in open innovation processes: the case of embedded Linux. Research Policy, 35(7), 953–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herron, L., & Robinson, R. B. (1993). A structural model of the effects of entrepreneurial characteristics on venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 281–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2003). The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 257–274.

  • Hindle, K. (2004). Choosing qualitative methods for entrepreneurial cognition research: a canonical development approach. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 28(6), 575–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Guest editor’s introduction to the special issue strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), 479–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firms’ patents, profits and market value. American Economic Review, 76(5), 984–999.

  • Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative science quarterly, 602–611.

  • Klepper, S. (2007). Disagreements, spinoffs, and the evolution of Detroit as the capital of the U.S. automobile industr. Management Science, 53(4), 616–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S., & Sleeper, S. (2005). Entry by spinoffs. Management Science, 51(8), 1291–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen, M. P. (2007). The relative importance of interfirm relationships and knowledge transfer for new product development success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(2), 117–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laborda, L., Guasch, J. L., & Sotelsek, D. (2011). Entrepreneurship capital and technical efficiency: the role of new business/firms as a conduit of knowledge spillovers. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, Vol.

  • Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management review, 24(4), 691–710.

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology, 319–340.

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2001). A sociological theory of communication: The self-organization of the knowledge-based society. Leiden: Universal Publishers.

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage.

  • Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. Sage.

  • Loebecke, C., Van Fenema, P. C., & Powell, P. (1999). Co-opetition and knowledge transfer. ACM SIGMIS Database, 30(2), 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 57–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F. (2006). Innovation, industrial dynamics and industry evolution: progress and the research agendas. Revue de l’OFCE, 5, 21–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continuously creating opportunity in an age of uncertainty. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, G. D., & Heppard, K. A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as strategy: Competing on the entrepreneurial edge. Sage Publications.

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. California, SAGE Publications Inc

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2003). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 147–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortensen, W., & Marks, B. (2003). An innovation in the wine closure industry: Screwcaps threaten the dominance of cork. Victoria University school of management working paper series. Wellington: Victoria University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. The American Economic Review, 72(1), 114–132.

  • Orton, J. D. (1997). From inductive to iterative grounded theory: zipping the gap between process theory and process data. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 419–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osiyevskyy, O., & Dewald, J. (2015). Explorative versus exploitative business model change: the cognitive antecedents of firm-level responses to disruptive innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1), 58–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson T. (2010) Wine enthusiast magazine, March 2010.

  • Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  • Rindfleisch, A., & Moorman, C. (2001). The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances: a strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 3–22.

  • Ruebottom, T. (2013). The microstructures of rhetorical strategy in social entrepreneurship: building legitimacy through heroes and villains. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 98–116.

  • Sarkar, S., & Costa, A. I. (2008). Dynamics of open innovation in the food industry. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(11), 574–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 20–24.

  • Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: what grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, G. M. (2007). To cork or not to cork: tradition, romance, science, and the battle for the wine bottle. New York: Simon and Schuster.

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2006). Reflections on “profiting from innovation. Research Policy, 35(8), 1131–1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Economist, June 3rd, 1999. Available online at http://www.economist.com/node/322406 (last accessed, 10th January, 2016)

  • Varga, A. (2000). Local academic knowledge spillovers and the concentration of economic activity. Journal of Regional Science, 40(2), 289–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werker, C., & Athreye, S. (2004). Marshall’s disciples: knowledge and innovation driving regional economic development and growth. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(5), 505–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. (2006). The logic of appropriability: from Schumpeter to Arrow to Teece. Research Policy, 35(8), 1100–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H., Phelps, C., & Steensma, H. K. (2010). Learning from what others have learned from you: the effects of knowledge spillovers on originating firms. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 371–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods, 4th. Thousand Oaks.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges financial support received from the Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT) of the Ministry of Higher Education and Science and FEDER/COMPETE (grant PEst-C/EGE/UI4007/2013).

The author gratefully acknowledges the logistical support received from APCOR. I am also particularly grateful to Joaquim Lima of APCOR for the time he spent with me in discussing the nuances of the industry and for the strong support he gave to this research.

The author also expresses his gratitude to two anonymous referees for their insightful suggestions on an earlier version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CEFAGE-UE, Évora, Portugal

    Soumodip Sarkar

  2. Department of Management, University of Évora, Palácio do Vimioso (Gab. 224), Largo Marquês de Marialva, 8, 7000-809, Évora, Portugal

    Soumodip Sarkar

  3. Associate, Asia Center, Harvard University, Cambridge, 02138, MA, USA

    Soumodip Sarkar

Authors
  1. Soumodip Sarkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soumodip Sarkar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sarkar, S. Uncorking knowledge- purposeful spillovers as a strategic tool for capability enhancement in the cork industry. Int Entrep Manag J 13, 251–275 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0395-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0395-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation