Marion Frenz

Does Multinationality Affect the Propensity to Innovate? An Analysis of the Third UK Community Innovation Survey

Abstract The paper is developed at the interface between internationalization and innovation studies. It utilizes data on innovation from the UK Community Innovation Surveys 3 and 2 (CIS3 and CIS2) to assess whether multinationality affects the innovation propensity of surveyed enterprises. The indicators of innovation propensity—our dependent variables—are taken from the following CIS sets of variables: innovation outputs; innovation inputs; innovation outcomes (patent applications); innovation continuity/sustainability. The latter element is considered to be the ability of the enterprise to sustain innovation over a long period of time and the relevant variable is derived from both CIS3 and 2 data. This allows the paper to introduce dynamic elements into the analysis. Four hypotheses are developed and tested. Our main hypothesis states that multinationality per se (i.e. being part of a multinational company network) affects the propensity to innovate. We also test for three sub‐hypotheses related to characteristics of multinationality: belonging to a group vs being independent; degree of multinationality; being part of a foreign vs domestic multinational. The results show that all those CIS enterprises that belong to a multinational corporation—whether UK or foreign—are more likely to exhibit innovation propensity; they are also more likely to engage in innovation activities on a continuous basis.

Multinationality Matters in Innovation: The Case of the UK Financial Services

The paper starts with a brief summary of theoretical perspectives on the relationship between multinationality and innovation and the move from a centralized and hierarchical perspective to a more decentralized network‐based one. Four hypotheses are set up to test the relationship between multinationality and innovation, using data from the Community Innovation Survey 12 for the financial services sector. All models control for the size of the enterprise. The results show that multinationality is positively related to innovation activities. The positive impact of being part of a multinational company (MNC) on the propensity to innovate seems largely due to the fact that MNCs operate in different countries rather than, or more than, to the enterprise being part of a group. The relevance of multinationality appears to be higher, the higher the degree of internationalization of the company of which the enterprise is part. The country of origin of the company appears also to be important.

Patterns of Innovation in UK Industry: Exploring the CIS Data to Contrast High and Low Technology Industries

This paper is divided into two parts. The first part is an examination of the OECD classification of industries into high, medium and low technology industries, to look at the basis for this classification and to use that as a benchmark with which to classify the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) data for the UK into similar groupings. The industries are ranked according to their research intensities and the rankings between the two datasets are compared. Some features of the UK rankings are highlighted and anomalies between the two datasets pointed out. The second part of the paper goes on to use the OECD classification into high, medium and low technology industries, applied to the CIS dataset, to contrast patterns of innovation in high technology industries with those in low technology industries. We build on the three types of innovation surveyed in the CIS, namely product, process and organizational innovation and contrast those types across high and low technology sectors. The expected relationship between high technology industries and product innovation holds—that enterprises tend to do more product innovation, the higher their research intensity. But process innovation does not conform to this pattern and there is not such a clear division between high and low technology industries. However the way they do process innovations differs with high technology industries more reliant on internal resources whereas lower technology industries tend to do it using external resources in collaboration with others. Organizational innovation is more complex, with certain types of innovation done as widely by lower technology industries as by the more research intensive industries. This supports the idea that all types of innovation should be considered, with the diffusion of ICTs making an impact across the technological spectrum of industries and showing up in various forms of organizational innovation.

What Can CIS Data Tell Us about Technological Regimes and Persistence of Innovation

This paper analyses the link between technological regimes and persistence in innovation at the firm level. It reviews the literature on persistence of innovation, measurement issues and technological regimes. It weighs up the advantages and disadvantages of using Community Innovation Survey (CIS) data in this debate. Technological regimes and innovation persistence are analysed with a balanced panel of around 4,000 firms that responded to the latest three waves of the UK version of the CIS. Key explanatory variables include measures of appropriability, cumulativeness, technological opportunity and closeness to the science base. We find that certain links between type of industry and characteristics of technological regime are more appropriate for analysis using CIS data, whereas others remain problematic.

The economics of accreditation

Abstract: Accreditation is an additional layer of assurance in a complex quality infrastructure. The role of accreditation has received very little attention from economists. This study contributes to filling this gap in two ways, by outlining a theoretical framework that positions accreditation within the wider quality system, and by measuring benefits from accreditation to businesses in the United Kingdom (UK). Key information comes from a survey of stakeholders of the UK Accreditation Services collected by the authors, which is used with data on the financial benefits to customers of the UK National Physical Laboratory (NPL). We conclude by suggesting that the value added by accreditation is likely to be of the order of several hundred million pounds, rather than of the order of tens of millions or billions.

The Role of Internationalization as a Determinant of Innovation Performance: An Analysis of 42 Countries

This paper analyses the impact of internationalization on the innovation performance of 42 countries. Innovation performance – the dependent variable – is measured by the number of triad patents and PCT applications that originate from a country. The following internationalization variables – independent variables – are used: inward and outward stock of FDI, exports and imports as well as the number of parent companies in a country. Information on patents and the internationalization variables, together with further explanatory variables, including the number of scientific articles and of Internet users in a country, are collected for the years 1990 to 2008. The analysis is done for all countries together and then for two groups of countries clustered on the basis of their GDP per capita. The paper finds support for a positive impact of internationalization on countries’ innovation performance. Our analyses suggest that competing in international markets via outward FDI and exports increases the scope of learning and the need to innovate. We find evidence of a negative relationship between patenting and inward FDI as well as imports.

Оpen and Closed Innovation: A Comparative Analysis of National Practices

This paper sets about identifying different and complex innovation practices across nine countries by exploring data from firm level innovation surveys conducted in nine countries: Austria, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea and the United Kingdom. Our results suggest that innovating firms in these countries adopt one or more of the following innovation modes: 1) ‘new-to-market innovating’, 2) ‘marketing based imitating’, 3) ‘process modernising’, 4) ‘wider innovating’. The extent to which IPRs, external technology, design or marketing activities play a role in these innovation practices varies across countries. For example, in Austria, Denmark and New Zealand diffused technology (externally acquired R&D) is used together with own technology in bringing about novel products, suggesting a more open innovation pattern. In contrast, among firms in France, New Zealand and the UK we identify a greater reliance on IPRs (e.g. patents, copyrights and design registrations) while at the same time omitting externally acquired technologies. The latter may be interpreted as leaning towards a closed approach to innovation among a group of firms.