Share:


An impact analysis of COVID-19 on the relation between open In novation, IP openness and firm performance

DOI:

Abstract

This study empirically investigated how pre-COVID innovation activities and IP management affected business performance after the arrival of COVID-19. As a result, the following three points were clarified: First, the high level of R&D investment before the arrival of COVID-19 weakened the damage to sales and operating profit after its arrival. Second, we found that the firms that launched new products and services four years before the arrival of COVID-19 suffered more damage from COVID-19. Third, although innovation activities are vulnerable to the crisis as a whole, there are cases in which firms have not lost or improved their performance even after the arrival of COVID-19. Specifically, it became clear that the damage caused by COVID-19 was lesser for collaborative innovations involving many firms than for innovations realized by single firms. This was also demonstrated from the perspective of open IP management.

Keyword : Open innovation, IP openness, impact of COVID-19, pre-COVID, firm performance.,

How to Cite
Kanama, D. (2023). An impact analysis of COVID-19 on the relation between open In novation, IP openness and firm performance. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 21(1), 272-289.

Published in Issue
Jul 14, 2023
Abstract Views
600
PDF Downloads
0
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Anand, N.B., & Khanna, T. (2000). The structure of licensing contracts. Journal of Industrial Economics, 48, 103-135. 2. Apedo-Amah, M., et. al. (2020). Unmasking the impact of COVID-19 on businesses: Firm level evidence from across the world. Policy Research Working Paper, 9434. 3. Arora, A., & Ceccagnoli, M. (2006). Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms: incentives for technology licensing. Management Science, 52, 293-308. 4. Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (2010). Ideas for rent: an overview of markets for technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(3), 775-803. 5. Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., & Davis. S. (2020). Covid-19 is also a reallocation shock. NBER Working Paper ,No. 27137. DOI 10.3386/w27137 Business, Management and Economics Engineering ISSN: 2669-2481 / eISSN: 2669-249X 2023 Volume 21 Issue 1: 272–289 287 An impact analysis of COVID-19 on the relation between open In novation, IP openness and firm performance 6. Belderbos, R., Dries, F., Bart L., & Bart, V. L. (2010). Technological activities and their impact on the financial performance of the firm: exploitation and exploration within and between firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(6), 869-882. 7. Biswas, S. (2021). Can R&D investment reduce the impact of COVID-19 on firm performance? Evidence from India. Journal of Public Affairs, e2773. 8. Bosio, E., Djankov, S., Jolevski, F., & Ramalho. R. (2020). Survival of firms during economic crisis. Policy Research Working Paper, 9239. World Bank Group. 9. Brem, A., Nylund, P., & Viardot, E. (2020). The impact of the 2008 financial crisis on innovation: A dominant design perspective. Journal of Business Research, 110, 360-369. 10. Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2001). Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 975-1005. 11. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 12. Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1169-1184. 13. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. 14. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper No. 7552. 15. Dahlandera, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699-709. 16. Dang, J., & Motohashi, K. (2014). Get pennies from many or a dollar from one? Multiple contracting in markets for technology. RIETI Discussion Paper Series 14-E-006. 17. Darby, M.R., Zucker, L.G., & Wang, A. (2004). Joint ventures, universities, and success in the advanced technology program. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22, 145-161. 18. Fehrer, J.A., Woratschek, H., & Brodie, R.J. (2018). A systemic logic for platform business models. Journal of Service Management, 29(4), 546-568. 19. Felin, T., & Zenger, T. (2014). Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Research Policy, 43(5), 914-925. 20. Fujiwara, A., & Watanabe, T. (2013). The effect of researcher mobility on organizational R&D performance: researcher mobility and innovation. The 6th ISPIM Innovation Symposium: Innovation in the Asian Century, in Melbourne, Australia. 21. Gambardella, A., & Giarratana, M. S. (2013). General technological capabilities, product market fragmentation, and markets for technology. Research Policy, 42(2), 315-325. 22. Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 213-221. 23. Gibert, R., & Newbery, D. (1982). Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review, 72, 1141-1158. 24. Garriga, H., von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. (2013). How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9), 1134-1144. 25. Granja, J., & Moreira, S. (2021). Product innovation and credit market disruptions. April 15, 2021. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3477726 26. Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2014). Resource complementarity and value capture in firm acquisitions: The role of intellectual property rights. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1762-1780. Business, Management and Economics Engineering ISSN: 2669-2481 / eISSN: 2669-249X 2023 Volume 21 Issue 1: 272–289 288 An impact analysis of COVID-19 on the relation between open In novation, IP openness and firm performance 27. Grimpe, C., & Sofka, W. (2009). Search patterns and absorptive capacity: Low- and hightechnology sectors in European countries. Research Policy, 38(3), 495-506. 28. Hashi, I., & Stojcic, N. (2013). The impact of innovation activities on firm performance using a multi-stage model: Evidence from the Community Innovation Survey 4. Research Policy, 42, 353-366. 29. Hussinger, K. (2006). Is silence golden? Patents versus secrecy at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(8), 735-752. 30. ILO. (2020). ILO Monitor. COVID-19 and the world of work (2nd edition), April 7, 2020. 31. Jacobides, M. G. (2019). In the ecosystem economy, What’s your strategy? Harvard Business Review, 97(5), 128-137. 32. Jung, H., Hwang, J.T., & Kim, B.K. (2018). Does R&D investment increase SME survival during a recession? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137, 190-198. 33. Kanama, D., & Nishikawa, K. (2017a). What type of obstacles in innovation activities make firms access university knowledge? An empirical study of the use of university knowledge on innovation outcomes. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 141-157. 34. Kanama, D., & Nishikawa, K. (2017b). Promoting factors of outbound open innovation. The Academic Association for Organizational Science, 51(2), 74-89. (In Japanese) 35. Laursen, K. (2012). Keep searching and you’ll find: What do we know about variety creation through firms’ search activities for innovation? Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1181-1220. 36. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150. 37. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867-878. 38. Levin, R.C., et al. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3, 783-820. 39. Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: examining environmental influences. R&D Management, 39(4), 317-330. 40. Lichtenthaler, U. (2010). Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective. Research Policy, 39, 55-66. 41. Lome, O., Heggeseth, A.G., & Moen, O. (2016). The effect of R&D on performance: Do R&D intensive firms handle a financial crisis better? Journal of High Technology Management and Research, 27, 65-77. 42. Lööf, H., & Brostrom, A. (2008). Does Knowledge Diffusion between Universities and Industry Increase Innovativeness? Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 73-90. 43. Mazzola, E., Manfredi, B., & Perrone, G. (2012). The effect of inbound, outbound and coupled innovation on performance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(6), 1-27. 44. McKinsey. (2020). Digital strategy in a time of crisis. https ://www.mckin sey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/digital-strategy-in-a-time-ofcrisis. Accessed 26 May 2020. 45. Monjon, S., & Walbroeck, P. (2003). Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: Evidence from French firm-level data. International Journal of Industrial Organization, Business, Management and Economics Engineering ISSN: 2669-2481 / eISSN: 2669-249X 2023 Volume 21 Issue 1: 272–289 289 An impact analysis of COVID-19 on the relation between open In novation, IP openness and firm performance 21, 1255-1270. 46. Motohashi, K. (2005). University–industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the national innovation system. Research Policy, 34, 583-594. 47. Motohashi, K. (2008). Licensing or not licensing? An empirical analysis of the strategic use of patents by Japanese firms Research Policy. Research Policy, 37(9), 1548-1555. 48. Nagaoka, S. (2009). Does strong patent protection facilitate international technology transfer? Some evidence from licensing Contracts of Japanese firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 128-144. 49. Nishikawa, K., & Kanama, D. (2019). Examining the interaction between university knowledge and firms' innovation objectives. Industry and Higher Education. 33(4), pp.260-274. 50. Odagiri, H., & Murakami, N. (1992). Private and quasi-social rates of return on pharmaceutical R&D in Japan. Research Policy, 21, 335-345. 51. Perkmann, K., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: Impacts of universityindustry relations on public research. Industrial and corporate change, 18(6), 1033-1065. 52. Raymond, W., Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P., & Palm, F. (2015). Dynamic models of R&D, innovation and productivity: Panel data evidence for Dutch and French manufacturing. European Economic Review, 78, 285-306. 53. Reinganum, J. (1983). Uncertain innovation and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review, 73, 741-748. 54. Robin, S. & Schubert, T. (2013). Cooperation with public research institutions and success in innovation: evidence from France and Germany. Research Policy, 42, 149-166. 55. Siegel, R. E., Levie, A., & Wessel, M. (2016). The problem with legacy ecosystems. Harvard Business Review, 68-74. 56. Takechi, K. (2008). International strategic alliances for local market entry: Direct launches versus marketing alliances in pharmaceuticals. RIETI Discussion Paper 08-E22. 57. Tatsumoto, H., Ogawa, K., & Shintaku, J. (2010). Standardization, international division of labor and platform business. MMRC Discussion Paper Series No. 307. 58. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5,171-180. 59. Zouaghi, F., Sánchez, M., & Martíne, M. G. (2018). Did the global financial crisis impact firms' innovation performance? The role of internal and external knowledge capabilities in high and low tech industries. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 132, 92– 104