Management Decision

Innovation in social economy firms

M. Jos Rodrguez Carmen Guzmn

Article information:

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

To cite this document:

M. Jos Rodrguez Carmen Guzmn, (2013),"Innovation in social economy firms", Management Decision, Vol. 51 Iss 5 pp.
986 - 998
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2012-0538
Downloaded on: 23 December 2015, At: 15:54 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 46 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1109 times since 2013*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Knut J. Ims, Laszlo Zsolnai, (2014),"Ethics of social innovation", Society and Business Review, Vol. 9 Iss 2 pp. 186-194
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SBR-11-2013-0076
Punita Bhatt, Levent Altinay, (2013),"How social capital is leveraged in social innovations under resource constraints?",
Management Decision, Vol. 51 Iss 9 pp. 1772-1792 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2013-0041
Vesa P. Taatila, Jyrki Suomala, Reijo Siltala, Soili Keskinen, (2006),"Framework to study the social innovation networks",
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9 Iss 3 pp. 312-326 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601060610678176

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:581774 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

MD
51,5

Innovation in social economy

firms
M. Jose Rodrguez

986

Department of Applied Economics I, University of Seville, Seville, Spain, and

Carmen Guzman
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

Department of Economics, University of Huelva, Huelva, Spain

Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine whether the determinant factors of innovations broadly
accepted for traditional firms the personal traits of the entrepreneurs, the features of the firms and
the environment also influence innovation in social economy companies.
Design/methodology/approach Based on a sample carried out between small cooperatives and
worker-owned companies which are the most representative legal forms in the Spanish social
economy collective the authors develop an empirical study using a logistic regression model.
Findings The results show that, on the whole, innovation in these kinds of firm seems to be
determined by the same set of variables as in the case of traditional firms. In addition to this, the
present research reveals that the influence of these variables on entrepreneurial innovations depends
on the kind of innovation. Finally, the findings also give evidence about the existence of an
inter-dependence among the different types of innovation in social economy firms.
Research limitations/implications The study is limited to small firms within the Spanish
industrial and service sectors, but provides future researchers with further replication opportunities.
Originality/value Taking into account the relevant contribution of social economy companies to
the Spanish economy, and having noted the scarce number of studies about innovation in the social
economy sector, this research offers a significant contribution by specifying the innovative behavior of
social economy firms in Spain.
Keywords Innovation, Social economy firms, Logistic regression, Human capital, Spain, Social capital
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Social economy, which represents part of social reality separate from that of the public
and private sectors, has become a widespread concept in Europe. The third sector, as
this reality is commonly known, is composed of a wide variety of legal forms, develops
numerous activities, and operates in almost all markets. Despite this great range of
differences, all organizations belonging to the social economy share common traits,
including the primacy of the individual over capital, the combination of the interests of
members/users with the general interest. Social entrepreneurs, therefore, are driven not
by the need to maximize profit for shareholders or owners, but by the creation of social
value (Williams and Nadin, 2012).
Within the social economy sector, differentiation is possible between market
organizations and non-market organizations. This study focuses on the former
Management Decision
Vol. 51 No. 5, 2013
pp. 986-998
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0025-1747
DOI 10.1108/MD-08-2012-0538

This article is part of the Excellence research project entitled Analyzing the qualitative
aspects shaping the quality of entrepreneurs and SMEs: implications for economic development
of the Spanish regions (P09-SEJ-4857), which has been funded by the Department of Economy,
Innovation and Science of the Regional Government of Andalusia (Spain).

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

group, since the number of firms and their contribution to economic development is
greater. These companies act in the market, which is why they are subject to its
demands in terms of productivity, competitiveness and efficiency. As in the case of
traditional capitalist firms, their main resources come from market sales. Likewise,
these organizations have to make the necessary profits in order to guarantee their
economic viability and payments to their members and workers (Doherty et al., 2009).
Hence, third sector companies put into practice entrepreneurial strategies that allow
them to improve their management and their profits. One way to attain this
improvement is through innovation, which becomes a key factor in social economy
firms (Leadbeater, 1997).
As in Europe, the Spanish social economy entrepreneurial sector now plays a
significant role in terms of the number of firms and activities, and its contribution to
national wealth. Thus, the social economy sector is 2.4 percent of Spanish GDP
(Monzon, 2010).
In spite of the relevant contribution of third sector companies to the Spanish
economy, and having proved the importance of innovation in the improvement of
productivity and competitiveness levels in companies, the number of studies on
innovation in the social economy sector remains low. This research therefore analyzes
the innovative behavior of social economy firms. In line with this objective, the
definition of the concept of entrepreneurial innovation is taken as the introduction of
a new product or service in a company, improvements in those products that already
exist, the introduction of a new production process, or the implementation of a new
method of commercialization or organization in the internal function of the company.
These changes can take place in the workplace or in external relationships
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2005).
2. Literature review and conceptual framework
Since Joseph Schumpeter (1934) used the adjective innovative to identify and
characterize the role of the entrepreneur, innovation has held a key position in the
entrepreneurial literature. Innovation improves entrepreneurial productivity and
returns (Salavou and Avlonitis, 2008). Innovation also qualifies firms to act in
environments that are becoming increasingly dynamic and to discover and exploit new
business opportunities. In this way, companies can develop new sources of value in
order to maintain a solid competitive position and to achieve survival and even
profitability (Johannessen et al., 2001). Thus, entrepreneurial innovation is now the
most likely sign of value creation in a firm (Hitt et al., 1996) and also the main source of
economic growth in a territory (Wong et al., 2005).
Companies differ in the kinds and levels of innovation they introduce and also in the
impact these innovations have on their results (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990;
Zortea-Johnston et al., 2012). With regard to the types of innovation, the basis of the
most expanded classification is the nature of innovation (Schumpeter, 1934) or its
impact, which depends on how risky and new the innovation is (Damanpour, 1991). A
focus on the nature of innovation can distinguish between innovation in products
(important changes in the features of the produced goods and services), innovation in
processes (changes in production methods and distribution), managerial innovations
(changes in the practices of the company, in the organization of the workplace or in the
external relationships of the companies), and market innovations (new methods of

Social economy
firms

987

MD
51,5

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

988

commercialization and the opening up of new markets). The first two categories refer
to productive activities and usually contain an important technological component.
The rest of the categories focus on managerial activities and relate more to the
administrative tasks that support and boost the innovation in the company
(Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan, 2001).
Certain studies point out managerial innovations as a requirement for the creation
of technological innovations (Lam, 2004). Following this idea, other papers show that
the joint incorporation of both technological and managerial innovations has an
additional effect on the firms productivity and performance (Damanpour et al., 2009).
This effect is especially important for the services sector, where technological
innovations are mainly incremental, and contact networks with clients and suppliers
play an important role.
Innovation depends on two kinds of factors:
(1) internal factors, which relate to the characteristics of the firm and the
entrepreneur; and
(2) external factors, which are subject to the environment surrounding the
company (Rogers, 1983; Drucker, 1994).
These factors are not independent: their intrinsic value depends on the industry or
business area in which the firm is launched (Canina et al., 2012). These are inter-related
dimensions regarding the innovative phenomenon in companies (Romero and
Martnez, 2012). Although internal factors are relevant for any kind of organization,
their influence is greater in small firms (Hadjimanolis, 2000). Furthermore,
entrepreneurs capture the influence of the external environment through their
perceptions, generating attitudes that determine their behaviors (Linan et al., 2011).
Regarding the generally accepted personal traits of entrepreneurs, which determine
the innovative activity of small and medium-sized firms, the literature emphasizes
those traits that relate to the entrepreneurs human capital, their education and skills,
and knowledge acquired through work experience (Lasch et al., 2007). These elements
affect the entrepreneurs decision about combining the available resources in order to
create innovation. In this sense, Fernandez and Pena (2009) studied the determinants of
innovation in Spanish cooperatives and found evidence for the positive and significant
effect of the members education on technological innovation.
Other characteristics of entrepreneurs mentioned in the literature as being relevant
in the introduction of innovations in a firm refer to social capital. This is a
multidimensional concept that includes the firms contact network with other
institutions or entrepreneurs, and the information, knowledge and resources that it can
access through these contacts (Zheng, 2010; Bergh et al., 2011; Fornoni et al., 2011).
Social capital promotes cooperation among the members of a group (Fukuyama, 2001).
This situation stimulates the creation of a network of entrepreneurs, which, in the case
of social economy companies such as cooperatives and worker-owned firms, allows
collective learning, which in turn facilitates information flow and promotes innovation
(Vargas, 2004).
These two factors, social and human capital, are part of the concept of intellectual
capital, which is the set of intangible resources and capacities with regard to a
different kind of knowledge that adds competitive advantages to the company
(Hormiga et al., 2011).

The following hypotheses are in accordance with the information collected after the
literature review about the personal features of the entrepreneur that gives rise to
innovation in firms:

Social economy
firms

H1. The better the entrepreneurs human capital (training and experience), the
higher the tendency to innovate in social economy firms.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

H2. The greater the relational social capital of entrepreneurs (information and
knowledge acquired through their relationships with other agents), the higher
the tendency to innovate in social economy firms.
Among the features of firms that can affect their innovative activity, the size and
the activity sector stand out (Caceres et al., 2011). The aspect of size relates to the
resources available to introduce innovation (Acs and Audretsch, 1990; Agarwal and
Audretsch, 2001). Large firms usually have more resources, skills, experience and
potential for innovation. However, it has been observed that expectations concerning
the growth of a company also have a positive influence on innovation (Gonzalez and
Pena, 2007). Companies with faster growth are generally more innovative
(Jones-Evans and Westhead, 1996). These ventures normally seek to increase
their size in order to take advantage of innovation and to obtain higher levels of
efficiency and productivity.
The activity sector determines the opportunity for the introduction of innovation,
the profits derived from an innovation, and the possibilities of the accumulation and
appropriation of technology and knowledge (Dosi, 1988). Within the innovation
process in a sector, a differentiation between the exploratory phase and the exploitation
phase can be made (Acs and Audretsch, 1990). Companies in the exploratory phase
dedicate a high percentage of resources to investing in R&D&i with the aim of
developing and commercializing innovation (Gonzalez and Pena, 2007). This action
usually takes place in sectors which are in the incipient phase of the firms life cycle, in
sectors intensive in technology or knowledge. Nevertheless, other sectors concentrate
on exploiting those products or services that belong to an already mature or stable
sector rather than focusing on the development of innovations. The consideration also
exists that size and sector relate to the kind of innovation created by the company.
Thus, small firms producing low-technology goods or low knowledge-intensive goods
aim to create managerial innovation, whereas larger industrial companies based on
producing high-technology goods prefer technological innovations (Tether, 2005).
Another factor to consider is the business strategy for innovation. The more
proactive the company is in seeking opportunities for innovation and adopting
behavior favorable to innovation, the more innovative the company will be. In this
sense, establishing cooperative arrangements with other companies may favor the
transmission and exchange of knowledge and experience. An association exists
between this exchange and the development of innovations (Cabrera and Cabrera,
2002).
The formulation of the following hypotheses is in accordance with the ideas the
literature exposes about the managerial characteristics that affect a firms innovative
activity:
H3. The larger the expected growth of the company, the greater the propensity to
innovate in social economy ventures.

989

MD
51,5

H4. The more intensive the behavior of exploration of innovation in the

economic sector in which the company operates, the greater the propensity to
innovate in social economy ventures.
H5. The greater the number of formal or written cooperation agreements hold by
the social economy firm, the greater the propensity to innovate in the venture.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

990

Among the external factors of the company that can influence its innovative activity,
an emphasis exists on the features of the environment that favor the exchange and
dissemination of knowledge among economic agents (Mas-Verdu et al., 2010).
Examples include:
.
building a regional innovation system to channel the supply of innovation to its
demand (Edquist, 2001);
.
developing close relationships with universities or research centers to enable
knowledge to be captured (Singh, 2006); and
.
the existence of an institutional framework conducive to innovation, with a
strong educational system and policies to support business innovation (Porter
and Scott, 2001).
Social Economy enterprises are characterized by their close links to their nearest local
environment and to local development, especially in the case of small-sized cooperatives
and worker-owned firms operating in the services sector. The local environment is thus
likely to affect the innovation capacity of these businesses more strongly than the
regional or national environment. Then again, certain authors highlight the advantages
arising from a citys diverse and concentrated entrepreneurial structure (Audretsch,
1998), and also from the fact that a city is the center of attraction for people with a variety
of skills, knowledge and cultures, which promotes creative, artistic and industrial
processes (Johnson, 2011). Thus, a firm located in a rural environment experiences
greater difficulties introducing or developing an innovation due to the lack of
geographical proximity to R&D&i organizations.
The formulation of the following hypothesis is based on the findings in the
literature about the characteristics of a businesss environment and how they affect its
innovative activity:
H6. The location of a company has an effect on its innovation capacity, this
capacity being higher in the case of businesses located in urban areas.
3. Empirical analysis
3.1 Data collection, variables and method
The testing of the hypotheses is performed through a series of logistic regression models
using an SPSS statistical program. Data for this study comes from a survey of Spanish
entrepreneurs of small businesses in the social economy sector between the end of 2010
and the beginning of 2011. The interviewees were entrepreneurs, defined as business
owners who also assumed managerial functions. The survey includes small firms
operating in the industry and services sectors, but not in the primary sector. The final
sample contained 81 observations. Most of the firms were long-established companies of
more than ten years old (69 percent), belonging to the commercial sector or other
low-knowledge-intensive services (77 percent), and employing fewer than ten workers.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

The questionnaire included queries about the innovative activities of small

businesses and about certain variables that, according to the literature review,
potentially determine their innovation capacity. The dependent variables constituted
the many kinds of innovation. The entrepreneurs interviewed were asked whether they
had carried out any technological innovation, including product and process
innovation, and any managerial innovation in the previous three years.
Thus, in this paper, the following three dummy variables are dependent variables:
(1) technological innovation (tech_inn) this variable takes a value of 1 if the firm
undertook any product or process innovation in the previous three years, and
takes the value 0 otherwise.
(2) Managerial innovation (manag_inn) this variable takes a value of 1 if the firm
undertook any managerial innovation in the previous three years, and 0
otherwise; and
(3) technological and managerial innovation (both.inn) this variable takes a
value of 1 if the firm undertook both technological and managerial innovation in
the previous three years, and 0 in the negative case.
The explanatory or independent variables that this study includes can be classified
into three groups:
(1) Entrepreneurs personal characteristics:
.
Tertiary education (Ter_edu) this variable takes a of value 1 for those
entrepreneurs who have a university degree or higher professional training,
and a value of 0 for the remainder.
.
Previous experience as an employee (Exp) this variable takes a value of 1
for those interviewed who had previously worked as an employee, and a
value of 0 otherwise.
.
Customer and supplier network (Network) this variable takes a value of 1
for interviewees who have acquired information or knowledge via their
customer or supplier networks, and 0 otherwise.
(2) Managerial characteristics this group includes indicators to explore the
possible effect of different management practices on innovative behavior.
(3) Cooperation (Coop) the variable takes a value of 1 in the case of formal
collaboration agreements existing between firms, and 0 otherwise.
(4) Expected growth (Exp_growth) The dichotomous variable takes a value of 1
if the firm expects to grow in size over the next five years (measured in number
of employees).
(5) Sector (Sector) This variable takes a value of 1 for a firm operating in sectors
in which the R&D spending with regard to GDP is above the overall average
spending by the other sectors.
Including one control variable in the model isolates the influence of the main variables
and guarantees empirical results of a more consistent nature. This variable concerns
the firms external characteristics. The control variable in this study was the local
environment (Local_env). This variable takes a value of 1 for those social economy
firms located in urban areas, and 0 for those firms operating in rural areas. In Spain, an

Social economy
firms

991

MD
51,5

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

992

urban area is defined as an area whose population is over 10,000 inhabitants (according
to the Spanish Statistics Institute).
3.2 Analysis and results
Descriptive indicators for the variables included in the analysis and the correlation
coefficients between these variables are presented in Table I. Of the entrepreneurs
interviewed, 46.9 percent had introduced a technological innovation, 32.1 percent
had introduced a managerial innovation, and 24.7 percent had introduced both
kinds of innovation. Technological innovation is therefore more common in social
economy companies than managerial innovation. Regarding the entrepreneurs
human capital, 29.6 percent of those people interviewed had a university degree or
higher professional training, and 25.9 percent had profited from previous experience
as employees. In terms of social capital, 69.1 percent of entrepreneurs had acquired
information towards innovation via customers and suppliers. Regarding managerial
characteristics, only 18.5 percent of social economy firms included in the sample
have plans to grow in the next five years, and 28.4 percent have set up a formal
cooperation agreement with other companies operating in the same sector. Then
again, 16 percent of social economy companies belong to sectors tending towards
exploratory innovation, in which the expense on R&D compared to GDP is higher
than that of the overall average of the sectors. Finally, 70.4 percent of the firms are
in urban areas.
Some correlation coefficients between the variables are statistically significant. In
particular (see Table I), the entrepreneurs personal characteristics, such as their
educational background and previous work experience, have a direct influence on their
business strategy towards innovation; towards the social capital variable to be precise.
Likewise, a close link exists between the expectations for the growth of the firm and the
activity sector to which the company belongs. The coefficients between these
explanatory variables always remain below 0.5 and the variance inflation factors are
all below 10, indicating that multicollinearity is not a concern.
On the other hand, what is notable is that the correlation coefficients between the
various kinds of innovation are statistically significant. This result reinforces the need
to use a multivariate analysis approach in order to determine the factors for the
introduction and creation of innovation in social economy firms.
Variable

Table I.
Descriptive indicators
and correlation matrix

1. Both_Inn
2. Techn_Inn
3. Manag_inn
4. Local_env
5. Sector
6. Exp_growth
7. Coop
8. Network
9. Ter_edu
10. Exp

Valuea

24.7
46.9
32.1
70.4
16
18.5
28.4
69.1
29.6
25.9

1
0.41 * *
0.61 * *
0.23 *
0.20
0.25 *
0.23 *
0.41 * *
0.37 * *
0.29 * *

1
0.83 * *
0.21
0.35 * *
0.42 * *
0.45 * *
0.35 * *
0.19
0.32 * *

1
0.18
1
0.45 * *
0.13
1
0.54 * * 20.11
0.40 * *
0.47 * *
0.17
0.10
0.32 * *
0.15
0.07
0.26 *
0.07
0.16
0.32 * * 20.05 20.03

Notes: aPercentage of 1 (affirmative answers); *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01

1
0.12
0.11
0.04
0.01

10

1
0.18
1
0.19
0.38 * * 1
0.32 * * 0.21
0.11 1

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

Table II shows the results obtained after running the logistic regression models. The
Nagelkerke R 2 and Hosmer-Lemeshow tests reveal the goodness-of-fit of the three
models. The three models are defined in order to verify the influence of the selected
variables on the various kinds of innovation in social economy firms. Thus, a
differentiation can be made between companies that carry out both technological and
managerial innovation (Model 1), companies that only incorporate or create
technological innovation (Model 2), and companies that only perform managerial
innovation (Model 3). After running the logistic regressions, the three models obtained
explain a very high percentage of the innovative capacity of social economy firms.
H1 refers to the positive influence of human capital on the capacity for the
introduction of innovation in social economy companies. The results allow a partial
acceptance of this hypothesis. Concerning the two human capital variables understood
in this research as having a positive influence on innovation (i.e. Ter_edu and Exp),
only the latter seems to explain the all range of innovation. According to this result,
technological and managerial innovation in the social economy sector can be
characterized by those entrepreneurs with a set of skills and knowledge about the
entrepreneurial activity acquired via previous experience developed from being
self-employed. However, higher educational levels are significant only for
technological innovation. This result is logical since kinds of entrepreneurs are
prepared to assimilate new technological changes.
H2 positively relates social capital (network) to the introduction of innovation in
social economy firms. The results allow the acceptance of this hypothesis in all three
models. Thus, there is a positive influence of social capital on the introduction and/or
development of technological and managerial innovation. In this way, the evaluation of
information acquired through the networks involving suppliers and clients is timely,
since to this information increases the possibilities of incorporating innovation.

Variables

Both innovations
b
SE

Technological
innovation
b
SE

993

Managerial
innovation
b
SE

Control
Ent_Local

3.870 * *

1.58

0.512 * *

0.72

2.387 *

1.05

Managerial character
Sector
Persp_crec
Coop

4.964 * *
7.189 * * *
3.759 * *

2.05
2.48
1.50

0.376
1.918 * *
0.052

0.86
0.91
0.67

1.906 *
3.568 * * *
2.059 * *

1.06
1.24
0.80

4.415 *
0.842
3.488 * *
2 13.597 * * *
24.467
66.278 * * *
0.829
93.8

2.58
1.17
1.52
4.41

1.337 * *
1.360 *
1.397 * *
2 3.388 * * *
77.532
34.499 * * *
0.462
76.5

0.70
0.66
0.75
0.88

2.054 *
2 0.038
1.798 * *
2 6.425 * * *
52.760
48.914 * * *
0.634
84.0

1.10
0.76
0.84
1.65

Entrepreneur character
Network
Ter_edu
Exp
Constant
22 log likelihood
x2
Nagelkerke R 2
Percentage correct predictions

Social economy
firms

Notes: *Significant at the 0.10 level; * *significant at the 0.05 level; * * *significant at the 0.01 level

Table II.
Logistic regression

MD
51,5

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

994

Regarding the firms characteristics, the results support H3. Hence, the higher the
companys growth expectations (Exp_growth), the higher the capacity for introducing
both technological and managerial innovation.
However, the support of H4 and H5 is only partial. The economic sector (Sector) and
the existence of formal cooperation agreements (Coop) do not seem to determine the
firms capacity for introducing technological innovation, but they do in the case of
managerial innovations and that of both technological innovation and managerial
innovation at the same time.
H6 relates the geographical environment (Local_env) to the capacity for introducing
innovation. According to the significant result, the acceptance of this hypothesis is
possible. Consequently, the assumption exists that the geographical environment
influences technological innovation in social economy firms.
Those firms that introduced both technological innovation and managerial
innovation (Model 1) are now considered. The explanatory variables which have a
statistically significant effect on the innovative behavior at confidence levels of either
0.05 or 0.01 include:
.
local environment (Local_env);
.
managerial characteristics of the company (Sector, Exp_growth, Coop); and
.
the entrepreneurs previous experience (Exp).
In addition to this, contact network (Network) is a marginally significant factor
explaining innovation activities (with a level of confidence of 0.10). The largest
coefficients belong to those variables that relate the growth expectations
(Exp_growth), sector (Sector) and contact network of the firm with clients and
suppliers (Network).
Model 2, which includes firms that only carry out technological innovations, is
appreciably different. Statistically significant variables at the confidence levels of
either 0.05 or 0.01 are: the growth expectations of the firm (Exp_growth), the contact
network with clients and suppliers (Network), and the entrepreneurs previous
experience (Exp). Moreover, the entrepreneurs tertiary educational level (Ter_edu) is
marginally significant when explaining innovation activities (with a confidence level of
0.10).The largest coefficient between these variables is the variable of growth
expectation (Exp_growth).
Model 3 is similar to Model 1. The statistically significant variables at the
confidence levels of either 0.05 or 0.01 are the following:
.
managerial characteristics of the company (Exp_growth, Coop); and
.
the entrepreneurs previous experience (Exp).
In addition, the sector in which the company acts (Sector), the variable of local
environment (Local_env) and its contact network (Network), are marginally significant
factors explaining innovation activities (with a confidence level of 0.10). The largest
coefficients belong to those variables relating to the growth expectation (Exp_growth),
local environment (Local_env) and the contact network of the firm with clients and
suppliers (Network).

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

4. Discussion and conclusions

Taking into account that the philosophy of performance of social economy firms is
different to that of capitalist ventures, the aim of this research is to verify if the
determinants of the innovation capacities in social economy companies are similar to
those determinants in the case of traditional ventures.
The results show that, on the whole, the determinants influencing the introduction
and the creation of innovation in social economy firms appear to be identical to those
for traditional companies. They are in line with findings from previous research on the
relationship between ownership structure and innovativeness in companies (De Cleyn
and Braet, 2012). Nevertheless, certain additional findings stand out:
.
The innovation capacity in social economy ventures in Spain depends on both
external and internal factors.
.
The influence of the factors determining innovation in these kinds of firms varies
depending on the kind of innovation that the firm is going to incorporate. Thus,
this situation provides evidence on the existence of several models according to
the kind of innovation incorporated: technological, managerial or both.
.
A possible explanation for the fact of common factors influencing the different
types of innovation is the dependence that may exist between managerial
innovation and technological innovation. What justifies this aspect may be the
fact that the firms managerial capacity to incorporate new technology
determines technological innovations (Damanpour and Evan, 1984).
.
The relevance of human capital (especially previous experience) and social
capital (in its contact network approach) is a key factor in the innovative capacity
of social economy firms.
.
Cooperation agreements appear to be a determinant of innovation for social
economy firms that include managerial innovation and both kinds of innovation
(managerial and technological), but not for companies which only carry out
technological innovation. This feature provides evidence once more of the
importance of good internal organization in the company in order to take
advantage of the different knowledge acquired through the external partners and
used in the innovation process.
.
The growth expectations also play an important role in the capacity for
innovation of social economy companies when introducing managerial,
technological or both kinds of innovation. This result is logical since the aim
of introducing an innovation tends to be to advance in the business.
.
A location in an urban area favors the innovation capacity in social economy
firms. The tendency to innovate is higher if a companys location is near an
emplacement with a high entrepreneurial concentration.
.
Finally, the sector in which a social economy company operates appears to
influence the development of solely managerial innovation and that of both kinds
of innovation, but fail to hold any influence for solely technological innovation.
This last finding and that concerning cooperation may be due to the limitations of this
research, which are the features and size of the sample used. Most firms included in the
sample are microcompanies dedicated to the low- knowledge-intensive services sector.

Social economy
firms

995

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

MD
51,5

This fact explains why the sector and cooperation variables hold no influence on
technological innovation. Since the sample size is small, all the indicators show a high
level of confidence. Notwithstanding, future research is planned in order to overcome
these limitations.

996

References
Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D. (1990), Innovation and Small Firms, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Agarwal, R. and Audretsch, D. (2001), Does entry size matter?, Journal of Industrial Economics,
Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 21-43.
Audretsch, D. (1998), Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity, Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 18-29.
Bergh, P., Thorgren, S. and Wincent, J. (2011), Entrepreneurs learning together: the importance
of building trust for learning and exploiting business opportunities, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 17-37.
Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E. (2002), Knowledge-sharing dilemma, Organization Studies, Vol. 23
No. 5, pp. 687-710.
Caceres, R., Guzman, J. and Rekowski, M. (2011), Firms as source of variety in innovation:
influence of size and sector, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 357-372.
Canina, L., Palacios, D. and Devece, C. (2012), Management theories linking individual and
organizational level analysis in entrepreneurship research, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 271-284.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), Absorptive-capacity a new perspective on learning
and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-152.
Damanpour, F. (1991), Managerial innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-590.
Damanpour, F. and Evan, M. (1984), Organizational innovation and performance: the problem of
organizational lag, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 392-409.
Damanpour, F. and Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001), The dynamics of the adoption of product and
process innovations in organizations, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 45-65.
Damanpour, F., Walker, R. and Avellaneda, C. (2009), Combinative effects of innovation types
and organizational performance: a longitudinal study of service organizations,
The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 4, p. 650.
De Cleyn, S.H. and Braet, J. (2012), Do board composition and investor type influence
innovativeness in SMEs?, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 285-308.
Doherty, B., Foster, G., Mason, C., Meehan, J., Meehan, K. and Rotheroe, N. (2009), Managment of
Social Enterprises, Sage Publications, London.
Dosi, G. (1988), Sources, procedures and microeconomics effects of innovation, Journal of
Economic Literature, Vol. 26, pp. 1120-1171.
Drucker, P. (1994), Knowledge work and knowledge society, The 1994 Edwin L. Godkin
Lecture, Vol. 1994, JFK School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Edquist, Ch. (2001), The systems of innovation approach and innovation policy: an account of
the state of the art, paper presented at the DRUID Conference, Aalborg, June 12-15.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

Fernandez, M.V. and Pena, I. (2009), Estrategia de innovacion como factor Determinante del
exito de las cooperativas Vitivincolas de Castilla La Mancha, Revesco, No. 98.
Fornoni, M., Arribas, I. and Vila, J.E. (2011), Measurement of an individual entrepreneurs social
capital: a multidimensional model, International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 495-507.
Fukuyama, F. (2001), Social capital, civil society and development, Third World Quarterly,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Gonzalez, J.L. and Pena, I. (2007), Determinantes de la capacidad de innovacion de los negocios
emprendedores en Espana, Economa Industrial, Vol. 363, pp. 129-147.
Hadjimanolis, A. (2000), A resource-based view of innovativeness in small firms, Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 263-281.
Hitt, M., Hoskisson, R., Johnson, R. and Moesel, D. (1996), The market for corporate control and
firm innovation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1084-1092.
Hormiga, E., Batista-Canino, R.M. and Sanchez-Medina, A. (2011), The role of intellectual capital
in the success of new ventures, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Johannessen, J.A., Olsen, B. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2001), Innovation as newness: what is new, how
new, and new to whom?, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 20-31.
Johnson, B. (2011), Organization and innovation: the topic of creative cities, in Asheim, B. and
Parrilli, M.D. (Eds), Innovation and Learning for Innovation: A Key Driver within Clusters
and Innovation Systems, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Jones-Evans, D. and Westhead, P. (1996), The high-technology small firms in the UK,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 15-39.
Lam, A. (2004), Organizational innovation, BSBM Working Papers, Vol. 1 No. 2, Brunel
Business School, Brunel University, Uxbridge, pp. 8-45.
Lasch, F., Le Roy, F. and Yami, S. (2007), Critical growth factors of ICT start-ups, Management
Decision, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 62-75.
Leadbeater, C. (1997), The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur, Demos, London.
Linan, F., Santos, F.J. and Fernandez, J. (2011), The influence of perceptions on potential
entrepreneurs, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 373-390.
Mas-Verdu, F., Ribeiro Soriano, D. and Roig Dobon, S. (2010), Regional development and
innovation: the role of services, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 633-641.
Monzon, J.L. (Dir.) (2010), Las Grandes Cifras de la Economa Social en Espana, CIRIEC, Valencia.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005), The measurement of scientific
and technological activities: proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological
innovation data, Oslo Manual, available at: www.oecd.org/science/inno/2367580.pdf
Porter, M.E. and Scott, S. (2001), Innovation: location matters, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 42 No. 4.
Rogers, E. (1983), The Diffusion of Innovation, 3rd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Romero, I. and Martnez, J.A. (2011), Self-employment and innovation. Exploring the
determinants of innovative behavior in small businesses, Research Policy, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 178-189.
Salavou, H. and Avlonitis, G. (2008), Product innovativeness and performance: a focus on
SMEs, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 969-985.

Social economy
firms

997

MD
51,5

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

998

Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Singh, L. (2006), Innovations and economic growth in a fast changing global economy:
comparative experience of Asian countries, MPRA Papers No. 80, available at: http://
mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/80/.
Tether, B.S. (2005), Do services innovate (differently)? Insights from the European
Innobarometer survey, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 153-184.
Vargas, A. (2004), Empresas cooperativas, ventaja competitiva y tecnologas de la informacion,
CIRIEC-Espana, Revista de Economa Publica, Social y Cooperativa, Vol. 49, pp. 13-29.
Williams, C.C. and Nadin, S. (2012), Entrepreneurship in the informal economy: commercial or
social entrepreneurs?, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 309-324.
Wong, P.K., Ho, Y.P. and Autio, E. (2005), Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth:
evidence from GEM data, Small Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 335-350.
Zheng, W. (2010), A social capital perspective of innovation from individuals to nations: where
is empirical literature directing us?, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 151-183.
Zortea-Johnston, E., Darroch, J. and Matear, S. (2012), Business orientations and innovation in
small and medium sized enterprises, International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 145-165.
About the authors
M. Jose Rodrguez has a PhD in Economics and is an Associate Professor at the University of
Seville (Spain), where she is a member of the SMEs and Economic Development research group
and the Bancaja Chair Young Entrepreneurs. She is a participant in the International project
ENDEAVOR Entrepreneurial Development as a Vehicle to Promote European Higher
Education. Her research interests include entrepreneurship, social economy firms, innovation,
gender, social capital and network, and the role of SMEs in regional development. M. Jose
Rodrguez is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: mjrodri@us.es
Carmen Guzman is a Teacher Assistant in the Department of Economics in the University of
Huelva. She belongs to the research group Research Techniques and Economic Development
and she is a member of the Research Center International Territorial Intelligence (C3it). Her
research interests include entrepreneurship, social economy firms, entrepreneurial quality, social
capital and network, and the role of SMEs in regional development. Currently, she is developing
a study about the quality of the social economy entrepreneurial structure versus the traditional
entrepreneurial structure in Spain.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 15:54 23 December 2015 (PT)

1. Antonio Padilla-Melndez, Ana Rosa Del Aguila-Obra, Nigel Lockett. 2014. All in the mind:
understanding the social economy enterprise innovation in Spain. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research 20:5, 493-512. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Sladjana Cabrilo, Leposava Grubic Nesic, Slavica Mitrovic. 2014. Study on human capital gaps for effective
innovation strategies in the knowledge era. Journal of Intellectual Capital 15:3, 411-429. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]