IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i21p9260-d1506231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on the Configuration Path of Innovation Performance of Strategic Emerging Enterprises

Author

Listed:
  • Jiarui Wang

    (School of Business Administration, Inner Mongolia University of Finance and Economics, Hohhot 010051, China)

  • Rong Cao

    (School of Business Administration, Inner Mongolia University of Finance and Economics, Hohhot 010051, China)

  • Gang Wang

    (School of Business Administration, Inner Mongolia University of Finance and Economics, Hohhot 010051, China)

  • Xuhui Peng

    (School of Management, Wenzhou Business College, Wenzhou 325035, China
    School of Business, Shanxi Technology and Business College, 99 Wucheng South Road, Xiaodian District, Taiyuan 030000, China
    School of Business, Western Sydney University, 169 Macquarie Street, Parramatta, NSW 2150, Australia)

Abstract

As vehicles for implementing innovation-driven strategies, the strategic emerging industries are crucial for enhancing national competitiveness and sustainable development. Improving innovation performance in these industries has been a central focus of academic research. Notably, existing studies have primarily analyzed the net effects from a single perspective. This study examined 261 strategic emerging Chinese enterprises listed on the A-share market. Utilizing the Technology–Organization–Environment framework and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis, this study explores the impact paths and mechanisms of the coupling configurations of technology, organization, and environment to enhance enterprises’ innovation performance from a configuration perspective. We discovered that, first, no single antecedent condition is necessary to achieve high enterprise innovation performance. However, increasing the level of digital transformation and intensity of innovation investments universally results in high innovation performance. Second, the technological, organizational, and environmental conditions exhibit “multiple concurrency”, forming diverse configurations that drive enterprise innovation performance; hence, the driving paths of enterprise innovation performance are varied. Third, four schemes exist for achieving high innovation performance in strategic emerging enterprises: environment-driven under technological dominance, technology–organization driven type, organization-driven under technological–environmental dominance, and technology–organization–environment co-driven type. Exploring the synergistic paths driving innovation performance from a configuration perspective enhances our understanding of the complex interactions among multiple factors in improving such performance. This provides significant theoretical and practical implications for enterprises aiming to improve their innovation performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiarui Wang & Rong Cao & Gang Wang & Xuhui Peng, 2024. "Research on the Configuration Path of Innovation Performance of Strategic Emerging Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-25, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:21:p:9260-:d:1506231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/21/9260/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/21/9260/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Romer, Paul M, 1986. "Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-1037, October.
    2. Michael Geulen & Andrea Greven & Denise Fischer-Kreer & Malte Brettel, 2024. "Why do firms fail? A new view on bankruptcy from the angle of top management team heterogeneity," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(11), pages 3297-3331, November.
    3. Kleer, Robin, 2010. "Government R&D subsidies as a signal for private investors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1361-1374, December.
    4. Fonseca, Tiago & de Faria, Pedro & Lima, Francisco, 2019. "Human capital and innovation: the importance of the optimal organizational task structure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 616-627.
    5. Du, Yunzhou & Kim, Phillip H., 2021. "One size does not fit all: Strategy configurations, complex environments, and new venture performance in emerging economies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 272-285.
    6. Chen, Kaihua & Zhang, Yi & Fu, Xiaolan, 2019. "International research collaboration: An emerging domain of innovation studies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 149-168.
    7. Choi, Suk Bong & Lee, Soo Hee & Williams, Christopher, 2011. "Ownership and firm innovation in a transition economy: Evidence from China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 441-452, April.
    8. Rodrigues, Ricardo & Samagaio, António & Felício, Teresa, 2020. "Corporate governance and R&D investment by European listed companies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 289-295.
    9. Ye, Yucheng & Xu, Shuqi & Mariani, Manuel Sebastian & Lü, Linyuan, 2022. "Forecasting countries' gross domestic product from patent data," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    10. Yan Han & Cheng Pan & Fengjun Jin, 2023. "Does the Improvement of the Business Environment Improve the Innovation Efficiency of Enterprises? Evidence from the Listed Companies in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-25, July.
    11. Jianwen (jon) Liao & Jill R. Kickul & Hao Ma, 2009. "Organizational Dynamic Capability and Innovation: An Empirical Examination of Internet Firms," Journal of Small Business Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 263-286, July.
    12. Berchicci, Luca, 2013. "Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 117-127.
    13. Zheng, Lu & Ulrich, Klaus & Sendra-García, Javier, 2021. "Qualitative comparative analysis: Configurational paths to innovation performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 83-93.
    14. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-158.
    15. Cristiano Antonelli & Gianluca Orsatti & Guido Pialli, 2023. "The knowledge-intensive direction of technological change," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 13(1), pages 1-27, March.
    16. Fang Cui & Jae-hoon Song, 2022. "Impact of Entrepreneurship on Innovation Performance of Chinese SMEs: Focusing on the Mediating Effect of Enterprise Dynamic Capability and Organizational Innovation Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Xiaonan Fan & Sainan Ren & Yang Liu, 2023. "The Driving Factors of Green Technology Innovation Efficiency—A Study Based on the Dynamic QCA Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-25, June.
    18. Escribano, Alvaro & Fosfuri, Andrea & Tribó, Josep A., 2009. "Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 96-105, February.
    19. Talke, Katrin & Salomo, Sören & Rost, Katja, 2010. "How top management team diversity affects innovativeness and performance via the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 907-918, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Caroline Danièle Mothe & Thuc Uyen Nguyen-Thi, 2017. "Persistent openness and environmental innovation: An empirical analysis of French manufacturing firms," Post-Print hal-01609129, HAL.
    2. Christopher F. Baum & Hans Lööf & Pardis Nabavi & Andreas Stephan, 2017. "A new approach to estimation of the R&D–innovation–productivity relationship," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 121-133, February.
    3. Da Teng & Jingtao Yi, 2017. "Impact of ownership types on R&D intensity and innovation performance—evidence from transitional China," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-25, December.
    4. Thakur–Wernz, Pooja & Wernz, Christian, 2022. "Impact of stronger intellectual property rights regime on innovation: Evidence from de alio versus de novo Indian bio-pharmaceutical firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 457-473.
    5. MOTHE Caroline & NGUYEN Thi Thuc Uyen, 2016. "Openness and environmental innovation: Does time-horizon matter?," LISER Working Paper Series 2016-13, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    6. Carboni, Oliviero A. & Medda, Giuseppe, 2021. "External R&D and product innovation: Is over-outsourcing an issue?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    7. Lee, Cassey, 2011. "Trade, productivity, and innovation: Firm-level evidence from Malaysian manufacturing," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 284-294, August.
    8. Erika Raquel Badillo & Rosina Moreno, 2018. "Does absorptive capacity determine collaboration returns to innovation? A geographical dimension," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 60(3), pages 473-499, May.
    9. Wu, Aihua, 2017. "The signal effect of Government R&D Subsidies in China: Does ownership matter?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 339-345.
    10. Qiu, Shumin & Liu, Xielin & Gao, Taishan, 2017. "Do emerging countries prefer local knowledge or distant knowledge? Spillover effect of university collaborations on local firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1299-1311.
    11. Swati Mehta, 2018. "National Innovation System of India: An Empirical Analysis," Millennial Asia, , vol. 9(2), pages 203-224, August.
    12. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref & Solomon, Edna & Guidi, Francesco, 2016. "R&D and productivity in OECD firms and industries: A hierarchical meta-regression analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2069-2086.
    13. Dimakopoulou, A.G. & Gkypali, A. & Tsekouras, K., 2024. "Technological and non-technological innovation synergies under the lens of absorptive capacity efficiency," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    14. Rouvinen, Petri, 1999. "Characteristics of Product and Process Innovators among Finnish Manufacturing Firms," Discussion Papers 690, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    15. Yan Zhou & Sangmoon Park, 2020. "The Regional Determinants of the New Venture Formation in China’s Car-Sharing Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    16. Blazsek, Szabolcs & Escribano, Alvaro, 2010. "Knowledge spillovers in US patents: A dynamic patent intensity model with secret common innovation factors," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 159(1), pages 14-32, November.
    17. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(6), pages 1105-1145, December.
    18. Shuang Wang & Shukuan Zhao & Dong Shao & Hongyu Liu, 2020. "Impact of Government Subsidies on Manufacturing Innovation in China: The Moderating Role of Political Connections and Investor Attention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-21, September.
    19. Feng Zhang & Guohua Jiang, 2019. "Combination of Complementary Technological Knowledge to Generate “Hard to Imitate” Technologies," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 1-24, June.
    20. Doran, Justin, 2012. "Are different forms of innovation complements or substitutes?," MPRA Paper 44580, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:21:p:9260-:d:1506231. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.