Do Small Innovating Firms Outperform Non-Innovators?

By Mark Freel. 2000

326 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/01abc7aa1109fc366e71696e421146bfb462e155

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

1. Werner Hölzl
2. H. Haugh
3. P. Robson
4. Rekha Rao
5. Alex Coad
6. B. Obeng
7. Micheline Goedhuys
8. Robert Huggins

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Alex Coad
2. Werner Hölzl
3. Tomi Heimonen
4. H. Haugh
5. B. Obeng
6. Micheline Goedhuys
7. L. Sleuwaegen
8. Rekha Rao

Citations in the corpus

• Effectiveness and efficiency of SME innovation policy (2013, background): “A number of recent studies suggest instead that the selfreported approach can explain company performance (North and Smallbone 2000: Freel 2000: Roper et al 2008; Skuras et al 2008; Hall et al 2009).”
• Knowledge flow and inter-firm networks: The influence of network resources, spatial proximity and firm size (2010, background): “This highlights the importance of supply-chain contacts as the key means by which many firms access knowledge, especially through the type of untraded interdependencies and knowledge spillovers generated as a by-product of market-based relationships (Storper 1995, 1997; Freel 2000; Tödtling and Kauf”
• The firm-level employment effects of innovations in high-tech US manufacturing industries (2011, background): “This is the ‘tried and failed’ category of innovators described in Freel (2000) and discussed in Coad and Rao (2008).”
• Varieties of entrepreneurship: exploring the institutional foundations of different entrepreneurship types through ‘Varieties-of-Capitalism’ arguments (2018, background): “Interestingly, the propensity for innovation generally emerges as a driver of firm growth (Freel 2000; Coad and Rao 2008; Altindag et al. 2011; Corsino and Gabriele 2011), and several studies find a positive relationship between innovation and performance (Vivarelli and Audretsch 1998; Colombo and…”
• A Network-based view of regional growth (2014, background): “Similarly, there is growing evidence that inter-organisational networks are related to the innovation capabilities and growth of firms (Freel, 2000; Davenport, 2005; Knoben and Oerlemans, 2006; Knoben, 2009), with further evidence showing that the innovation performance of firms is significantly rel”
• Innovation and firm growth in high-tech sectors: A quantile regression approach (2008, background): “‘tried and succeeded’, ‘tried and failed’, and ‘not tried’” ( Freel, 2000: 208).”
• Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: a network theory (2015, background): “…is considered to have become increasingly important to entrepreneurial firms, which often cannot generate internally all the knowledge necessary for innovation (Freel 2000a, 2003; Hite and Hesterly 2001; YliRenko et al. 2001; Almeida et al. 2003; Huggins and Johnston 2009, 2010; Doran et al. 2012).”
• Is the R&D behaviour of fast-growing SMEs different? Evidence from CIS III data for 16 countries (2008, background): “Often, a positive effect of innovations on profit margin effect is larger than the growth effect, but in most studies the ”likelihood of growing” increases with product inno- 4 vation (e.g. Geroski and Machin, 1992, Roper, 1997, Freel, 2000, Ahn, 2002).”
• Born to be alive? The survival of innovative and non-innovative French micro-start-ups (2014, background): “As a result, the relationship between the growth of these enterprises and their innovativeness is positive for the biggest ones (more than 25 persons) but it is not that clearly identified for the smallest ones (Freel, 2000).”
• MOTIVATION, ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE PERFORMANCE OF SMEs IN VIETNAM (2003, background): “Freel (2000) has pointed out that the orientation of an SME owner would have an influence on these decisions.”
• Strategic entrepreneurship and small firm growth in Ghana (2014, methodology): “…been included in the present analysis because they are included in the SE framework (Hitt et. al., 2001; Ireland et al., 2003) and firm growth (Berry et al., 2006; Freel, 2000; Freel and Robson, 2004; Hausman, 2005; Mahemba and De Bruijn, 2003; Ramsden and Bennett, 2005; Robson and Bennett, 2000).”
• Identifying key determinants for new product introductions and firm performance in small service firms (2005, background): “Firms engaging in sustained innovation activities have been found to be more profitable and grow faster than firms which refrain from these activities [Geroski and Machin, 1992; Soni et al., 1993; Freel, 2000a].”