How firm size moderates the knowledge and affects the innovation performance? Evidence from Brazilian manufacturing firms

Marco Túlio Dinali Viglioni; Cristina Lelis Leal Calegario

doi:10.5585/riae.v20i1.15567

Autores/as

Marco Túlio Dinali Viglioni Universidade Federal de Lavras – UFLA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5706-9821
Cristina Lelis Leal Calegario Universidade Federal de Lavras – UFLA https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2579-8744

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5585/riae.v20i1.15567

Palabras clave:

Innovación, Productividad, Investigación y desarrollo, Activos intangibles, Brasil.

Resumen

Objetivo del trabajo: El objetivo es explorar la relación entre el tamaño de la empresa y el conocimiento para capturar el desempeño en innovación de las empresas manufactureras brasileñas.

Metodología: Utilizando un enfoque que utiliza la función de producción y siguiendo la teoría de la visión basada en recursos - RBV, investigamos cómo la I + D interna de la empresa y el nivel de activos intangibles son moderados por el tamaño de la empresa.

Originalidad: La literatura en las últimas décadas ha probado diferentes métodos para encontrar estrategias que mejoren la innovación para un gran número de empresas en diferentes países y regiones. Sin embargo, hay una gran cantidad de empresas de economías emergentes y en desarrollo que desean mejorar la productividad y el desempeño de innovación de la empresa.

Principales resultados: Los resultados indican que la inversión en I + D + i es relevante para el desempeño de la empresa. Sin embargo, la relación entre I + D + i y el tamaño de la empresa arroja resultados negativos. En el caso del grado de recursos intangibles, se observó lo mismo. Sin embargo, la interacción entre el tamaño de la empresa y los activos intangibles indicó efectos positivos para el desempeño de la empresa. Finalmente, se observaron otras características importantes, como la edad e intensidad tecnológica de las empresas, que muestran una influencia positiva en el desempeño.

Contribuciones teóricas: El estudio demostró que el grado de intangible es relevante para la empresa, tal y como establece la teoría. Además, los activos intangibles han demostrado ser valiosos para las empresas emergentes, ya que no todas pueden realizar actividades de I + D + i.

Contribuciones sociales: Los hallazgos actualizan la comprensión de la I + D y otros activos intangibles y proporcionan nueva información para que los administradores, investigadores y responsables políticos desarrollen nuevas políticas para promover y financiar estas actividades.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Marco Túlio Dinali Viglioni, Universidade Federal de Lavras – UFLA

Doutorando, Universidade Federal de Lavras – UFLA

Cristina Lelis Leal Calegario, Universidade Federal de Lavras – UFLA

PhD, professora titular, Universidade Federal de Lavras – UFLA

Citas

Aboal, D., Garda, G., Lanzilotta, B., & Perera, M. (2015). Innovation, firm size, technology intensity, and employment generation: Evidence from the Uruguayan manufacturing sector, Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 51(1), 3-26.

Alcorta, L., & Peres, W. (1998). Innovation systems and technological specialization in Latin America and the Caribbean. Research Policy, 26(7-8), 857-81.

Anderson, B. S., & Eshima, Y. (2013). The influence of firm age and intangible resources on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm growth among Japanese SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(3), 413-429.

Andonova, V., & Ruíz-Pava, G. (2016). The role of industry factors and intangible assets in company performance in Colombia. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4377-4384.

Arrighetti, A., Landini, F., & Lasagni, A. (2014). Intangible assets and firm heterogeneity: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 43, 202-213.

Arza, V., & Lopez, A. (2010). Innovation and productivity in the Argentine manufacturing sector. IDB working paper, no., 187, Washington, DC.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

Benavente, J. M. (2006). The role of research and innovation in promoting productivity in Chile. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4-5), 301-315.

Berchicci, L. (2013). Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy, 42(1), 117-127.

Bontempi, M. E., & Mairesse, J. (2015). Intangible capital and productivity at the firm level: a panel data assessment. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 24(1-2), 22-51.

Bravo-Ortega, C., Benavente, J. M., & González, A. (2014). Innovation, Exports, and Productivity: Learning and Self-Selection in Chile. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 50(1), 68-95.

Bueno, E., Aragón, J. A., Salmador, M. P., & García, V. J. (2010). Tangible slack versus intangible resources: the influence of technology slack and tacit knowledge on the capability of organizational learning to generate innovation and performance. International Jounal of Technology Management, 49(4), 314-337.

Cameron, C. A., & Trivedi, P. K. (2010). Microeconometrics Using Stata. Revised Edition, Stata Press.

Carboni, O. A., & Medda G. (2019). Does R&D spending boost tangible investment? An analysis on European firms, Applied Economics, 1-17.

Carvalho, F. M., Kayo, E. K., & Martin, D. M. L. (2010). Tangibilidade e intangibilidade na determinação do desempenho persistente de firmas Brasileiras. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 14(5), 871-889.

Chudnovsky, D., López, A., & Pupato, G. (2006). Innovation and productivity in developing countries: A study of Argentine manufacturing firms’ behavior (1992–2001). Research Policy, 35(2), 266-288.

Crespi, G. A., Arias-Ortiz, E., Tacsir, E., Vargas, F., & Zuniga, P. (2014). Innovation for economic performance: the case of Latin American firms. Eurasian Business Review, 4(1), 31-50.

Crespi, G., & Zuniga, P. (2012). Innovation and Productivity: Evidence from Six Latin American Countries. World Development, 40(2), 273-290.

Denicolai, S., Ramusino, E. C., & Sotti, F. (2015) The impact of intangibles on firm growth. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(2), 219-236.

Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage. Management Science, 35, 1504-1511.

Dunning, J., & Lundan, S. (2008). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. (2nd ed.). Cheltenham: E. Elgar.

Fagerberg, J., Srholec, M., & Verspagen, B. (2010). Innovation and economic development. In: Arrow, J. K., & Intriligator, M. D. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier, (2), 833-872.

Frank, A. G., Cortimiglia, M. N., Ribeiro, J. L D., & Oliveira., L. S. (2016). The effect of innovation activities on innovation outputs in the Brazilian industry: Market-orientation vs. technology-acquisition strategies. Research Policy, 45, 577-592.

Gantumur, T., & Stephan, A. (2012). Mergers & acquisitions and innovation performance in the telecommunications equipment industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(2), 277-314.

Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 92-116.

Hall, B. H., & Mairesse, J. (1995). Exploring the relationship between R&D and productivity in French manufacturing firms. Journal of Econometrics, 65, 263-293.

Hall, B. H., Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2010). Measuring the returns to R&D. In Arrow, J. K., & Intriligator, M. D. Handbook of the economics of innovation, Elsevier, (2), 1033-1082.

Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 135-44.

James, A. D. (2002). The strategic management of mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry: Developing a resource-based perspective. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(3), 299-313.

Kafouros, M. I. (2008a). Industrial Innovation and Firm Performance: The Impact of Scientific Knowledge on Multinational Corporations. Edward Elgar.

Kafouros, M. I. (2008b). Economic returns to industrial research. Journal of Business Research, 61(8), 868-876.

Kafouros, M., & Aliyev, M. (2016). Institutions and Foreign Subsidiary Growth in Transition Economies: The Role of Intangible Assets and Capabilities. Journal of Management Studies, 53(4), 580-607.

Kafouros, M., Wang, C., & Lodorfos, G. (2009). The impact of R&D strategy and firm size on the returns to innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 8(4), 550-566.

Kayo, E. K., & Famá, R. (2004). A estrutura de capital e o risco das empresas tangível-intensivas e intangível-intensivas. Revista de Administração, 39(2), 164-176.

Kayo, E. K., Kimura, H., Martin, D. M. L., & Nakamura, W, T. (2006). Ativos intangíveis, ciclo de vida e criação de valor. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 10(3), 73-90.

Kramer, J-P., Marinelli, E., Iammarino, S., & Diez, J. R. (2011). Intangible assets as drivers of innovation: Empirical evidence on multinational enterprises in German and UK regional systems of innovation. Technovation, 31(9), 447-458.

Lev, B. (2001). Intangibles: Management, measurement, and reporting. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Luca, M. M. M., Maia, A. B. G. R., Cardoso, V. I. C., Vasconcelos, A. C., & Cunha, J. V. A. (2014). Intangible assets and superior and sustained performance of innovative Brazilian firms. Brazilian Administration Review, 11(4), 407-440.

Mansfield, E., Rapoport, J., Schnee, J., Wagner, S., & Hamburger, M. (1971). Research and innovation in the modern corporation. New York: W. W. Norton.

Monteiro, A, P., Soares, A. M., & Rua, O. L. (2013). Export performance: Influence of intangible resources, dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial. Iberoamerican Journal of Strategic Management, 12(3), 12-36.

Navarro, J. C., Benavente, J. M., & Crespi. G. (2016). The New imperative of innovation: Policy perspectives for Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington DC.

OECD. (2015). Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development, The measurement of scientific, technological and innovation Activities. OECD Publishing, Paris. 6th Edition.

Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: John Wiley.

Peteraf, M. A., & Barney, J. B. (2003). Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24, 309-323.

Restrepo-Morales, J. A., Loaiza, O. L., & Vanegas, J. G. (2019). Determinants of innovation: A multivariate analysis in Colombian micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 24(47), 97-112.

Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper & Bros

Shefer, D., & Frenkel, A. (2005). R&D, firm size and innovation: An empirical analysis, Technovation, 25(1), 25-32.

Solow, R, M. (1956). A Contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65-94.

Suzuki, K. (1985). Knowledge capital and the private rate of return to R&D in Japanese manufacturing industries. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 3, 293-305.

Tsai, K-H. (2005). R&D productivity and firm size: a nonlinear examination. Technovation, 25, 795-803.

Viglioni, M. T. D., & Calegario, C. L. L. (2020). Home country innovation performance: Moderating the local knowledge and inward foreign direct investment. Global Business Review.

Viglioni, M. T. D., Carvalho, F. M., Benedicto, G. C., & Prado, J. W. (2018). Indicadores Econômico-Financeiros Determinantes de Fusões e Aquisições: um Estudo na Indústria de Tecnologia no Brasil. Contabilidade, Gestão e Governança, 21(3), 420-438.

Wakelin, K. (2001). Productivity growth and R&D expenditure in UK manufacturing firms. Research policy, 30, 1079–1090.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England.