IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00422476.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Competing business models in the french biotech industry

Author

Listed:
  • Vincent Mangematin

    (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée = Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory - UPMF - Université Pierre Mendès France - Grenoble 2 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, MTS - Management Technologique et Strategique - EESC-GEM Grenoble Ecole de Management)

Abstract

Public authorities have recently supported development of the biotechnology sector by encouraging start-ups and creating favourable environments such as incubators, a specialised stock exchange or technopoles. The different programmes to encourage biotech development (subsidies for research performed jointly by firms and academic labs, subsidies for start-ups, creation of incubators) seem to be successful if the results are estimated in terms of the number of new firms (around 300 SMEs still in existence, since 1990). On 1 January 1999 France had just over 400 biotechnology SMEs employing a total of 15,000 people, with an estimated turnover of 2 billion euros. Average size in terms of number of employees per firm is about 40, compared to about 140 in the USA. All in all, biotechnology remains a small emergent sector compared to others such as agri-food (over 4,200 French firms with 372,300 employees and a turnover of 100 billion euros) or pharmaceuticals (94,500 employees in 271 firms and a turnover of 28,5 billion euros). The creation of start-ups during the past ten years raises questions on the future of these new biotech firms (DBFs) in France and in Europe. Will consolidation occur in Europe and, if so, when? Will maturity of the biotech sector be accompanied by the progressive disappearance of many of these firms and the growth of a few of them? Will the sector be structured along the same lines as the automobile industry, with large firms with a high capacity for integration of research performed elsewhere and a large number of specialised firms? What will the future be of the hundreds of small firms which focus on the local or regional market, especially service oriented firms? To answer these questions, this paper presents three business models of biotech firms. By referring to the governance modes of each business model of biotech SMEs, it provides us with a better understanding of the logic of development of biotechnology SMEs in France. The first part presents the linkages between business models and governance modes. The second part, based on a survey on half of the 400 dedicated biotech firms (DBFs) in France, presents an overview of these firms and their development. The third part presents an attempt to map out the development trajectories of SMEs and the respective leading forces in each type of firm. Concluding remarks present three possible scenarios of the evolution of the sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Vincent Mangematin, 2000. "Competing business models in the french biotech industry," Post-Print hal-00422476, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00422476
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://hal.grenoble-em.com/hal-00422476
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hal.grenoble-em.com/hal-00422476/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mangematin, Vincent & Lemarie, Stephane & Boissin, Jean-Pierre & Catherine, David & Corolleur, Frederic & Coronini, Roger & Trommetter, Michel, 2003. "Development of SMEs and heterogeneity of trajectories: the case of biotechnology in France," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 621-638, April.
    2. Vincent Mangematin, 2003. "PME de biotechnologie: Plusieurs Business models en concurrence," Post-Print hal-00422702, HAL.
    3. Vincent Mangematin, 2003. "PME de biotechnologie: Plusieurs Business models en concurrence," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00422702, HAL.

    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. S. Arunachalam & Sridhar N. Ramaswami & Pol Herrmann & Doug Walker, 2018. "Innovation pathway to profitability: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and marketing capabilities," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 744-766, July.
    2. Krickx, Guido A., 1995. "Vertical integration in the computer mainframe industry: A transaction cost interpretation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 75-91, January.
    3. Soufiane Mezzourh & Walid A Nakara, 2009. "Governance and innovation : A Knowledge-based approach [La gouvernance de l'innovation : une approche par la connaissance]," Post-Print halshs-01955966, HAL.
    4. Hua Tang, 2022. "The Effect of ESG Performance on Corporate Innovation in China: The Mediating Role of Financial Constraints and Agency Cost," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Morricone, Serena & Munari, Federico & Oriani, Raffaele & de Rassenfosse, Gaetan, 2017. "Commercialization Strategy and IPO Underpricing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1133-1141.
    6. Kuosmanen, Natalia & Valmari, Nelli, 2023. "Renewal of Companies Through Product Switching," ETLA Working Papers 104, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    7. Tarifa Fernández, Jorge & de Burgos Jiménez, Jerónimo & Céspedes Lorente, José Joaquín, 2018. "Absorptive capacity as a confounder of the process of supply chain integration," MPRA Paper 120125, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2018.
    8. Laura Barbieri & Daniela Bragoli & Flavia Cortelezzi & Giovanni Marseguerra, 2015. "Public Support to Innovation Strategies," DISCE - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali dises1509, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE).
    9. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    10. Massimo Colombo & Annalisa Croce & Samuele Murtinu, 2014. "Ownership structure, horizontal agency costs and the performance of high-tech entrepreneurial firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 265-282, February.
    11. Ariño, Africa & García-Canal, Esteban & Valdes, Ana, 1999. "Longevity of strategic alliances between competitors: A dynamic value creation approach," IESE Research Papers D/404, IESE Business School.
    12. Zemsky, Peter & Adner, Ron, 2003. "Disruptive Technologies and the Emergence of Competition," CEPR Discussion Papers 3994, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Frida Thomas Pacho, 2018. "Diversified Network Effects on Innovation Performance in Tanzania: Innovation Strategy in Service Firms," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation, Macrothink Institute, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation, vol. 5(1), pages 1-1, December.
    14. Dwibedy, Punyashlok, 2022. "Informal competition and product innovation decisions of new ventures and incumbents across developing and transitioning countries," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    15. Richard Harris & John Moffat, 2011. "R&D, Innovation and Exporting," SERC Discussion Papers 0073, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    16. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie, 2011. "Entry and Patenting in the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 915-933, May.
    17. Markus Solf, 2004. "Unternehmenskooperationen als Folge von Informations- und Kommunikations-technologieveränderungen: Eine theoretische Analyse," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 146-167, March.
    18. Annika Rickne, 2006. "Connectivity and Performance of Science-based Firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 393-407, May.
    19. Holger Patzelt & Dean A. Shepherd, 2009. "Strategic Entrepreneurship at Universities: Academic Entrepreneurs’ Assessment of Policy Programs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 33(1), pages 319-340, January.
    20. Aschhoff, Birgit & Baier, Elisabeth & Crass, Dirk & Hud, Martin & Hünermund, Paul & Köhler, Christian & Peters, Bettina & Rammer, Christian & Schricke, Esther & Schubert, Torben & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Innovation in Germany - Results of the German CIS 2006 to 2010. Background report on the Innovation Surveys 2007, 2009 and 2011 of the Mannheim Innovation Panel," ZEW Dokumentationen 13-01, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:journl:hal-00422476. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.