Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific linkage and technological innovation capabilities: international comparisons of patenting in the solar energy industry

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

From the perspective of science-based innovation, this study introduces measures of both scientific linkage (technology-science correlation index) and technological innovation capabilities (relative growth rate, relative patent position and revealed technological advantage) to compare and analyze the international competitiveness of solar energy technologies among the United States, the European Union, Japan, China and South Korea, based on the solar energy technologies-related patents in the European Patent Office Worldwide Patent Statistical Database. After making international comparisons of their technological development and innovation paradigm, we find that there are different innovation characteristics of various technology fields within the solar energy industry and then propose some relevant policy recommendations for latecomers to implement catch-up strategies. The results show that the leading countries and regions of the solar energy industry such as the United States and the European Union focus mainly on science-based innovation, while Japan and latecomers like China and South Korea pay more attention on technology-based innovation. In addition, those two fields within the solar energy industry present opposite innovation characteristics: solar photovoltaic technologies, especially thin film and organic cells, present strong technological innovation capabilities with high scientific linkage, while solar thermal technologies show strong technological innovation capabilities with low scientific linkage.

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

Source EPO and compiled by the authors

Fig. 2

Source EPO and compiled by the authors

Fig. 3

Source EPO and compiled by the authors

Fig. 4

Source EPO and compiled by the authors

Fig. 5

Source EPO and compiled by the authors

Fig. 6

Source EPO and compiled by the authors

Fig. 7

Source EPO and compiled by the authors

Fig. 8

Source EPO and compiled by the authors

Fig. 9

Source EPO and compiled by the authors

Fig. 10

Source EPO and compiled by the authors

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Brockhoff (1992) first introduced the concept of technology portfolios and used patent data to evaluate them. Thereafter, researchers such as Chen (2011), Schmoch (1995), Ernst (1995) and NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) scholars then followed and demonstrated the viability of various indicators. Even though their targets are different, it is widely recognized that technology portfolios measured by patent data contain useful information to estimate a nation’s technological innovation capacity [e.g. Hu (2012); Wu and Mathews (2012)].

  2. The IPC is a hierarchical classification system. The contents of lower hierarchical levels are subdivisions of the contents of the higher hierarchical levels to which the lower levels are subordinated. The Classification separates the whole body of technical knowledge using the hierarchical levels, i.e., section, class, subclass, group and subgroup, in descending order of hierarchy.

  3. Solar energy technologies can be broadly classified along the following continuum: (1) photovoltaics (PV); (2) solar thermal (Timilsina et al. 2012). The PV technology converts radiant energy contained in light quanta into electrical energy when light falls upon a semiconductor material, causing electron excitation and strongly enhancing conductivity (Sorensen 2000). Solar thermal technology uses solar heat, which can be used directly for either thermal or heating application or electricity generation.

  4. Thin film technologies made out of a range of different semi-conductor materials, including amorphous silicon, cadmium–telluride and copper indium gallium diselenide. While thin film technologies are less efficient than silicon based cells, they are cheaper and more versatile than crystalline silicon based counterparts (Timilsina et al. 2012).

  5. Organic compound solar cells are made by organic material, and dye-sensitized technology has emerged recently as a special type of organic compound solar cell (Motohashi and Tomozawa 2014).

References

  • Achilladelis, B. (1993). The dynamics of technological innovation: the sector of antibacterial medicines. Research Policy, 22(4), 279–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achilladelis, B., Schwarzkopf, A., & Cines, M. (1990). The dynamics of technological innovation: the case of the chemical industry. Research Policy, 19(1), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, B. (1999). The hunt for S-shaped growth paths in technological innovation: a patent study. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9(4), 487–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balassa, B. (1965). Trade liberalization and “revealed” comparative advantage 1. Manchester School, 33(2), 99–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birol, F. (2013). World energy outlook 2013. International Energy Agency, 2010(1), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhme, Gernot, Van Den Daele, Wolfgang, & Krohn, Wolfgang. (1978). The ‘scientification’ of technology. Springer: The Dynamics of Science and Technology.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brockhoff, K. (1992). Instruments for patent data analyses in business firms. Technovation, 12(92), 41–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockhoff, K., Chakrabarti, A. K., & Hauschildt, J. (1999). The dynamics of innovation: strategic and managerial implications. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S., Criscuolo, P., & Geuna, A. (2005). The knowledge bases of the world’s largest pharmaceutical groups: what do patent citations to non-patent literature reveal? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14(5), 395–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinal, L. B., Alessandri, T. M., & Turner, S. F. (2001). Knowledge codifiability, resources, and science-based innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. S. (2011). Using patent analysis to explore corporate growth. Scientometrics, 88(2), 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., Cohen, W. M., & Nelson, R. R. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). Social Science Electronic Publishing.

  • Collins, P., & Wyatt, S. (1988). Citations in patents to the basic research literature. Research Policy, 17(2), 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, H. (1995). Patenting strategies in the German mechanical engineering industry and their relationship to company performance. Technovation, 15(4), 225–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, H. (1998). Patent portfolios for strategic R&D planning. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(4), 279–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (1997). The economics of industrial innovation (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press Books 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frietsch, R., & Schmoch, U. (2010). Transnational patents and international markets. Scientometrics, 82(1), 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella, A. (1995). Science and innovation: the US pharmaceutical industry during the 1980s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing, V., Bekkers, R., Freitas, I. M. B., & Steen, M. V. D. (2011). Differences in technology transfer between science-based and development-based industries: transfer mechanisms and barriers. Technovation, 31(12), 638–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Meyer, M. (2003). Patents cited in the scientific literature: an exploratory study of ‘reverse’ citation relations. Scientometrics, 58(2), 415–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 13(2), 1360–1380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grupp, H. (1994). The measurement of technical performance of innovations by technometrics and its impact on established technology indicators. Research Policy, 23(2), 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hara, K., Sato, T., Katoh, R., Furube, A., Ohga, Y., Shinpo, A., et al. (2003). Molecular design of coumarin dyes for efficient dye-sensitized solar cells. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 107(2), 597–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, S. U., Haddawy, P., & Zhu, J. (2014). A bibliometric study of the world’s research activity in sustainable development and its sub-areas using scientific literature. Scientometrics, 99(2), 549–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haupt, R., Kloyer, M., & Lange, M. (2007). Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development. Research Policy, 36(3), 387–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppmann, J., Peters, M., Schneider, M., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2013). The two faces of market support—how deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation in the solar photovoltaic industry. Research Policy, 42(4), 989–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, M. C. (2012). Technological innovation capabilities in the thin film transistor-liquid crystal display industries of Japan. Korea and Taiwan. Research Policy, 41(3), 541–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, M. C., & Mathews, J. A. (2008). China’s national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 37(9), 1465–1479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, S. L., Chen, L. J., Chen, J. H., & Chiu, Y. C. (2013). Innovation and production in the global solar photovoltaic industry. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1021–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerome, L. W. (2013). Innovation in social networks: knowledge spillover is not enough. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(4), 422–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D. J., & Kogut, B. (1996). Technological platforms and diversification. Organizationence, 7(3), 283–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luan, C., Liu, Z., & Wang, X. (2013). Divergence and convergence: technology-relatedness evolution in solar energy industry. Scientometrics, 97(2), 461–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2006). Measuring science-technology interaction in the knowledge-driven economy: the case of a small economy. Scientometrics, 66(2), 425–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel, J., & Bettels, B. (2001). Patent citation analysis. A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports. Scientometrics, 51(1), 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motohashi, K., & Tomozawa, T. (2014). Differences in science based innovation by technology life cycles: the case of solar cell technology. RIETI Discussion Paper Series 14-E-005.

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • No, H. J., An, Y., & Park, Y. (2015). A structured approach to explore knowledge flows through technology-based business methods by integrating patent citation analysis and text mining. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 97, 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1997). The technological competencies of the world’s largest firms: complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Research Policy, 26(2), 141–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K., & Patel, P. (1988). The international distribution and determinants of technological activities. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 4(4), 35–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch, U. (1993). Tracing the knowledge transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators. Scientometrics, 26(1), 193–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch, U. (1995). Evaluation of technological strategies of companies by means of mds maps. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(4–6), 426–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch, U., & Schnöring, T. (1994). Technological strategies of telecommunications equipment manufacturers: a patent analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 18(5), 397–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shibata, N., Kajikawa, Y., & Sakata, I. (2010). Extracting the commercialization gap between science and technology—case study of a solar cell. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(7), 1147–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soete, L. (1987). The impact of technological innovation on international trade patterns: the evidence recorded. Research Policy, 16(2), 101–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, B. (2000). Renewable Energy: its physics, engineering, use, environmental impacts economy and planning aspects (2nd ed.). Sand Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timilsina, G. R., Kurdgelashvili, L., & Narbel, P. A. (2012). Solar energy: markets, economics and policies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 449–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomozawa, T. (2013). “Study on the effects of university-industry collaboration at the different stages of the solar cell technology lifecycle,” Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, July 2013.

  • Weiss, W., Bergmann, I., & Stelzer, R. (2009). Solar Heat Worldwide, Markets and contribution to the energy supply 2007. IEA Solar Heating and Cooling Programme.

  • Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Chan, C. K. (2007). Internationalization and evolution of application areas of an emerging technology: the case of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(3), 715–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. Y. (2014). Comparisons of technological innovation capabilities in the solar photovoltaic industries of Taiwan. China and Korea. Scientometrics, 98(1), 429–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. Y., & Mathews, J. A. (2012). Knowledge flows in the solar photovoltaic industry: insights from patenting by Taiwan. Korea and China. Research Policy, 41(3), 524–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WIPO (2014). World Intellectual Property Indicators, 2014 edition. World Intellectual Property Organization, Economics & Statistics.

  • Zhang, Q. Z., Duan, Y. Q., & Lei, J. S. (2015). Science-based innovation: The commercialization of Nobel prizes. Studies in Science of Science, 33(12), 1770–1778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang P., & Lei J. S. (2015). Science—based innovation and industries: Related concepts and typical industries identification. Studies in Science of Science, 33(9), 1313–1356.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Yan, Y., & Guan, J. (2015b). Scientific relatedness in solar energy: a comparative study between the USA and China. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1595–1613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant # 71473086, 71233003) and Key Projects of Philosophy and Social Sciences Research, Ministry of education (Grant # 12JZD042). The authors are very grateful for the valuable comments and suggestions from the Reviewers and Editors of the journal, which significantly improved the quality and readability of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Department of Technology Economics and Management, School of Business Administration, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China

    Xia Fan, Wenjie Liu & Guilong Zhu

Authors
  1. Xia Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wenjie Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guilong Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenjie Liu.

Appendix: Definitions for the solar energy technology related IPCs

Appendix: Definitions for the solar energy technology related IPCs

Energy-related technology

International patent classification (IPC) symbols

Solar energy technology

F24 J 2/00, F24 J 2/02, F24 J 2/04, F24 J 2/05, F24 J 2/06, F24 J 2/07, F24 J 2/08, F24 J 2/10, F24 J 2/12, F24 J 2/13, F24 J 2/14, F24 J 2/15, F24 J 2/16, F24 J 2/18, F24 J 2/23, F24 J 2/24, F24 J 2/36, F24 J 2/38, F24 J 2/42, F24 J 2/46, F03G 6/06, G02B 5/10, H01L 31/052, E04D 13/18, H01L 31/04, H01L 31/042, H01L 31/18, E04D 1/30, G02F 1/136, G05F 1/67, H01L 25/00, H01L 31/00, H01L 31/048, H01L 33/00, H02 J 7/35, H02 N 6/00

  1. Source WIPO. For definitions of IPC symbols, see www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fan, X., Liu, W. & Zhu, G. Scientific linkage and technological innovation capabilities: international comparisons of patenting in the solar energy industry. Scientometrics 111, 117–138 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2274-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2274-5

Keyword

Search

Navigation