Examining the Impact of Innovation Forms on Sustainable Economic Performance: The Influence of Family Management
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Foundations and Hypotheses Development
2.1. Innovation Forms and Sustainable Economic Performance
2.1.1. Innovation Inputs
2.1.2. Innovation Outputs
2.2. The Influence of Family Involvement in Management
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Sample
3.2. Measurement Variables
3.2.1. Dependent Variable
3.2.2. Independent Variables
3.2.3. Moderating Variable
3.2.4. Control Variables
3.3. Analytical Method
4. Data Analysis and Results
5. Discussion
6. Challenging Issues and Future Research Orientations
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- López-Pérez, M.E.; Melero-Polo, I.; Vázquez-Carrasco, R.; Cambra-Fierro, J. Sustainability and business outcomes in the context of SMEs: Comparing family firms vs. non-family firms. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hahn, T.; Scheermesser, M. Approaches to corporate sustainability among German companies. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2006, 13, 150–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuhl, M.R.; da Cunha, J.C.; Maçaneiro, M.B.; da Cunha, S.K. Relationship between innovation and sustainable performance. Braz. Bus. Rev. 2016, 13, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Székely, F.; Knirsch, M. Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: Metrics for sustainable performance. Eur. Manag. J. 2005, 23, 628–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marhraoui, M.A.; Manouar, A. IT Innovation and Firm’s Sustainable Performance: The Intermediary Role of Organizational Agility—An Empirical Study. Int. J. Inf. Eng. Electron. Bus. 2018, 10, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uysal, F. An Integrated Model for Sustainable Performance Measurement in Supply Chain. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 62, 689–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gary, H.; Välikangas, L. The quest for resilience. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2003, 81, 52–63. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, N.; Vorley, T. Economic resilience and entrepreneurship: Lessons from the Sheffield City Region. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2014, 26, 257–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casillas, J.C.; Moreno, A.M.; Barbero, J.L. A Configurational Approach of the Relationship Between Entrepreneurial Orientation and Growth of Family Firms. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2010, 23, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Alonso, R.; Martínez-Romero, M.J.; Rojo-Ramírez, A.A. The impact of technological innovation efficiency on firm growth: the moderating role of family involvement in management. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiklund, J.; Shepherd, D. Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. J. Bus. Ventur. 2005, 20, 71–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asad, M. Impact of innovation practices on sustainable performance SMEs. Her. Namsca 2018, 3, 537–546. [Google Scholar]
- Gomes, C.M.; Kruglianskas, I.; Scherer, F.L. Innovation management for sustainable development practices in the internalization context. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2011, 6, 110–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blundell, R.; Griffith, R.; Van Reenen, J. Market share, market value and innovation in a panel of British manufacturing firms. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1999, 66, 529–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damanpour, F.; Szabat, K.A.; Evan, W.M. The relationship between types of innovation and organizational performance. J. Manag. Stud. 1989, 26, 587–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenbusch, N.; Brinckmann, J.; Bausch, A. Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. J. Bus. Ventur. 2011, 26, 441–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheah, S.; Ho, Y.P.; Li, S. Business model innovation for sustainable performance in retail and hospitality industries. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atalay, M.; Anafarta, N.; Sarvan, F. The Relationship between Innovation and Firm Performance: An Empirical Evidence from Turkish Automotive Supplier Industry. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 75, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Diéguez-Soto, J.; Manzaneque, M.; Rojo-Ramírez, A.A. Technological Innovation Inputs, Outputs and Performance: the Moderating Role of Family Involvement in Management. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2016, 29, 327–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Alonso, R.; Martínez-Romero, M.J.; Rojo-Ramírez, A.A. Technological innovation and Socioemotional wealth in family firm research: literature review and proposal of a conceptual framework. Manag. Res. J. Iberoam. Acad. Manag. 2018, 16, 270–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Ros, E.; Labeaga, J.M. Product and process innovation: Persistence and complementarities. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2009, 6, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, N.; Lee, J. R & D Intensity and Dividend Policy: Evidence from South Korea’s Biotech Firms. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coad, A.; Rao, R. Innovation and firm growth in high-tech sectors: A quantile regression approach. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 633–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eiriz, V.; Faria, A.; Barbosa, N. Firm growth and innovation: Towards a typology of innovation strategy. Innov. Manag. Policy Pract. 2013, 15, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crossan, M.M.; Apaydin, M. A Multi-Dimensional Framework of Organizational Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47, 1154–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tavassoli, S. The role of product innovation on export behavior of firms: Is it innovation input or innovation output that matters? Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2018, 21, 294–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchini, S.; Pellegrino, G.; Tamagni, F. Innovation complementarities and firm growth. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2018, 27, 657–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diéguez-Soto, J.; Martínez-Romero, M.J. Family Involvement in Management and Product Innovation: The Mediating Role of R&D Strategies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hervas-Oliver, J.L.; Sempere-Ripoll, F.; Boronat-Moll, C. Process innovation strategy in SMEs, organizational innovation and performance: A misleading debate? Small Bus. Econ. 2014, 43, 873–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ettlie, J.E. R&D and Global Manufacturing Performance. Manag. Sci. 1998, 44, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pantagakis, E.; Terzakis, D.; Arvanitis, S. R&D Investments and Firm Performance: An E.U. Ssrn 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Artz, K.W.; Norman, P.M.; Hatfield, D.E.; Cardinal, L.B. A longitudinal study of the impact of R&D, patents, and product innovation on firm performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2010, 27, 725–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diéguez-Soto, J.; Manzaneque, M.; González-García, V.; Galache-Laza, T. A study of the moderating influence of R&D intensity on the family management-firm performance relationship: Evidence from Spanish private manufacturing firms. Brq Bus. Res. Q. 2019, 22, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Oslo Manual. Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data; OECD: Paris, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Grimpe, C.; Kaiser, U. Balancing internal and external knowledge acquisition: The gains and pains from R & D outsourcing. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47, 1483–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, W.M.; Levinthal, D.A. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35, 128–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz-Cázares, C.; Bayona-Sáez, C.; García-Marco, T. R&D Strategies and firm innovative performance: A panel data analysis. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2010, 14, 1013–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griliches, Z. Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth. Bell J. Econ. 1979, 10, 92–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayona-Sáez, C.; Cruz-Cázares, C.; García-Marco, T. Public R&D funding: Does the source determine the strategy? Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2013, 25, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perrons, R.K.; Platts, K. The role of clockspeed in outsourcing decisions for new technologies: Insights from the prisoner’s dilemma. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2004, 104, 624–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berchicci, L. Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeSarbo, W.S.; Benedetto, C.A.; Song, M.; Sinha, I. Revisiting the miles and snow strategic framework: Uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 47–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- West, A. Estrategia de Innovación; Clásicos COTEC: Madrid, Spain, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Narula, R. Choosing Between Internal and Non-internal R&D Activities: Some Technological and Economic Factors. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2001, 13, 365–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehie, I.C.; Olibe, K. The effect of R&D investment on firm value: An examination of US manufacturing and service industries. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2010, 128, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganotakis, P.; Love, J.H. The innovation value chain in new technology-based firms: Evidence from the UK. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2012, 29, 839–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Penman, S.H. Handling Valuation Models. J. Appl. Corp. Financ. 2006, 18, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petersen, C.; Plenborg, T. The implementation and application of firm valuation models. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 2009, 25, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Block, J.H. R&D investments in family and founder firms: An agency perspective. J. Bus. Ventur. 2012, 27, 248–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Romero, M.J.; Rojo-Ramírez, A.A.; Casado-Belmonte, M.P. Value creation in privately held family businesses: The moderating role of socioemotional wealth. Can. J. Adm. Sci. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damanpour, F.; Gopalakrishnan, S. The Dynamics of the Adoption of Product and Process Innovations in Organizations. J. Manag. Stud. 2001, 38, 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kallmuenzer, A.; Scholl-Grissemann, U. Disentangling antecedents and performance effects of family SME innovation: A knowledge-based perspective. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2017, 13, 1117–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz-Palomo, D.; Diéguez-Soto, J.; Duréndez, A.; Santos, J.A.C. Family Management and Firm Performance in Family SMEs: The Mediating Roles of Management Control Systems and Technological Innovation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diéguez-Soto, J.; Garrido-Moreno, A.; Manzaneque, M. Unravelling the link between process innovation inputs and outputs: The moderating role of family management. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 2018, 9, 114–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grønhaug, K.; Kaufmann, G. Innovation: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective; Norwegian University Press: Oslo, Norway, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Lodh, S.; Nandy, M.; Chen, J. Innovation and family ownership: Empirical evidence from India. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 2014, 22, 4–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Regan, N.; Ghobadian, A.; Gallear, D. In search of the drivers of high growth in manufacturing SMEs. Technovation 2006, 26, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Allocca, M.A.; Kessler, E.H. Innovation Speed in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2006, 15, 279–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gudmundson, D.; Tower, B.C.; Hartman, A.E. Innovation in Small Businesses: Culture and Ownership Structure Do Matter. J. Dev. Entrep. 2003, 8, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, S.; Xu, K.; Nguyen, L.T.; Yu, G. TMT’s attention towards financial goals and innovation investment: Evidence from China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunday, G.; Ulusoy, G.; Kilic, K.; Alpkan, L. Effects of innovation types on firm performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 133, 662–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Uhlaner, L.M.; van Stel, A.; Duplat, V.; Zhou, H. Disentangling the effects of organizational capabilities, innovation and firm size on SME sales growth. Small Bus. Econ. 2013, 41, 581–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Sellero, P.; Sánchez-Sellero, M.C.; Sánchez-Sellero, F.J.; Cruz-González, M.M. Effects of Innovation on Technical Progress in Spanish Manufacturing Firms. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2015, 20, 44–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smolny, W. Innovations, Prices and Employment: A Theoretical Model and an Empirical Application for West German Manufacturing Firms. J. Ind. Econ. 1998, 46, 359–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- La Porta, R.; Lopez-De-Silanes, F.; Shleifer, A. Corporate Ownership Around the World. J. Financ. 1999, 54, 471–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zellweger, T.M. Managing the Family Business: Theory and Practice; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Gómez-Mejía, L.R.; Cruz, C.; Berrone, P.; De Castro, J. The Bind that Ties: Socioemotional Wealth Preservation in Family Firms. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2011, 5, 653–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, G.; Gómez-Mejía, L.R. The relationship between socioemotional and financial wealth: Re-visiting family firm decision making. Manag. Res. J. Iberoam. Acad. Manag. 2016, 14, 234–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Breton-Miller, I.; Miller, D.; Lester, R.H. Stewardship or agency? A social embeddedness reconciliation of conduct and performance in public family businesses. Organ. Sci. 2011, 22, 704–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berent-Braun, M.M.; Flören, R.H.; Ouden, M.M.C.M. Den. Being Able and Willing to Innovate: A Study of Family Firm Identity and New Product Output among Dutch Private Businesses. Int. Rev. Entrep. 2018, 16, 183–215. [Google Scholar]
- Chrisman, J.J.; Chua, J.H.; Sharma, P. Trends and Directions in the Development of a Strategic Management Theory of the Family Firm. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2005, 29, 555–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calabrò, A.; Vecchiarini, M.; Gast, J.; Campopiano, G.; De Massis, A.; Kraus, S. Innovation in Family Firms: A Systematic Literature Review and Guidance for Future Research. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2019, 21, 317–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demsetz, H.; Lehn, K. The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences. J. Political Econ. 1985, 93, 1155–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Revilla, A.J.; Perez-Luno, A.; Nieto, M.J. Does Family Involvement in Management Reduce the Risk of Business Failure? The Moderating Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2016, 29, 365–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martínez-Romero, M.J.; Martínez-Alonso, R.; Casado-Belmonte, M.P.; Rojo-Ramírez, A.A. The Moderating Effect of Family Management on R&D Productivity in Privately Held Firms. In Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Internationalization; Teixeira, N.M., Costa, T.G., Lisboa, I.M., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 309–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brigham, K.H.; Lumpkin, G.T.; Tyge Payne, G.; Zachary, M.A. Researching Long-Term Orientation: A Validation Study and Recommendations for Future Research. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2014, 27, 72–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patel, P.C.; Fiet, J.O. Knowledge combination and the potential advantages of family firms in searching for opportunities. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2011, 35, 1179–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Famoso, V.; Maseda, A.; Iturralde, T. Family involvement in top management team: Impact on relationships between internal social capital and innovation. J. Manag. Organ. 2017, 23, 136–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nieto, M.J.; Santamaria, L.; Fernandez, Z. Understanding the Innovation Behavior of Family Firms. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2015, 53, 382–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabrera-Suárez, K.; De Saá-Pérez, P.; García-Almeida, D. The Succession Process from a Resource- and Knowledge-Based View of the Family Firm. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2001, 14, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, D.; Le-Breton-Miller, I. Managing for the Long Run: Lessons in Competitive Advantage from Great Family Businesses; Harvard Business School Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Carney, M. Corporate Governance and Competitive Advantage in Family-Controlled Firms. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2005, 29, 249–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotlar, J.; De Massis, A.; Frattini, F.; Bianchi, M.; Fang, H. Technology acquisition in family and nonfamily firms. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2013, 30, 1073–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz-Cázares, C.; Bayona-Sáez, C.; García-Marco, T. You can’t manage right what you can’t measure well: Technological innovation efficiency. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 1239–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, H.J.; Pucik, V. Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth, profitability, and market value. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 555–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomez, J.; Vargas, P. The effect of financial constraints, absorptive capacity and complementarities on the adoption of multiple process technologies. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 106–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Vrande, V.; De Jong, J.P.J.; Vanhaverbeke, W.; De Rochemont, M. Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation 2009, 29, 423–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guan, J.; Zuo, K. A cross-country comparison of innovation efficiency. Scientometrics 2014, 100, 541–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antolín-López, R.; Céspedes-Lorente, J.; García-De-Frutos, N.; Martínez-Del-Río, J.; Pérez-Valls, M. Fostering product innovation: Differences between new ventures and established firms. Technovation 2015, 41–42, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Mejía, L.R.; Haynes, K.T.; Núñez-Nickel, M.; Jacobson, K.J.L.; Moyano-Fuentes, J. Socioemotional Wealth and Business Risks in Family-controlled Firms: Evidence from Spanish Olive Oil Mills. Adm. Sci. Q. 2007, 52, 106–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rojo-Ramírez, A.A.; Martínez-Romero, M.J. Required and obtained equity returns in privately held businesses: The impact of family nature—evidence before and after the global economic crisis. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2018, 12, 771–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matzler, K.; Veider, V.; Hautz, J.; Stadler, C. The Impact of Family Ownership, Management, and Governance on Innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2015, 32, 319–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz, C.; Nordqvist, M. Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: a generational perspective. Small Bus. Econ. 2012, 38, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzaneque, M.; Rojo-Ramírez, A.A.; Diéguez-Soto, J.; Martínez-Romero, M.J. How negative aspiration performance gaps affect innovation efficiency. Small Bus. Econ. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coluccia, D.; Dabić, M.; Del Giudice, M.; Fontana, S.; Solimene, S. R&D innovation indicator and its effects on the market. An empirical assessment from a financial perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsao, S.-M.; Lien, W.-H. Family Management and Internationalization: The Impact on Firm Performance and Innovation. Manag. Int. Rev. 2011, 53, 189–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arzubiaga, U.; Kotlar, J.; De Massis, A.; Maseda, A.; Iturralde, T. Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation in family SMEs: Unveiling the (actual) impact of the Board of Directors. J. Bus. Ventur. 2018, 33, 455–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kotlar, J.; Fang, H.; De Massis, A.; Frattini, F. Profitability Goals, Control Goals, and the R&D Investment Decisions of Family and Nonfamily Firms. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 31, 1128–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Camagni, R.; Capello, R. Regional Innovation Patters and the EU Regional Policy Reform: Toward Smart Innovation Policies. Growth Chang. 2013, 44, 355–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cameron, A.C.; Trivedi, P.K. Microeconometrics Using Stata; Stata Press: College Station, TX, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Diéguez-Soto, J.; López-Delgado, P. Does Family and Lone Founder Involvement Lead to Similar Indebtedness? J. Small Bus. Manag. 2019, 57, 1531–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, M.; Guzmán, A.; Pombo, C.; Trujillo, M.A. Family firms and debt: Risk aversion versus risk of losing control. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 2308–2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Analisis Multivariante; Prentice Hall: Madrid, Spain, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, Q.; Li, X.; Yang, X.; Lin, D.; Zheng, D. How does family involvement affect innovation in China? Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2013, 30, 677–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casillas, J.C.; Moreno, A.M. The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and growth: The moderating role of family involvement. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2010, 22, 265–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallucci, C.; Santulli, R.; Calabrò, A. Does family involvement foster or hinder firm performance? The missing role of family-based branding strategies. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 2015, 6, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Romero, M.J.; Martínez-Alonso, R.; Rojo-Ramírez, A.A.; Diéguez-Soto, J. Understanding Family Firm Profitability Heterogeneity. Differences Within Family Managed Firms and the Interaction Effect of Innovative Effort. In Competitiveness, Organizational Management, and Governance in Family Firms; Camison, C., González, T., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 305–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chrisman, J.J.; Patel, P.C. Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 976–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kor, Y. Direct and interaction effects of top management team and board compositions on R&D investment strategy. Strateg. Manag. J. 2006, 27, 1081–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Triguero, A.; Córcoles, D.; Cuerva, M.C. Persistence of innovation and firm’s growth: Evidence from a panel of SME and large Spanish manufacturing firms. Small Bus. Econ. 2014, 43, 787–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klomp, L.; Leeuwen, G. Linking Innovation and Firm Performance: A New Approach. Int. J. Econ. Bus. 2001, 8, 343–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tagiuri, R.; Davis, J. Bivalent Attributes of the Family Firm. Fam. Bus. Rev. 1996, 9, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carney, M.; Van Essen, M.; Gedajlovic, E.R.; Heugens, P.P.M.A.R. What do we know about private family firms? A meta-analytical review. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2015, 39, 513–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, G. Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 661–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colquitt, J.A.; Zapata-Phelan, C.P. Trends in Theory Building and Theory Testing: A Five-Decade Study of the Academy of Management Journal. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 50, 1281–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chua, J.H.; Chrisman, J.J.; Steier, L.P.; Rau, S.B. Sources of Heterogeneity in Family Firms: An Introduction. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2012, 36, 1103–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Family Firm Institute. Global Data Points. 2018. Available online: https://my.ffi.org/page/globaldatapoints (accessed on 5 August 2019).
- Martínez-Romero, M.J.; Martínez-Alonso, R.; Casado-Belmonte, M.P.; Diéguez-Soto, J. Family management and firm performance—The interaction effect of technological innovation efficiency. In Intrapreneurship and Sustainable Human Capital: Digital Transformation through Dynamic Competences; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Sample composition by sizea and family/non-family management | ||
N | % | |
Family-managed firms | 301 | 50.33 |
Non-family-managed firms | 297 | 49.67 |
Total | 598 | 100.00 |
Large-size firms | 177 | 29.60 |
Medium-size firms | 127 | 21.24 |
Small-size firms | 294 | 49.16 |
Total | 598 | 100.00 |
Sample composition by territorial subdivisionsb | ||
N | % | |
1. Northwest | 73 | 12.21 |
2. Northeastern | 78 | 13.04 |
3. Madrid | 37 | 6.19 |
4. Center | 109 | 18.23 |
5. East | 225 | 37.63 |
6. South | 55 | 9.20 |
7. Canarias | 21 | 3.51 |
Total | 598 | 100.00 |
Sample composition by subindustryc | ||
N | % | |
1. Meat industry | 21 | 3.51 |
2. Foodstuffs and snuff | 71 | 11.87 |
3. Drinks | 22 | 3.68 |
4. Textiles and clothing | 39 | 6.52 |
5. Leather and footwear | 16 | 2.68 |
6. Timber industry | 17 | 2.84 |
7. Paper Industry | 25 | 4.18 |
8. Graphics | 22 | 3.68 |
9. Chemical and pharmaceutical products | 45 | 7.53 |
10. Rubber and plastic | 37 | 6.19 |
11. Non-metallic mineral products | 25 | 4.18 |
12. Ferrous and non-ferrous metals | 20 | 3.34 |
13. Metal products | 85 | 14.21 |
14. Agricultural and industrial machinery | 38 | 6.35 |
15. Computer, electronic and optical products | 11 | 1.84 |
16. Electrical machinery and material | 26 | 4.35 |
17. Motor vehicles | 34 | 5.69 |
18. Other transport equipment | 13 | 2.17 |
19. Furniture industry | 19 | 3.18 |
20. Other manufacturing | 12 | 2.01 |
Total | 598 | 100.00 |
M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Sustainable economic performance | 0.101 | 0.119 | ||||||||||
2. Firm size | 16.279 | 2.120 | 0.111*** | |||||||||
3. Firm age | 3.116 | 0.729 | 0.003 | 0.317*** | ||||||||
4. Leverage | 0.493 | 0.231 | −0.066*** | 0.094*** | −0.082*** | |||||||
5. Customer bargaining power | 43.038 | 27.710 | −0.013 | −0.036*** | −0.063*** | 0.024** | ||||||
6. Intramural R&D (t-3) | 0.006 | 0.019 | −0.054*** | 0.165*** | 0.096*** | 0.033** | −0.032** | |||||
7. Extramural R&D (t-3) | 0.003 | 0.017 | −0.030** | 0.114*** | 0.075*** | 0.054*** | 0.020 | 0.290*** | ||||
8. Product innovation (t-1) | 0.207 | 0.405 | −0.003 | 0.254*** | 0.111*** | −0.005 | −0.118*** | 0.234*** | 0.111*** | |||
9. Process innovation (t-1) | 0.370 | 0.483 | 0.087*** | 0.345*** | 0.114*** | 0.013 | −0.019 | 0.145*** | 0.088*** | 0.358*** | ||
10. Family involvement in management | 0.499 | 0.500 | 0.012 | −0.475*** | −0.134*** | −0.023* | −0.090*** | −0.065*** | −0.054*** | −0.103*** | −0.146*** | |
Variance inflation factors | 1.67 | 1.13 | 1.04 | 1.04 | 1.16 | 1.10 | 1.25 | 1.28 | 1.33 | |||
Condition indexes | 1.33 | 1.36 | 1.47 | 1.48 | 1.54 | 1.67 | 1.78 | 1.92 | 2.30 |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable | Sustainable economic performance | |||||
Main effects | ||||||
Intramural R&D (t-3) | −0.438*** (0.090) | −0.422*** (0.091) | ||||
Extramural R&D (t-3) | −0.149** (0.066) | −0.126* (0.066) | ||||
Product innovation (t-1) | −0.005 (0.004) | −0.006 (0.004) | ||||
Process innovation (t-1) | 0.007** (0.003) | 0.008*** (0.003) | ||||
Controls | ||||||
Firm size | 0.021*** (0.002) | 0.021*** (0.002) | 0.021*** (0.002) | 0.021*** (0.002) | 0.020*** (0.002) | 0.021*** (0.002) |
Firm age | −0.013*** (0.005) | −0.012*** (0.004) | −0.013*** (0.005) | −0.013*** (0.005) | −0.013*** (0.005) | −0.012*** (0.005) |
Leverage | −0.077*** (0.008) | −0.075*** (0.008) | −0.077*** (0.008) | −0.077*** (0.008) | −0.077*** (0.008) | −0.075*** (0.008) |
Customer bargaining power | −0.013*** (0.005) | −0.013*** (0.005) | −0.001* (0.001) | −0.001* (0.001) | −0.001* (0.001) | −0.001* (0.001) |
Territorial dummies | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included |
Industry dummies | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included |
Intercept | −0.148*** (0.029) | −0.155*** (0.029) | −0.150*** (0.029) | −0.150*** (0.029) | −0.141*** (0.029) | −0.150*** (0.029) |
Number of firms | 598 | 598 | 598 | 598 | 598 | 598 |
Number of observations | 5304 | 5304 | 5304 | 5304 | 5304 | 5304 |
Wald’s X2 | 248.57*** (10) | 273.13*** (11) | 253.91*** (11) | 250.71*** (11) | 254.40*** (11) | 286.12*** (14) |
R2: within | 0.0690 | 0.0700 | 0.0692 | 0.0686 | 0.0690 | 0.0704 |
between | 0.0328 | 0.0368 | 0.0335 | 0.0334 | 0.0337 | 0.0392 |
overall | 0.0316 | 0.0357 | 0.0323 | 0.0322 | 0.0326 | 0.0381 |
Model 7 | Model 8 | Model 9 | Model 10 | Model 11 | Model 12 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable | Sustainable economic performance | |||||
Main effects | ||||||
Intramural R&D (t-3) | −0.425*** (0.091) | −0.546*** (0.129) | −0.440*** (0.092) | −0.430*** (0.091) | −0.426*** (0.091) | −0.521*** (0.130) |
Extramural R&D (t-3) | −0.134** (0.066) | −0.127* (0.066) | −0.144** (0.069) | −0.124* (0.066) | −0.123* (0.066) | −0.137** (0.069) |
Product innovation (t-1) | −0.006 (0.004) | −0.006 (0.004) | −0.006 (0.004) | −0.007 (0.004) | −0.006 (0.004) | −0.008 (0.005) |
Process innovation (t-1) | 0.008*** (0.003) | 0.008*** (0.003) | 0.008*** (0.003) | 0.008*** (0.003) | 0.002 (0.004) | 0.003 (0.004) |
Moderators | ||||||
Family involvement in management | 0.007* (0.004) | 0.006 (0.004) | 0.007 (0.004) | 0.004 (0.004) | 0.003 (0.004) | 0.001 (0.005) |
Interaction effect | ||||||
Intramural R&D (t-3) x Family involvement in management | 0.218 (0.164) | 0.147 (0.169) | ||||
Extramural R&D (t-3) x Family involvement in management | 0.209 (0.203) | 0.131 (0.207) | ||||
Product innovation (t-1) x Family involvement in management | 0.130 (0.006) | 0.008 (0.007) | ||||
Process innovation (t-1) x Family involvement in management | 0.012** (0.005) | 0.011** (0.005) | ||||
Controls | ||||||
Firm size | 0.021*** (0.002) | 0.021*** (0.002) | 0.021*** (0.002) | 0.021*** (0.002) | 0.021*** (0.002) | 0.021*** (0.002) |
Firm age | −0.012*** (0.005) | −0.012** (0.005) | −0.012*** (0.005) | −0.012*** (0.005) | −0.012*** (0.005) | −0.012*** (0.005) |
Leverage | −0.075*** (0.008) | −0.075*** (0.008) | −0.075*** (0.008) | −0.075*** (0.008) | −0.075*** (0.008) | −0.075*** (0.008) |
Customer bargaining power | −0.001* (0.001) | −0.001* (0.001) | −0.001* (0.001) | −0.001* (0.001) | −0.001* (0.001) | −0.001* (0.001) |
Territorial dummies | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included |
Industry dummies | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included | Included |
Intercept | −0.163*** (0.030) | −0.162*** (0.030) | −0.162*** (0.030) | −0.159*** (0.030) | −0.160*** (0.030) | −0.158 (0.030) |
Number of firms | 598 | 598 | 598 | 598 | 598 | 598 |
Number of observations | 5,304 | 5,304 | 5,304 | 5,304 | 5,304 | 5,304 |
Wald’s X2 | 288.82***(15) | 290.57***(16) | 289.89***(16) | 293.07***(16) | 294.58***(16) | 298.04***(19) |
R2: within | 0.0690 | 0.0697 | 0.0694 | 0.0701 | 0.0697 | 0.0712 |
between | 0.0424 | 0.0417 | 0.0418 | 0.0413 | 0.0424 | 0.0408 |
overall | 0.0406 | 0.0402 | 0.0402 | 0.0400 | 0.0408 | 0.0409 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Martínez-Alonso, R.; Martínez-Romero, M.J.; Rojo-Ramírez, A.A. Examining the Impact of Innovation Forms on Sustainable Economic Performance: The Influence of Family Management. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216132
Martínez-Alonso R, Martínez-Romero MJ, Rojo-Ramírez AA. Examining the Impact of Innovation Forms on Sustainable Economic Performance: The Influence of Family Management. Sustainability. 2019; 11(21):6132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216132
Chicago/Turabian StyleMartínez-Alonso, Rubén, María J. Martínez-Romero, and Alfonso A. Rojo-Ramírez. 2019. "Examining the Impact of Innovation Forms on Sustainable Economic Performance: The Influence of Family Management" Sustainability 11, no. 21: 6132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216132