Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate Innovation and Competitive Environment

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

Abstract

Empirical studies have shown that the characteristics of the competitive environment influence the corporate innovation activities of U.S. firms. This study attempts to internationalize these studies in two ways. First, it examines the environment-corporate innovation relationship in Norwegian manufacturing firms. Second, it examines how the firms’ corporate innovation activities are influenced by their international activities. Results indicate that environment and internationalization are positively related to corporate innovation, but models developed using U.S. firms may not be generalizable to firms from other countries.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antoncic, B. & Hisrich, R.D. 2001. Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16: 495–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyacigiller, N.A. & Adler, N.J. 1991. The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context. Academy of Management Review, 16: 262–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, B., Dess, G. & Rasheed, A. 1993. Divergence between archival and perceptual measures of the environment: Causes and consequences. Academy of Management Review, 18: 204–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P.J. & Casson, M. 1976. The future of the multinational enterprise. New York: Holmes & Meier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R.A. & Sayles, L.R. 1986. Inside corporate innovation: Strategy, structure, and managerial skills. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J.E. 1988. Theories of technological innovation as useful tools for corporate strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W.M., Levin, R. & Mowery, D. 1987. Firm size and R&D intensity: A reexamination. Journal of Industrial Economies, 35: 543–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. 1989. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 75–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. 1991. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16(1): 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. 1987. The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovation: Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13: 675–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. 1991 Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 555–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G.G. & Beard, D. W. 1984. Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 52–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. & Ginsberg, A. 1990. Shifting gears: Enabling and disabling forces on change in corporate aggressiveness. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, R. & Calantone, R. 2002. A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2): 110–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giamartino, G., McDougall, P. & Bird, B. 1993. International entrepreneurship: The state of the art. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 18(1): 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glickman, N.J. & Woodward, D.P. 1989. The new competitors: How foreign investors are changing the U.S. economy. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guth, W. & Ginsberg, A. 1990. Guest editor’s introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11(Special Issue): 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. 1980. Theories of organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson, H. & Johanson, J. 2001. Business network learning. Amsterdam: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haskins, R. & Petit, T. 1988. Strategies for entrepreneurial manufacturing. Journal of Business Strategy, 9: 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hisrich, R. 1988. The entrepreneur in Northern Ireland: Characteristics, problems, and recommendations for the future. Journal of Small Business Management, 26(1): 32–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. Hoskisson, R. & Ireland, R. 1994. A mid-range theory of the interactive effects of international and product diversification on innovation and performance. Journal of Management, 20: 297–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 1983. National cultures in four dimensions. International Studies of Management and Organization, 13: 46–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J. & Vahlne, J. E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm—A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitment. Journal of International Business Studies, 4: 20–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamm, J. 1986. The portfolio approach to divisional innovation strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, 7(1): 25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keats, B. & Hitt, M. 1988. A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 570–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, K.E. 1967. A descriptive model of the intra-firm innovation process. Journal of Business, 40: 478–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobrin, S. 1991. An empirical analysis of the determinants of global integration. Strategic Management Journal, 12(Special issue): 17–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M. 1990. Corporate product policy and innovative behavior of European and Japanese multinationals: An empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 54 (2): 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M. 1992. Global sourcing strategy: R&D, manufacturing, and marketing interfaces. New York: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreiser, P.M., Marino, L.D. & Weaver, K.M. 2002. Reassessing the environment-EO link: The impact of environmental hostility on the dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation. Academy of Management Proceedings, G1–G6.

  • Lengnick-Hall, C. 1992. Innovation and competitive advantage: What we know and what we need to learn. Journal of Management, 18(2): 399–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A.L. 1988. Acquisitions as sources of technological innovation. Mergers & Acquisitions, Nov.-Dec: 36–39

  • Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G.G. 2001. Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16: 429–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. 1988. The speed and cost of industrial innovation in Japan and the United States: External vs. internal technology. Management Science, 34: 1157–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manu, F.A. 1992. Innovation orientation, environment and performance: A comparison of U.S. and European markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 23: 333–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. 1983. Correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms, Management Science, 29: 770–991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. 1987. The structural and environmental correlates of business strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 8: 55–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., Droge, C. & Toulouse, J.M. 1988. Strategic processes and content as mediators between organizational context and structure, Academy of Management Journal, 31: 544–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. & Friesen, P. 1982. Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3: 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. & Friesen, P. 1984. Organizations: A quatum view. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. Davis, D. & Allen, J. 1994. Fostering corporate entrepreneurship: Cross cultural comparisons of the importance of individualism versus collectivism. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1): 65–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, S.L. & Thomas, A.S. 2000. Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16: 51-75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okonomisk Litteratur. 1992. The largest firms of Norway. Oslo: Okonomisk Litteratur Norge AS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E.T. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. & Berger, D. 1971. Entrepreneurship in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G.R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A Resource-Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. 1990. The R&D boundaries of the firm: An empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1): 153–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. 1980. Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. 1985. Competitive advantage. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review, 68 (March/April): 73–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C.K. & Hamel, G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review, 68(3): 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscraft, D. & Scherer, F. 1982. The lag structure of returns to research and development. Applied Economics, 14: 603–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, D. 1990. A dynamic perspective on the impact of process innovation upon competitive strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 25–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J.A. 1934. The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge: MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. 1994. Cultural values and the championing process. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 18(4): 25–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slevin, D.P. & Covin, J.G. 1994. Entrepreneurship as firm behavior: A research model. In J.A. Katz & R.H. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in firm emergence, growth and entrepreneurship: Volume 2. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.

  • Stetz, P.E., Howell, R., Stewart, A., Blair, J.D. & Fottler, M.D. 2000. Multi-dimensionality of entrepreneurial firm-level processes: Do the dimensions covary? Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2000, Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

  • Tiessen, T.H. 1997. Individualism, collectivism and entrepreneurship: A framework for international comparative research. Journal of Business Venturing, 12: 367–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., MacMillan, I. & Low, M. 1991. Effects of strategy and environment on corporate venture success in industrial markets. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(1): 259–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utterbach, J.M. 1996. Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utterbach, J. & Abernathy, W. 1975. A dynamic model of product and process innovation. OMEGA, 3: 639–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. 1986. Central problems in the management of innovations. Management Science, 32: 590–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, R. 1966. International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80: 190–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, M. 1993. Methodology, research practice, and progress in personal ad industrial relations. Academy of Management, 8: 6–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J. 1999. The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(1): 37-48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. 1966. Innovation in organizations: Notes toward a theory. In J.D. Thompson (Ed.), Approaches to organizational design: 213–218. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

  • Zahra, S.A. 1991. Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6: 259–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S.A. 1993a. Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and company performance: A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8: 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S.A. 1993b. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: A critique and extension. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17(4): 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S.A. 1996. Governance, ownership and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating effect of industry technological opportunities, Academy of Management Review, 39: 1713–1735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S.A. & Covin, J. 1995. Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10: 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S.A. & Garvis, D.M. 2000. International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: The moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 469–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S.A., Jennings, D.F. & Kuratko, D.F. 1999. The antecedents and consequences of firm-level entrepreneurship: The state of the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2): 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S.A, Neubaum, D.O. & Huse, M. 1997. The effect of the environment on export performance among telecommunications new ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22: 25–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S.A, Neubaum, D.O. & Huse, M. 2000. Entrepreneurship in medium-size companies: Exploring the effects of ownership and governance systems. Journal of Management, 26: 947–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwegian School of Management, BI, Oslo, Norway

    Morten Huse & Jonas Gabrielsson

  2. Bocconi University, Milan, Italy

    Morten Huse

  3. Oregon State University, College of Business, USA

    Donald O. Neubaum

  4. CIRCLE, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Jonas Gabrielsson

  5. CIRCLE, Lund University, P.O. Box 117, S- 221 00, Lund, Sweden

    Jonas Gabrielsson

Authors
  1. Morten Huse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Donald O. Neubaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonas Gabrielsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonas Gabrielsson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Huse, M., Neubaum, D.O. & Gabrielsson, J. Corporate Innovation and Competitive Environment. Entrepreneurship Mgt. 1, 313–333 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-005-2596-2

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-005-2596-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation