Becoming a Sustainable Organization: Focusing on Process, Administrative Innovation and Human Resource Practices
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
2.1. Literature Review
2.2. Hypothesis Development
2.2.1. Relationship between Process Innovation and New Product Development
2.2.2. Relationship between Administrative Innovation and New Product Development
2.2.3. Moderating Effect of HR Practices
3. Research Design
3.1. Sample
3.2. Measures
4. Empirical Analysis and Results
5. Discussion and Conclusions
5.1. Theoretical Contribution and Implications
5.2. Practical Contribution and Implications
5.3. Limitation of the Study and Agenda for Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kim, W.; Park, J. Examining structural relationships between work engagement, organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior for sustainable organizations. Sustainability 2017, 9, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blum-Kusterer, M.; Hussain, S.S. Innovation and corporate sustainability: An investigation into the process of change in the pharmaceuticals industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2001, 10, 300–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farr, J.L.; West, M.A. (Eds.) Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Silvestre, B.S. A hard nut to crack! Implementing supply chain sustainability in an emerging economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 96, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahlstrom, D. Innovation and growth: How business contributes to society. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2010, 24, 11–24. [Google Scholar]
- Baumol, W. Red-queen games: Arms races, rule of law and market economies. J. Evol. Econ. 2004, 14, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, J.C.; Yam, R.C.; Mok, C.K.; Ma, N. A study of the relationship between competitiveness and technological innovation capability based on DEA models. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2006, 170, 971–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camisón, C.; Villar-López, A. Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 2891–2902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evangelista, R.; Vezzani, A. The economic impact of technological and organizational innovations. A firm-level analysis. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 1253–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, R.G. The drivers of success in new-product development. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019, 76, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noke, H.; Hughes, M. Climbing the value chain: Strategies to create a new product development capability in mature SMEs. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2010, 30, 132–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laosirihongthong, T.; Prajogo, D.I.; Adebanjo, D. The relationships between firm’s strategy, resources and innovation performance: Resources-based view perspective. Prod. Plan. Control 2014, 25, 1231–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perdomo-Ortiz, J.; Gonzalez-Benito, J.; Galende, J. The intervening effect of business innovation capability on the relationship between Total Quality Management and technological innovation. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2009, 47, 5087–5107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, K.Z.; Wu, F. Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strateg. Manag. J. 2010, 31, 547–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terziovski, M. Innovation practice and its performance implications in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector: A resource-based view. Strateg. Manag. J. 2010, 31, 892–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, J.; Kickul, J.R.; Ma, H. Organizational dynamic capability and innovation: An empirical examination of internet firms. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2009, 47, 263–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanz-Valle, R.; Jiménez-Jiménez, D. HRM and product innovation: Does innovative work behaviour mediate that relationship? Manag. Decis. 2018, 56, 1417–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moorman, C. Organizational market information processes: Cultural antecedents and new product outcomes. J. Mark. Res. 1995, 32, 318–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersson, M.; Karlsson, C. Knowledge in regional economic growth—The role of knowledge accessibility. Ind. Innov. 2007, 14, 129–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyläheiko, K.; Jantunen, A.; Puumalainen, K.; Saarenketo, S.; Tuppura, A. Innovation and internationalization as growth strategies: The role of technological capabilities and appropriability. Int. Bus. Rev. 2011, 20, 508–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, X.; Pietrobelli, C.; Soete, L. The role of foreign technology and indigenous innovation in the emerging economies: Technological change and catching-up. World Dev. 2011, 39, 1204–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maidique, M.A.; Zirger, B.J. A study of success and failure in product innovation: The case of the US electronics industry. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag 1984, EM-31, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Athaide, G.A.; Klink, R.R. Managing seller–buyer relationships during new product development. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2009, 26, 566–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patanakul, P.; Chen, J.; Lynn, G.S. Autonomous teams and new product development. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2012, 29, 734–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, T.; Dooley, K. Buyer–supplier collaboration quality in new product development projects. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2014, 50, 59–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brockman, B.K.; Rawlston, M.E.; Jones, M.A.; Halstead, D. An exploratory model of interpersonal cohesiveness in new product development teams. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2010, 27, 201–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chien, S.H.; Chen, J.J. Supplier involvement and customer involvement effect on new product development success in the financial service industry. Serv. Ind. J. 2010, 30, 185–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schimmoeller, L.J. Success factors of new product development processes. Adv. Prod. Eng. Manag. 2010, 5, 25–32. [Google Scholar]
- Jaworski, B.J.; Kohli, A.K. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynn, G.S.; Akgün, A.E. Innovation strategies under uncertainty: A contingency approach for new product development. Eng. Manag. J. 1998, 10, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tatikonda, M.V.; Rosenthal, S.R. Successful execution of product development projects: Balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process. J. Oper. Manag. 2000, 18, 401–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, K.H.; Wang, C.H.; Huang, S.Z.; Shen, G.C. Service innovation and new product performance: The influence of market-linking capabilities and market turbulence. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 172, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takeishi, A. Bridging inter-and intra-firm boundaries: Management of supplier involvement in automobile product development. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 403–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, A.S.; Kaynak, H. Communication methods, information sharing, supplier development and performance: An empirical study of their relationships. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2007, 27, 346–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cousins, P.D.; Lawson, B.; Petersen, K.J.; Handfield, R.B. Breakthrough scanning, supplier knowledge exchange, and new product development performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2011, 28, 930–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.C.; Tan, K.C.; Kannan, V.R.; Keong Leong, G. Supply chain management practices as a mediator of the relationship between operations capability and firm performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2009, 47, 835–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H. The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2003, 45, 33–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coviello, N.E.; Joseph, R.M. Creating major innovations with customers: Insights from small and young technology firms. J. Mark. 2012, 76, 87–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gruner, K.E.; Homburg, C. Does customer interaction enhance new product success? J. Bus. Res. 2000, 49, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshi, A.W.; Sharma, S. Customer knowledge development: Antecedents and impact on new product performance. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damanpour, F. Footnotes to research on management innovation. Organ. Stud. 2014, 35, 1265–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haneda, S.; Ito, K. Organizational and human resource management and innovation: Which management practices are linked to product and/or process innovation? Res. Policy 2018, 47, 194–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mokhber, M.; Khairuzzaman, W.; Vakilbashi, A. Leadership and innovation: The moderator role of organization support for innovative behaviors. J. Manag. Organ. 2018, 24, 108–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armbruster, H.; Bikfalvi, A.; Kinkel, S.; Lay, G. Organizational innovation: The challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation 2018, 28, 644–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birkinshaw, J.; Hamel, G.; Mol, M.J. Management innovation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2008, 33, 825–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damanpour, F.; Aravind, D. Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes and antecedents. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2012, 8, 423–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volberda, H.W.; Van Den Bosch, F.A.; Heij, C.V. Management innovation: Management as fertile ground for innovation. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2013, 10, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.J.; Huang, J.W. Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance—The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Reilly, C.A.; Pfeffer, J. Cisco Systems: Acquiring and retaining talent in hypercompetitive markets. People Strategy 2000, 23, 38–52. [Google Scholar]
- Grant, J.L. Seeking Talent for Creative Cities: The Social Dynamics of Innovation; University of Toronto Press: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Van Esch, E.; Wei, L.Q.; Chiang, F.F. High-performance human resource practices and firm performance: The mediating role of employees’ competencies and the moderating role of climate for creativity. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 29, 1683–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lau, C.M.; Ngo, H. The HR system, organizational culture, and product innovation. Int. Bus. Rev. 2004, 13, 685–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ettlie, J.E.; Reza, E.M. Organizational integration and process innovation. Acad. Manag. J. 1992, 35, 795–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knight, K.E. A descriptive model of the intra-firm innovation process. J. Bus. 1967, 40, 478–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Utterback, J.M.; Abernathy, W.J. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 1975, 3, 639–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD; Eurostat. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd ed.; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, J.; Bai, X.; Li, J.J. The influence of leadership on product and process innovations in China: The contingent role of knowledge acquisition capability. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015, 50, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Najafi-Tavani, S.; Najafi-Tavani, Z.; Naudé, P.; Oghazi, P.; Zeynaloo, E. How collaborative innovation networks affect new product performance: Product innovation capability, process innovation capability, and absorptive capacity. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2018, 73, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damanpour, F.; Gopalakrishnan, S. The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovations in organizations. J. Manag. Stud. 2001, 38, 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cummings, T.G.; Srivastva, S. Management of Work: A Socio-Technical Systems Approach; Comparative Administration Research Institute, Kent State University Press: Kent, OH, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Damanpour, F.; Evan, W.M. Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of “organizational lag”. Adm. Sci. Q. 1984, 29, 392–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, E.B. Managing invention and innovation. Res. Technol. Manag. 1988, 31, 11–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyre, M.; von Hippel, E. Locating Adaptive Learning: The Situated Nature of Adaptive Learning in Organizations; Working Paper 90–93; International Center for Research on the Management of Technology, MIT: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Eisenhardt, K.M.; Martin, J.A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 1105–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, K.F.; Dyerson, R.; Wu, L.Y.; Harindranath, G. From temporary competitive advantage to sustainable competitive advantage. Br. J. Manag. 2015, 26, 617–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdi, K.; Senin, A.A. Investigation on the impact of organizational culture on organization innovation. J. Manag. Policies Pract. 2014, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Amabile, T.M. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 1988, 10, 123–167. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, E.B.; Fusfeld, A.R. Staffing the innovative technology-based organization. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1981, 22, 19. [Google Scholar]
- James, W.M. Best HR practices for today’s innovation management. Res. Technol. Manag. 2002, 45, 57–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collings, D.G.; Mellahi, K. Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2009, 19, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beugelsdijk, S. Strategic human resource practices and product innovation. Organ. Stud. 2008, 29, 821–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lepak, D.P.; Snell, S.A. The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999, 24, 31–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, S.-C.; Morris, S.S.; Snell, S.A. Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and value creation: Extending the human resource architecture. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 236–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drucker, P. Management Challenges for the 21st Century; HarperCollins: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Sanchez, R. Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strateg. Manag. J. 1995, 16, 135–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffin, M.A.; Neal, A.; Parker, S.K. A new model of work role performance positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 327–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhatnagar, J. Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES employees: Key to retention. Empl. Relat. 2007, 29, 640–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huselid, M.A.; Beatty, R.W.; Becker, B.E. ‘A players’ or ‘A positions’? The strategic logic of workforce management. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2005, 83, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Ashton, C.; Morton, L. Managing talent for competitive advantage: Taking a systemic approach to talent management. Strategic HR Rev. 2005, 4, 28–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boudreau, J.W.; Ramstad, P.M. Beyond HR: The New Science of Human Capital; Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Cappelli, P. Talent management for the twenty-first century. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008, 86, 74. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Makarova, I.; Shubenkova, K.; Pashkevich, A. Development of an Intelligent Human Resource Management System in the Era of Digitalization and Talentism. In Proceedings of the 2018 18th International Conference on Mechatronics-Mechatronika (ME), Brno, Czech Republic, 5–7 December 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Michaels, E.; Handfield-Jones, H.; Axelrod, B. The War for Talent; Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Joyce, W.F.; Slocum, J.W. Top management talent, strategic capabilities, and firm performance. Organ. Dyn. 2012, 41, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, S.L.; Cherng, B.L.; Chen, H.C.; Lin, Y.Y. A model of contextual and personal motivations in creativity: How do the classroom goal structures influence creativity via self-determination motivations? Think. Skills Creat. 2013, 10, 50–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mumford, M.D.; Gustafson, S.B. Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, W.; Avolio, B.J.; Walumbwa, F.O. Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group Organ. Manag. 2009, 34, 590–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lumpkin, G.T.; Cogliser, C.C.; Schneider, D.R. Understanding and measuring autonomy: An entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 47–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volmer, J.; Spurk, D.; Niessen, C. Leader–member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and creative work involvement. Leadersh. Q. 2012, 23, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, D.; Chen, X.P.; Yao, X. From autonomy to creativity: A multilevel investigation of the mediating role of harmonious passion. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 294–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korean Labor Institute. The Workplace Panel Survey 2015; Korea Labor Institute: Seoul, Korea, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Forés, B.; Camisón, C. Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size? J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 831–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chaney, P.K.; Devinney, T.M. New product innovations and stock price performance. J. Bus. Financ. Account 1992, 19, 677–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoskisson, R.E.; Hitt, M.A.; Johnson, R.A.; Grossman, W. Conflicting voices: The effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 697–716. [Google Scholar]
- Acharya, V.; Xu, Z. “Financial dependence and innovation: The case of public versus private firms”. J. Financ. Econ. 2017, 124, 223–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, D.F.L.; Basso, L.F.C.; Kimura, H.; Kayo, E.K. Innovation efforts and performances of Brazilian firms. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 527–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aghion, P.; Bond, S.; Klemm, A.; Marinescu, I. Technology and financial structure: Are innovative firms different? J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2004, 2, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uhlaner, L.M.; van Stel, A.; Duplat, V.; Zhou, H. Disentangling the effects of organizational capabilities, innovation and firm size on SME sales growth. Small Bus. Econ. 2013, 41, 581–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.L.; Hsu, W.T. Family ownership, board independence, and R&D investment. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2009, 22, 347–362. [Google Scholar]
- Chrisman, J.J.; Patel, P.J. Variations in R&D investments of family and non-family firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 976–997. [Google Scholar]
- Amit, R.; Schoemaker, P.J. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barney, J.B. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. J. Manag. 2001, 27, 643–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peteraf, M.A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edquist, C.; Hommen, L.; McKelvey, M.D. Innovation and Employment: Process versus Product Innovation; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Sanidas, E. Organizational Innovations and Economic Growth: Organosis and Growth of Firms, Sectors, and Countries; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Swink, M. Threats to new product manufacturability and the effects of development team integration processes. J. Oper. Manag. 1999, 17, 691–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petersen, K.J.; Handfield, R.B.; Ragatz, G.L. Supplier integration into new product development: Coordinating product, process and supply chain design. J. Oper. Manag. 2005, 23, 371–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, S.H.; Shin, H.; Park, M.S. New product development and the effect of supplier involvement. Omega 2015, 51, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, T.; Kull, T.J. Supplier opportunism in buyer–supplier new product development: A China-US study of antecedents, consequences, and cultural/institutional contexts. Decis. Sci. 2015, 46, 403–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, W.; Taylor, S.A. The effectiveness of customer participation in new product development: A meta-analysis. J. Mark. 2016, 80, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brockhoff, K. Customers’ perspectives of involvement in new product development. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2003, 26, 464–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. New Products: The Key Factors in Success; Marketing Classics Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Cui, A.S.; Wu, F. The impact of customer involvement on new product development: Contingent and substitutive effects. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2017, 34, 60–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Obs. | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
New Product Development | 2125 | 0.22 | 0.41 | 0 | 1 |
Process Innovation | 2125 | 0.21 | 0.41 | 0 | 1 |
Administrative Innovation | 2125 | 0.21 | 0.41 | 0 | 1 |
Talent Program | 2125 | 0.15 | 0.35 | 0 | 1 |
Work Autonomy | 2125 | 2.59 | 0.63 | 1 | 4 |
Firm Size | 2125 | 10.30 | 2.16 | 2.83 | 17.93 |
ROA | 2125 | 0.06 | 0.28 | −0.59 | 11.94 |
Debt Ratio | 2125 | 0.57 | 0.37 | 0.00 | 5.34 |
Sales Growth | 2125 | 0.14 | 2.08 | −0.94 | 66.69 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | New Product Development | 1 | |||||||
2 | Process Innovation | 0.48 * | 1 | ||||||
3 | Administrative Innovation | 0.35 * | 0.62 * | 1 | |||||
4 | Talent Development | 0.17 * | 0.27 * | 0.26 * | 1 | ||||
5 | Work Autonomy | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.04 * | 0.08 * | 1 | |||
6 | Firm Size | 0.22 * | 0.27 * | 0.26 * | 0.28 * | −0.03 | 1 | ||
7 | ROA | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.02 | −0.02 | 0.01 | −0.15 * | 1 | |
8 | Debt Ratio | −0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 | −0.02 | −0.01 | −0.09 * | −0.06 * | 1 |
9 | Sales Growth | 0.07 * | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | −0.01 |
Variable | Dependent Variable: New Product Development | ||
---|---|---|---|
Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | |
Process Innovation | 0.434 *** | 0.388 *** | |
(21.729) | (15.833) | ||
Administrative Innovation | 0.303 *** | 0.078 *** | |
(14.456) | (3.193) | ||
Firm Size | 0.013 *** | 0.019 *** | 0.012 *** |
(3.172) | (4.318) | (2.755) | |
Financial Performance | 0.064 ** | 0.076 *** | 0.061 ** |
(2.298) | (2.579) | (2.173) | |
Debt Ratio | −0.003 | 0.000 | −0.006 |
(−0.137) | (0.008) | (−0.270) | |
Sales Growth | 0.010 *** | 0.011 *** | 0.010 *** |
(2.793) | (2.774) | (2.744) | |
Industry Effect | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
Constant | 0.021 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
(0.432) | (0.107) | (0.698) | |
Observations | 2125 | 2125 | 2125 |
R-squared | 0.267 | 0.177 | 0.264 |
Variable | Dependent Variable: Product Innovation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | Model (4) | |
Process Innovation | 0.394 *** | 0.180 ** | ||
(16.972) | (2.196) | |||
Process Innovation * Talent Development | 0.146 *** | |||
(3.154) | ||||
Process Innovation * Work Autonomy | 0.096 *** | |||
(3.133) | ||||
Administrative Innovation | 0.267 *** | 0.252 *** | ||
(10.917) | (2.884) | |||
Administrative Innovation * Talent Development | 0.110 ** | |||
(2.235) | ||||
Administrative Innovation * Work Autonomy | 0.016 | |||
(0.484) | ||||
Talent Development | −0.037 | 0.025 | 0.017 | 0.061 ** |
(−1.239) | (1.050) | (0.535) | (2.478) | |
Work Autonomy | 0.007 | −0.015 | 0.002 | −0.003 |
(0.528) | (−1.074) | (0.180) | (−0.204) | |
Firm Size | 0.012 *** | 0.013 *** | 0.017 *** | 0.017 *** |
(2.886) | (2.949) | (3.702) | (3.710) | |
Financial Performance | 0.067 ** | 0.061 ** | 0.078 *** | 0.075 ** |
(2.384) | (2.191) | (2.626) | (2.547) | |
Debt Ratio | −0.002 | −0.003 | 0.001 | −0.000 |
(−0.071) | (−0.151) | (0.032) | (−0.016) | |
Sales Growth | 0.010 *** | 0.011 *** | 0.011 *** | 0.011 *** |
(2.805) | (2.877) | (2.791) | (2.805) | |
Industry Effect | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
Constant | 0.018 | 0.066 | 0.022 | 0.031 |
(0.295) | (1.074) | (0.341) | (0.472) | |
Observations | 2125 | 2125 | 2125 | 2125 |
R-squared | 0.264 | 0.264 | 0.188 | 0.186 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cho, H.; Lee, P.; Shin, C.H. Becoming a Sustainable Organization: Focusing on Process, Administrative Innovation and Human Resource Practices. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133554
Cho H, Lee P, Shin CH. Becoming a Sustainable Organization: Focusing on Process, Administrative Innovation and Human Resource Practices. Sustainability. 2019; 11(13):3554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133554
Chicago/Turabian StyleCho, Hyejin, Pyoungsoo Lee, and Choong Ho Shin. 2019. "Becoming a Sustainable Organization: Focusing on Process, Administrative Innovation and Human Resource Practices" Sustainability 11, no. 13: 3554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133554