Advertisement

Empirical Economics

, Volume 56, Issue 5, pp 1707–1727 | Cite as

Does innovative effort matter for corporate performance in Spanish companies in a context of financial crisis? A fuzzy-set QCA approach

  • Carmen González-VelascoEmail author
  • Marcos González-Fernández
  • José-Luis Fanjul-Suárez
Article
  • 100 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine whether innovative effort is a key driver of the financial performance of a set of 3860 Spanish companies in a context of financial crisis. For this purpose, we use contrarian case analysis and configural analysis using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to test the main tenets of complexity theory: (1) innovative effort, as a single antecedent condition, is not a sufficient or necessary factor of a high score in corporate performance; (2) a few possible configurations lead to high corporate performance (equifinality principle); (3) contrarian cases occur; and (4) causal configurations for high scores for corporate performance are not the mirror opposites of causal configurations for low scores for corporate performance (causal asymmetry principle). The findings suggest that innovative effort, as a single antecedent condition, is not a sufficient or necessary factor for a high score in corporate performance.

Keywords

Innovation Corporate performance fsQCA Contrarian case analysis Configural analysis Complexity theory 

JEL Classification

L25 O31 G39 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to show their gratitude for the suggestions and comments received from Arch G. Woodside.

References

  1. Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB (1988) Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis. Am Econ Rev 78(4):678–690Google Scholar
  2. Amit R, Schoemaker PJH (1993) Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strateg Manag J 14(1):33–46Google Scholar
  3. Artz KW, Norman PM, Hatfield DE, Cardinal LB (2010) A longitudinal study of the impact of R&D, patents, and product innovation on firm performance. J Prod Innov Manage 27(5):725–740Google Scholar
  4. Atalay M, Anafarta N, Sarvan F (2013) The relationship between innovation and firm performance: empirical evidence from Turkish automotive supplier industry. Proc Soc Behav Sci 75(3):226–235Google Scholar
  5. Baer M, Frese M (2003) Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. J Organ Behav 24(1):45–68Google Scholar
  6. Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manage 17(1):99–120Google Scholar
  7. Bell GG (2005) Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness. Strateg Manag J 26(3):287–295Google Scholar
  8. Bogliacino F, Pianta M (2013) Profits, R&D, and innovation–a model and a test. Ind Corp Change 22(3):649–678Google Scholar
  9. Chen C, Huang Y (2010) Creative workforce density, organizational slack, and innovation performance. J Bus Res 63(4):411–417Google Scholar
  10. Christensen CM, Bower JL (1996) Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strateg Manag J 17(3):197–218Google Scholar
  11. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  12. Damanpour F, Szabat KA, Evan WM (1989) The relationship between types of innovation and organizational performance. J Manage Stud 26(6):587–602Google Scholar
  13. De Villiers R, Woodside AG, Marshall R (2015) Making tough decisions competently: assessing the value of product portfolio planning methods, devil’s advocacy, group discussion, weighting priorities, and evidenced-based information. J Bus Res. Retrieved from 2016:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.054. Accessed 20 Jan
  14. Díaz-Díaz NL, Aguiar-Díaz I, De Saá-Pérez P (2008) The effect of technological knowledge assets on performance: the innovative choice in Spanish firms. Res Policy 37(9):1515–1529Google Scholar
  15. Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strateg Manag J 21(10–11):1105–1121Google Scholar
  16. Elci S, Karatayli I (2009) Analysis of policy mixes to foster R&D investment and to contribute to the ERA. In: ERAWATCH Country Report 2009 (EUR 23976 EN/30- 2009). European Commission Joint Research Centre - Institute for Prospective Technological StudiesGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferguson G, Megehee CM, Woodside AG (2015) How recipes of national cultural values, wealth, economic inequality and religiosity explain consumer tipping behavior. In: 2015 Academy of marketing science (AMS) annual conferenceGoogle Scholar
  18. Geroski P, Machin S, Reenen JV (1993) The profitability of innovating firms. Rand J Econ 24(2):198–211Google Scholar
  19. Gigerenzer G (1991) From tools to theories: a heuristic of discovery in cognitive psychology. Psychol Rev 98(2):254–267Google Scholar
  20. Gigerenzer G, Brighton H (2009) Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Top Cognit Sci 1(4):107–143Google Scholar
  21. Goto A, Suzuki K (1998) R&D capital, rate of return on R&D investment and spillover of R&D in Japanese manufacturing industries. Rev Econ Stat 71(3):731–753Google Scholar
  22. Greckhamer T, Misangyi VF, Elms H, Lacey R (2008) Using QCA in strategic management research: an examination of combinations of industry, corporate, and business unit effects. Organ Res Methods 11(4):695–726Google Scholar
  23. Griliches Z (1986) Productivity, R and D, and basic research at the firm level in the 1970’s. Am Econ Rev 76(1):141–154Google Scholar
  24. Grupp H (1998) Foundations of the economics of innovation: theory, measurement and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  25. Gunday G, Ulusoy G, Kilic K, Alpkan L (2011) Effects of innovation types on firm performance. Int J Prod Econ 133(2):662–676Google Scholar
  26. Guo R, Lev B, Zhou N (2005) The valuation of biotech IPOs. J Account Audit Financ 20(4):423–459Google Scholar
  27. Hagel J, Brown J, Davison L (2010) The best way to measure corporate performance. Harvard Business Review, March 04. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/03/the-best-way-to-measure-compan.html. Accessed 20 June 2015Google Scholar
  28. Han JK, Kim N, Srivastaka RK (1998) Market orientation and organizational performance: Is innovation a missing link? J Marketing 62(4):30–45Google Scholar
  29. Hashi I, Stojčić N (2013) The impact of innovation activities on firm performance using a multi-stage model: evidence from the community innovation survey 4. Res Policy 42(2):353–366Google Scholar
  30. Heunks FJ (1998) Innovation, creativity and success. Small Bus Econ 10(3):263–272Google Scholar
  31. Hill CWL, Rothaermel FT (2003) The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Acad Manag Rev 28(2):257–274Google Scholar
  32. Hult GTM, Ketchen DJ (2001) Does market orientation matter? A test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance. Strateg Manag J 22(9):899–906Google Scholar
  33. Jiménez-Jiménez D, Sanz-Valle R (2011) Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. J Bus Res 64(4):408–417Google Scholar
  34. Kemp RGM, Folkeringa M, de Jong JPJ, Wubben EFM (2003) Innovation and firm performance. Scales Research Report (H200207)Google Scholar
  35. Kim WC, Maubourgne R (2005) Blue ocean strategy. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  36. Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Hart Schaffner & Marx, BostonGoogle Scholar
  37. Ko KKB, To CKM, Zhang ZM, Ngai EWT, Chan TLK (2011) Analytic collaboration in virtual innovation projects. J Bus Res 64(12):1327–1334Google Scholar
  38. Legewie N (2013) An introduction to applied data analysis with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) Forum: Qualitative Social Research 14(3), Art. 15, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  39. Li H, Atuahene-Gima K (2001) Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Acad Manag J 44(6):1123–1134Google Scholar
  40. Liao T, Rice J (2010) Innovation investments, market engagement and financial performance: a study among Australian manufacturing SMEs. Res Policy 39(1):117–125Google Scholar
  41. Lichtenberg FR, Siegel D (1991) The impact of R&D investment on productivity. New evidence using linked R&D-LRD data. Econ Inq 29(2):203–229Google Scholar
  42. Lieberman MB, Montgomery DB (1988) First-mover advantages. Strateg Manag J 9:41–58Google Scholar
  43. Longest K, Vaisey S (2008) Fuzzy: a program for performing qualitative comparative analyses (QCA) in STATA. STATA J 8(1):79–104Google Scholar
  44. Lööf H, Heshmati A, Saplund R, Naas S (2001) Innovation and performance in manufacturing industries: a comparison of Nordic countries. In: SSE/EFI working paper series in economics and finance 457. S-WoPEc scandinavian working papers in economics. Stockholm School of Economics: Economic Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  45. McClelland DC (1998) Identifying competences with behavioral-event interviews. Physchol Sci 9(5):331–339Google Scholar
  46. Nooteboom B (1994) Innovation and diffusion in small firms: theory and evidence. Small Bus Econ 6(5):327–347Google Scholar
  47. OECD/Eurostat (2005) Oslo manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data, 3rd edn. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  48. Okwiet B, Grabara JK (2013) Innovations’ influence on SME’s enterprises activities. Proc Econ Finan 6:194–204Google Scholar
  49. Ordanini A, Parasuraman A, Rubera G (2014) When the recipe is more important than the ingredients: a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of service innovation configurations. J Serv Res 17(2):134–149Google Scholar
  50. Pantea M, Gligor D, Anis C (2014) Economic determinants of Romanian firms’ financial performance. Proc Soc Behav Sci 124(20):272–281Google Scholar
  51. Pelham AM (1997) Mediating influences on the relationship between market orientation and profitability in small industrial firms. J Mark Theory Pract 5(3):55–76Google Scholar
  52. Piscitello L (2004) Corporate diversification, coherence and economic performance’. Ind Corp Change 13(5):757–787Google Scholar
  53. Ragin C (2000) Fuzzy-set social science. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  54. Raposo ML, Ferreira JJM, Fernandes CI (2014) Local and cross-border SME cooperation: effects on innovation and performance. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa 23(4):157–165Google Scholar
  55. Rosenbuch N, Brinckmann J, Bausch A (2011) Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. J Bus Ventur 26(4):441–457Google Scholar
  56. Rubera G, Kirca A (2012) Firm innovativeness and its performance outcomes: a meta analytic review and theoretical integration. J Mark 76(3):130–147Google Scholar
  57. Santos DFL, Basso LFC, Kimura H, Kayo EK (2014) Innovation efforts and performances of Brazilian firms. J Bus Res 67(4):527–535Google Scholar
  58. Schneider CQ, Wagemann C (2010) Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy sets. Comp Sociol 9(3):397–418Google Scholar
  59. Schumpeter A (1934) The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  60. Sharma A, Lacey N (2004) Linking product development outcomes to market valuation of the firm: the case of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. J Prod Innov Manage 21(5):297–308Google Scholar
  61. Sok P, O’Cass A, Sok KM (2013) Achieving superior SME performance: overarching role of marketing, innovation, and learning capabilities. Australas Mark J (AMJ) 21(3):161–167Google Scholar
  62. Subramanian A, Nilakanta S (1996) Organizational innovativeness: exploring the relationship between organizational determinants of innovation, types of innovations, and measures of organizational performance. Omega 24(6):631–647Google Scholar
  63. Subramaniam M, Youndt MA (2005) The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Acad Manag J 48(3):450–463Google Scholar
  64. Therrien P, Doloreux D, Chamberlin T (2011) Innovation novelty and (commercial) performance in the service sector: a Canadian firm-level analysis. Technovation 31(12):655–665Google Scholar
  65. Tseng K, Lan Y, Lu H, Chen P (2013) Mediation of strategy on intellectual capital and performance. Manag Decis 51(7):1488–1509Google Scholar
  66. Van dV (1986) Central problems in the management of innovation. Manage Sci 32(5):590–607Google Scholar
  67. Venkatraman N, Ramanujam V (1986) Measurement of business performance on strategy research: a comparison of approach. Acad Manag Rev 11(4):801–814Google Scholar
  68. Wakelin K (1998) Innovation and export behaviour at the firm level. Res Policy 26(7–8):829–841Google Scholar
  69. Walker RM (2004) Innovation and organizational performance: evidence and a research agenda. In: Advanced Institute of Management Research working paper (002)Google Scholar
  70. Woodside AG (2013) Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. J Bus Res 66(4):463–472Google Scholar
  71. Woodside AG (2014) Embrace complexity theory, perform contrarian case analysis, and model multiple realities. J Bus Res 67(12):2495–2503Google Scholar
  72. Wu P, Yeh S, Tzung-Cheng H, Woodside AG (2014) Applying complexity theory to deepen service dominant logic: configural analysis of customer experience-and-outcome assessments of professional services for personal transformations. J Bus Res 67(8):1647–1670Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carmen González-Velasco
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marcos González-Fernández
    • 1
  • José-Luis Fanjul-Suárez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business Economics and Management, Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity of LeónLeónSpain

Personalised recommendations