FORMS OF ECONOMIC PROXIMITY AND THEIR IMPACT ON INNOVATION PERFORMANCE: A STUDY OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY COMMERCIAL ORGANISATIONS IN INDUSTRY

This article analyses the influence of different types of economic proximity (geographical, organisational, technological and social) of business units of multidisciplinary organisations on the effectiveness of their innovative activities. The conducted research is based on a survey of a sample of 83 holdings belonging to 27 MCOs (a total of 189 respondents). The analysis confirmed that most of the companies surveyed associate increased efficiency of innovation activities with organisational and technological proximity, while geographical and social proximity are significantly underestimated by respondents. It was also possible to identify separate profiles of different types of economic proximity of the business units in the sample. Thus, the net profit from the sale of new products is more influenced by technological and social proximity, the introduction of new products to the market is influenced by technological and geographical proximity, and the growth in the number of patents registered is influenced by organisational, technological and social proximity.

Based on econometric estimates, our results suggest that while all types of proximity have a positive effect on the introduction of new products to the market, only organisational and technological proximity have a direct effect on net profits from the sale of new products.

1. Agarwal V., Daniel N.D., Naik N.Y. (2009). Role of managerial incentives and discretion in hedge fund performance. The Journal of Finance, 64(5): 2221-2256.

2. Anderson P., Tushman M.L. (2018). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. In: Organizational innovation. Routledge, 373-402.

3. Autant-Bernard C., Billand P., Frachisse D., Massard N. (2007). Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3): 495-520.

4. Balland P.A. (2012). Proximity and the evolution of collaboration networks: Evidence from research and development projects within the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) industry. Regional Studies, 46(6): 741-756.

5. Balland P.A., Boschma R., Frenken K. (2014). Proximity and innovation: From statics to dynamics. Regional Studies, 49: 907-920.

6. Bellet D., Dolino G., Ligeon M., Blanc P., Krisch M. (1992). Studies of coherent and diffuse x‐ray scattering by porous silicon. Journal of Applied Physics, 71(1): 145-149.

7. Belussi F., Caldari K. (2009). At the origin of the industrial district: Alfred Marshall and the Cambridge school. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(2): 335-355.

8. Boschma R.A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1): 61-74.

9. Caniëls M.C., Kronenberg K., Werker C. (2014). Conceptualizing proximity in research collaborations. In: The social dynamics of innovation networks. Routledge, 221-238.

10. Capaldo A. (2007). Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6): 585-608.

11. Casciaro T., Lobo M.S. (2008). When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4): 655-684.

12. Cho K.R., Lee J. (2004). Firm characteristics and MNC’s intra-network knowledge sharing. Management International Review, 44(4): 435-455.

13. Colombo M.G. (2003). Alliance form: A test of the contractual and competence perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 24(12): 1209-1229.

14. Ding S., Guariglia A., Knight J. (2013). Investment and financing constraints in China: Does working capital management make a difference? Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(5): 1490-1507.

15. Fung A. (2003). Survey article: Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3): 338-367.

16. Gallaud D., Torre A. (2004). Geographical proximity and circulation of knowledge through inter-firm cooperation. In: Academia-business links: European policy strategies and lessons learnt. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 137-158.

17. Galunic D.C., Eisenhardt K.M. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6): 1229-1249.

18. Gilly J.P., Torre A. Proximity relations: Еlements for an analytical framework. Industrial networks and proximity. Ashgate Publishing, 2000.

19. Gupta A.K., Govindarajan V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4): 473-496.

20. Harzing A.-W., Noorderhaven N. (2006). Knowledge flows in MNCs: An empirical test and extension of Gupta and Govindarajan’s typology of subsidiary roles. International Business Review, 15(3): 195-214.

21. Howells J.R. (2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies, 39(5-6): 871-884.

22. Huber S., Huber O.W. (2012). The centrality of religiosity scale (CRS). Religions, 3(3): 710-724.

23. Kale P., Singh H., Perlmutter H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 217-237.

24. Kautonen M., Hyypia M. (2009). Internationalising business services and the national innovation system: The Finnish business services sector in a European comparison. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 11(3): 229-246.

25. Knoben J. (2009). Localized inter-organizational linkages, agglomeration effects, and the innovative performance of firms. The Annals of Regional Science, 43(3): 757-779.

26. Knoben J., Oerlemans L.A. (2006). Proximity and inter‐organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2): 71-89.

27. Lane P.J., Lubatkin M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5): 461-477.

28. Manolopoulos D., Papanastassiou M., Pearce R. (2007). Knowledge-related competitiveness and the roles of multinationals’ R&D in a peripheral European economy: Survey analysis of Greece. Management International Review, 47(5): 661-682.

29. Markides C.C., Williamson P.J. (1994). Related diversification, core competences and corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2): 149-165.

30. Mattes J. (2012). Dimensions of proximity and knowledge bases: Innovation between spatial and non-spatial factors. Regional Studies, 46(8): 1085-1099.

31. Miller D.J., Fern M.J., Cardinal L.B. (2007). The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 308-326.

32. Monteiro L.F., Arvidsson N., Birkinshaw J. (2008). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations: Explaining subsidiary isolation and its performance implications. Organization Science, 19(1): 90-107.

33. Oerlemans L., Meeus M. (2005). Do organizational and spatial proximity impact on firm performance? Regional Studies, 39(1): 89-104.

34. Phene A., Almeida P. (2008). Innovation in multinational subsidiaries: The role of knowledge assimilation and subsidiary capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 901-919.

35. Rallet A., Torre A. (2009). Temporary geographical proximity for business and work coordination: When, how and where? SPACES online, 7(2): 1-25.

36. Rallet A., Torre A. (2017). Geography of innovation, proximity and beyond. In: The Elgar companion to innovation and knowledge creation. Edward Elgar Publishing, 421-439. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782548522.00036.

37. Ratcheva V. (2009). Integrating diverse knowledge through boundary spanning processes - The case of multidisciplinary project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 27(3): 206-215.

38. Rosenkopf L., Almeida P. (2003). Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49(6): 751-766.

39. Sidhu J.S., Commandeur H.R., Volberda H.W. (2007). The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18(1): 20-38.

40. Torre A., Gallaud D. (2022). Introduction: Proximity relations in the 21st century. In: Handbook of Proximity Relations. Edward Elgar Publishing, 1-47. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786434784.

41. Tushman M.L., Anderson P. (2018). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. In: Organizational innovation. Routledge, 345-372. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786434784.

42. Villasalero M. (2013). Signaling, spillover and learning effects of knowledge flows on division performance within related diversified firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(6): 928-942.

43. Villasalero M. (2014). Intra-network knowledge roles and division performance in multi-business firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(6): 1165-1183.

44. Werker C., Ooms W., Caniëls M. C. (2016). Personal and related kinds of proximity driving collaborations: A multi-case study of Dutch nanotechnology researchers. SpringerPlus, 5: 1-20.