Next Article in Journal
Study on Fire Ventilation Control of Subway Tunnel: A Case Study for Dalian Subway
Previous Article in Journal
Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Using Post-Kerbside Organics Treatment Systems to Engage Australian Communities with Pro-Environmental Household Food Waste Behaviours
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/su14148693
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Open Innovation and Sustainable Innovation Performance: The Moderating Role of IP Strategic Planning and IP Operation

by
Huiying Zhang
and
Xiguang Chen
*
College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(14), 8693; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148693
Submission received: 20 June 2022 / Revised: 9 July 2022 / Accepted: 13 July 2022 / Published: 15 July 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In recent years, open innovation and intellectual property rights have become critical factors to gain superior sustainable innovation performance. However, existing literature pays little attention to different open innovation strategies and their interplay with different IP management approaches in improving sustainable innovation performance. Drawing on the contractual/non-contractual view, this study explores how external partnering and external sourcing affect sustainable innovation performance, and the moderating role of IP strategic planning and IP operation. An empirical study is performed based on an innovation survey with one sample of 764 manufacturing firms. The results show that both external partnering and external sourcing can enhance sustainable innovation performance. Moreover, both IP strategic planning and IP operation play a positive moderating role in the relationship between open innovation and sustainable innovation performance. IP operation functions well once firms engage in open innovation, while IP strategic planning functions well when firms are open to some certain extent. This study provides important implications for sustainability research and managerial practice.

1. Introduction

Open innovation is a distributed innovation process based on purposively managed knowledge flows across organizational boundaries [1]. Open innovation thus has been seen as an essential tool to broaden their competences and resources, share ideas, and consequently increase sustainable competitive advantage and innovation performance [2,3,4]. Notwithstanding some literature, the relevance of open innovation to sustainable innovation performance has not yet been fully addressed. On one hand, existing literature mostly focuses on the economic effects of innovation activities [5,6,7,8], whereas both environmental and social dimensions of sustainable innovation performance have received scant attention. With the increasing demand for sustainable products and changing governmental policies, less negative environmental effects and more social responsibility have taken on an exciting significance [9,10,11]. In this sense, we argue that sustainable innovation performance should comprehensively consider economic returns, environmental concerns, and social issues to meet the needs of present and future generations. On the other hand, previous studies typically conceptualize open innovation as a unidimensional construct and examine its effect on sustainable innovation performance using measures such as sources of knowledge [12,13]. This construct ignores actual partnering through contracts, which may exert impacts on sustainability outcomes as well. Open innovation literature has shown that external partnering in a contractual way and external sourcing in a non-contractual way are two key aspects of open innovation [7,14,15]. Besides, research has shown that the robustness of studies on the relevance of open innovation to innovation performance might be challenged once involving different variables and selection choices [16]. It may be necessary to distinguish external partnering and external sourcing to explore the mechanism of open innovation affecting sustainable innovation performance. On these bases, the impact of open innovation on sustainable innovation performance needs to be further investigated.
One question that deserves renewed attention is how firms appropriate sustainable innovation performance from open innovation. As the main value appropriation approach, Intellectual Property (IP) management plays its role through protecting and reducing the risks of leakage, as well as its potential to improve sales and margins [17], which has been viewed as a key foundation for sustainability [4,18]. Practitioners and academicians support that firms need to manage IP from top-level design at a strategic level to IP implementation at an operational level [19,20,21]. The strategic side of IP should be distinguished from its operating protection mechanisms, especially when relating to open innovation [22]. As such, the typologies of value appropriation approaches should be focused specifically on strategic planning, as well as the behaviors and acts employed by firms to appropriate value from the external world [23]. To our knowledge, extant literature pays more attention to the moderating role of IP tools (e.g., patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets) at the operational level [6,8,24], whereas it ignores IP strategic planning at a more visionary and strategic level [18,20]. The lack of strategic planning has been a major challenge for manufacturing in the new era of industry [25]. Research has shown that strategic planning helps in tackling uncertainty and identifying promising innovative ideas that can result in superior innovation performance [26]. Open knowledge and environment-oriented policies particularly require strategic-thinking leaders to redefine their IP strategic planning, as the top design provides promising directions for sustainable outcomes [4,27]. We believe more investigations are necessary to explore how IP strategic planning theoretically and empirically moderates the relationship between open innovation and sustainable innovation performance.
Similarly, research on how IP operation moderates the relationship between open innovation and sustainable innovation performance is still in its infancy. Existing sustainability literature has already shown that operating intellectual property rights can exert a direct influence on sustainable innovation performance [4,13]. There is, however, little evidence on how it moderates the relationship between open innovation and sustainable innovation performance. The appropriability literature seeks to unearth the moderating role of IP operation in shaping firms’ return from open innovation. The debate mainly revolves around whether these IP tools help or hinder open innovation to influence innovation performance, but it has not found a consistent conclusion yet [5,6,7,8]. That said, recent evidence casts doubt on the prevalent assumption that IP operation facilitates open innovation to achieve innovation performance. These arguments underscore the necessity of examining the moderating role of IP operation as an integrated operational direction for achieving sustainable development objectives and goals.
Against this background, we aim to identify how open innovation impacts sustainable innovation performance and how IP management approaches moderate the relationship between open innovation and sustainable innovation performance. In this paper, we consider sustainable innovation performance as the outcome of innovation activities in terms of economic (e.g., financial benefits), environmental (e.g., reduction of energy consumption and pollution), and social aspects (e.g., improvement of working conditions and safety) [10,11,28]. We argue that sustainable innovation performance is the result of the interplay between open innovation (external partnering and external sourcing) and IP management approaches (IP strategic planning and IP operation). We found that both external partnering and external sourcing can improve sustainable innovation performance. Moreover, the presence of IP strategic planning and IP operation can strengthen the positive relationship between open innovation and sustainable innovation performance. IP operation functions well once firms engage in open innovation, while IP strategic planning functions well when firms are open to a certain extent.
This paper has two main contributions. Firstly, this study adopts a broader understanding of sustainable innovation performance that incorporates economic, environmental, and social aspects, and focuses on external partnering and external sourcing to deepen the understanding of the existing studies’ related possibilities that can be linked between open innovation and sustainable innovation performance. This study therefore sheds new light on the rationale that sustainable innovation performance arises from open innovation. Secondly, this study highlights the classification between IP strategic planning and IP operation, which adds to the new understanding of IP management dimensions. By introducing IP management approaches as two new moderating variables, this study contributes to clarifying the conditions under which open innovation are likely to improve sustainable innovation performance. It not only responds to calls to develop moderators of the effects of open innovation on performance [29], but also fills the gap regarding the impact of IP in the area of sustainability.

2. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses

2.1. External Partnering and Sustainable Innovation Performance

External partnering and external sourcing are two key activities of open innovation, meaning that firms join forces with external collaboration partners in a contractual way and draw knowledge from external information sources in a non-contractual way [7,14,15]. This classification has been recognized by some scholars, and we adopt this classification to explore the impact of open innovation on sustainable innovation performance.
External partnering encourages firms to sign contracts that specify congruent goals and behaviors to reduce information asymmetry and deter opportunism [30,31,32]. These explicit contracts allow firms to enhance sustainable innovation performance in several ways. For example, external partnering requires a firm and its partners to adhere to an agreed structure for the exchange, which brings substantial and steady innovative ideas, technological inventions, and joint problem-solving solutions [33,34]. The heterogeneous resources and knowledge from partnering reduce duplicated R&D efforts, innovation risks, and costs [4,35]. External partnering is also beneficial to the transfer, recombination, and creation of knowledge on the basis of congruent goals and behaviors. Such activities therefore facilitate the success of sharing and enhance their technologies and advantages, and eventually enable economies of scale or scope [36,37].
Moreover, firms are likely to emphasize goals and behaviors with respect to environmental and social issues with their partners, especially those that strive for sustainability [38,39]. In turn, suppliers, research institutions, and governments that are the most relevant partners in green innovation may exert pressure and push firms to comply with environment-related rules in contracts [12,13]. In sum, clear documents foster resource acquisition and routine sharing, increase innovation revenues, as well as meet the needs of environmental and social goals. Therefore, we posit:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
External partnering is positively associated with sustainable innovation performance.

2.2. External Sourcing and Sustainable Innovation Performance

External sourcing is barely controlled by contractual agreements and is even based on loose, temporary, and less-disciplined interactions [17,40]. Rather than relying on a series of responsibilities, external sourcing relates to non-contractual exchanges and flexible communication. Such exchanges provide a low-cost threshold for sharing multiple innovation ideas and are viewed as an important source of knowledge. External sourcing is thus essential for product differentiation and sales, thereby improving economic innovation performance [7,41].
External sourcing also enables firms to respond to increasing environmental and social pressures. Firms pursuing innovation with environmental and social benefits tend to be relatively new, which requires more knowledge-sharing sources from outside the present range of competences [35]. External sourcing provides a platform for effective communication and coordination with participants such as suppliers, users, research institutions and consulting firms. The market, institutional, and other sources may also pursue environmentally friendly and socially responsible behavior [9,11]. Both efforts can reduce energy consumption behavior and related cost [13,42]. Therefore, external sourcing drives sustainability and becomes an increasingly crucial source of sustainable innovation performance. Therefore, we posit:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
External sourcing is positively associated with sustainable innovation performance.

2.3. The Moderating Role of IP Strategic Planning

IP strategic planning consists of working to identify relevant trends on IP and make potential IP layouts, which provides the basis for establishing a clear agenda towards IP, ensuring proper allocation of resources, minimizing risks, and acquiring relevant knowledge [26]. Such higher-order resources represent potential appropriation capabilities at the strategic level [18,43]. We anticipate that IP strategic planning will play an essential role in improving sustainability because firms may forecast the response of appropriation demand to changes in openness.
IP strategic planning will be suited to external partnering and thus affect sustainable innovation performance. Specifically, external partnering provides formal procedures with explicitly written contracts, which requires IP strategic planning that determines IP objectives and ensures firms maintain ownership of intellectual property in advance. Thus, open firms with IP strategic planning have a high potential of protecting innovations and will be less likely to face the challenge of imitation [44]. Even if intellectual property rights such as patents are infringed [45], firms are able to address these issues as anticipated in agreements and subsequent collaboration will continue [46]. By avoiding potential opportunism and minimizing IP risks as planned, IP strategic planning enables firms to access more heterogeneous knowledge and economic returns. In particular, some firms apply for a preferential tax policy toward IP. Such governmental support may consider environmental influences and social issues, which will be reflected in firms’ performance [4].
In a similar vein, IP strategic planning is also powerful when firms conduct external sourcing activities. Without considering contractual issues, IP strategic planning can help firms cope with flexible exchanges. Because IP strategic planning determines which projects to pursue, firms need to explore more relevant technologies necessary for the project to proceed [26]. IP strategic planning increases demands for low-cost resources and low-threshold sharing from non-contractual communication. These efforts with their partners and participants are directly related to the development of innovation outcomes to meet economic, environmental, and social goals [27]. Therefore, by taking IP strategic planning into account in the innovation process, firms can achieve higher sustainable innovation performance. Then we posit:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
IP strategic planning positively moderates the relationship between external partnering and sustainable innovation performance.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
IP strategic planning positively moderates the relationship between external sourcing and sustainable innovation performance.

2.4. The Moderating Role of IP Operation

Firms need to draw upon IP tools at the operational level to accomplish IP strategic goals, such as patenting and building brands. Specifically, IP operation consists of working to decide whether to protect innovation outcome, identify which type of IP tools they should use, whether there is possible IP commercialization, and any IP management process required. Unlike strategic planning, such an operating resource represents realized appropriation capabilities at the operational level due to its evidence of clear ownership [18,43,47].
Most importantly, IP operation enables open innovation to enhance sustainable innovation performance if it is effective in protecting inventions [15,48,49,50,51,52]. Explicit evidence of ownership paves the way for external partnering or external sourcing as the exclusivity of IP rights provides protection. Firms can adopt proper IP tools to reconcile differing open innovation strategies [6,7,8,24,53]. As such, firms with IP operations have a high capability of protecting innovations and are thus likely to achieve congruent and sustainable goals.
IP operation may not only be a means for protection but also a facilitator of knowledge exchange, and therefore a prerequisite for external partnering and sourcing [54]. IP operation that represents firms’ technical competence will interpret the technological frontier and recognize valuable sources of knowledge and information [17,55]. This kind of absorptive capacity generated by IP will help to understand environmentally friendly innovation activities and buffer risks of failure of environmental transformation, and as a consequence, promote sustainable environmental innovation [12,13]. Besides, IP operation functions well in commercializing innovations [56,57]. IP operation not only fosters the commercialization of external partnering [5], but also attracts more sources through flexible sharing, and their joint efforts will lead to commercial success [58]. Then we posit:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
IP operation positively moderates the relationship between external partnering and sustainable innovation performance.
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
IP operation positively moderates the relationship between external sourcing and sustainable innovation performance.
The conceptual framework is shown in Figure 1.

3. Methods

3.1. Data Source and Sample

The empirical study is based on the Tianjin Community Innovation Survey (CIS) in China. The Tianjin area is home to over 15 million people. An advantage of using a regional survey is that there are limited differences in firms’ institutional environments. The survey measures were created by the Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Commission, after referencing the work of the various national CIS and China Innovation Survey. Questionnaires were sent to official representatives for filing information about firm characteristics, innovative activities and effects, IP tools and related activities, and relationships with others, etc.
Target respondents are CEOs supplemented by technology and accounting managers. The commission provides a helpful service to guide respondents. Implemented by the regional government, the overall response rate was 80.72% (of 1250 questionnaires distributed, 1009 were completed). The data were drawn from across the regional economy. The sample we used here covers 764 manufacturing firms. Drawing on the early work of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) [59,60] and the subsequent industrial classification developed by the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics, we classified 28 industries into 9 industry dummy variables in our study, including food, beverage, and tobacco (S1, 4.97%); textiles, wearing apparel, and leather (S2, 4.71%); wood, paper, printing, and publishing (S3, 7.59%); petroleum, chemicals, rubber, and plastic (S4, 13.87%); computer, electric, and electronic equipment (S5, 17.80%); machinery and equipment (S6, 11.65%); transport (S7, 7.33%); other manufacturing (S8, 1.70%); and metals, metallic, and non-metallic mineral (S9 as a reference, 30.37%).
Concerns over common method bias are best addressed in the initial design of a data collection instrument; given the use of objective questions, we did not expect common method bias to materially affect the results. It was unlikely to affect results due to the transformation of dummy variables and the introduction of interaction terms. We also ran Harman’s single-factor test to confirm the validity of the data. A single factor accounted for 22.12%, which indicated that common method bias was unlikely to be a concern [61].

3.2. Measurement

3.2.1. Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is sustainable innovation performance. Drawing on prior literature [11,62,63], we measured sustainable innovation performance as the outcome of the firm’s innovation activities with respect to economic and environmental aspects and social responsibility, including (1) increased market share or entering new markets, (2) increased range of products or services, (3) reduced labor costs per produced unit, (4) reduced materials and energy consumption per produced unit, (5) reduced environmental pollution, and (6) improved working conditions and safety. The respondents indicated the degree of impact of a specific result of innovation on a 5-point scale in which ‘1′ represented ‘no relevant’ and ‘5′ represented ‘very high’. In this paper, we tested reliability and validity. Table 1 shows that Cronbach’s alpha is 0.936 (above the recommended threshold of 0.7) and the composite reliability is 0.950 (above the recommended threshold of 0.8), indicating these items have a high degree of internal consistency and the variable has acceptable reliability. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure is 0.900, all factor loadings are higher than 0.7, and the average variance extracted is higher than 0.5, which support the convergent validity [64].

3.2.2. Independent Variables

The key independent variables are external partnering and external sourcing. Following the prior literature [7,14], external partnering was measured as whether the firm had collaborated on innovation activities with any of six external partners: (1) Suppliers, (2) customers, (3) competitors, (4) scientific research institutions and universities, (5) government, and (6) consulting firms. Each of these six partners was coded as a binary variable with 1 indicating that the firm collaborated with a partner and 0 otherwise. We then summed these partners so external partnering ranged between values of 0 and 6 (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = 0.850). To measure external sourcing, firms were asked to indicate the importance of (1) suppliers, (2) customers, (3) competitors, (4) scientific research institutions and universities, (5) government, and (6) consulting firms as innovation-related knowledge or information sources. Each of these six external sources was coded as a binary variable with 1 indicating medium-high or high importance and 0 indicating no, low, or medium-low importance. We then summed these sources so external sourcing ranged between values of 0 and 6 (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = 0.891).

3.2.3. Moderating Variables

IP strategic planning is a binary variable that measures the presence of an IP strategic plan that includes objectives, activities, and timing for intellectual property projects [26]. IP operation is a binary variable that measures whether the firm has operationalized IP strategy by using consistent IP tools to appropriate innovations [21]. Both variables took the value of 1 if the firm has IP strategic planning/IP operation and 0 otherwise.

3.2.4. Control Variables

We also controlled for R&D intensity, firm size, firm age, and industry effects. R&D intensity was measured as the ratio of R&D expenditure to sales [14]. Firm size in our data was a categorical variable based on the number of employees: Below 100; 100–300; 300–500; 500–1000; above 1000. Firm age was measured as years from the establishment of the firm. We also used S1–S8 to control for differences across industries in innovation behavior. All continuous variables were standardized.

4. Results and Analysis

4.1. Descriptive Results

Table 2 and Table 3 show descriptive results and correlations for the variables of interest. Most of the coefficients between variables are low, and only the correlation between external sourcing and sustainable innovation performance and the correlation between IP strategic planning and IP operation are slightly high. The descriptive results are in line with practices that IP strategic planning is closely related to IP operation. However, the VIF of all independent variables is definitely lower than 3, which assures multicollinearity is not a concern in our data. Overall, 79.06% of firms engage in external partnering and 80.85% engage in external sourcing, indicating that some firms conduct both open innovation activities. Moreover, 45.65% of firms approach IP strategic planning and 46.34% of firms rely on IP operation.

4.2. Regression Results

All the control variables are entered into Model 1 (M1). Next, two independent variables are entered into Model 2 (M2) to test H1 and H2. The interaction of external partnering and IP strategic planning is entered into Model 3 (M3) to test H3. The interaction of external sourcing and IP strategic planning is entered into Model 4 (M4) to test H4. The interaction of external partnering and IP operation is entered into Model 5 (M5) to test H5. The interaction of external sourcing and IP operation is entered into Model 6 (M6) to test H6. The coefficients and significance for these variables in models demonstrate whether their impacts on sustainable innovation performance are positive or negative, and whether they are significant.
Table 4 shows a significantly positive impact of open innovation on sustainable innovation performance. Both external partnering (β = 0.113, p < 0.01) and external sourcing (β = 0.543, p < 0.01) have a positive impact on sustainable innovation performance, thus supporting H1 and H2. Further, our findings demonstrate that IP strategic planning positively moderates the relationship between external partnering and sustainable innovation performance (β = 0.190, p < 0.05), and the relationship between external sourcing and sustainable innovation performance (β = 0.185, p < 0.05). H3 and H4 are supported. Similarly, IP operation is a positive moderator on the effects of external partnering on sustainable innovation performance (β = 0.142, p < 0.1), and the effects of external sourcing on sustainable innovation performance (β = 0.146, p < 0.1). H5 and H6 are supported. In addition, IP operation has a significantly direct and positive impact on sustainable innovation performance (β = 0.177, p < 0.05; β = 0.190, p < 0.05), while IP strategic planning has no significant impacts (β = 0.024, p > 0.1; β = 0.033, p > 0.1).
The interaction items show that the impact of open innovation on sustainable innovation performance is influenced by IP strategic planning and IP operation. It is challenging to interpret the coefficients due to dummy variables and the interaction items included in the models, so we report the marginal effects, which are calculated using the means of independent variables, as shown in Figure 2. Although IP strategic planning and IP operation play their positive moderating role, they differ in varying degrees of openness. Firms with IP operations obtain higher sustainable innovation performance no matter how many external partnering activities or external sourcing activities they engage in. The positive results are proven for IP strategic planning when firms have more than three external partners and four external sources.

4.3. Robustness Checks

We also performed several robustness checks. First, we replace the measurement of external sourcing by adding other information sources, e.g., conferences, trade fairs and exhibitions, and trade associations [65]. Second, we classify sustainable innovation performance into two aspects of innovation outcome: (1) Economic performance and (2) environmental and social performance. Then we check the robustness by running regressions for both groups. The results are basically consistent and supportive, as shown in Table 5.

5. Discussion

This study disentangles how firms use IP strategic planning and IP operation to profit from open innovation to improve sustainable innovation performance. Firstly, our findings reveal that open innovation has a positive effect on sustainable innovation performance. Both external partnering and external sourcing can enhance sustainable innovation performance. These findings support the argument that the diversity of sources of knowledge is a critical factor to improve environmental innovation [12,13]. More than this, in line with descriptive results showing that firms are found to be involved in more external sourcing activities, regression results demonstrate that external sourcing may exert a stronger impact on sustainable innovation performance than external partnering. We also find that firms with substantial R&D efforts will not significantly acquire higher sustainable innovation performance. Larger firms and older firms have no extraordinary advantages in improving sustainable innovation performance. Notwithstanding some supporting evidence [7,53], these findings need to be developed further.
Secondly, our findings show that IP strategic planning and IP operation positively moderate the relationship between external partnering/external sourcing and sustainable innovation performance. The above coefficients and moderating figures demonstrate that IP operation plays a positive role in open situations. Our results show that open firms will enhance sustainable innovation performance as long as they operate IP actions. The findings explain why firms are inclined to invest in various IP tools despite the fact that they lack adequate resources [6] and that open innovation across firm boundaries increases the risks of imitation [17]. Using IP tools has become an important approach to gaining sustainable outcomes.
Interestingly, IP strategic planning runs well when firms are open to some extent; otherwise, IP strategic planning is detrimental to benefiting from external partnering and sourcing. An explanation is that IP strategic planning requires systematic management and substantial resources, establishing a higher threshold for open innovation. A high level of openness increases demands for systematic IP layout at the top-design level. Their match will result in superior sustainable innovation performance.
In addition, IP operation has a direct positive impact on sustainable innovation performance, but IP strategic planning has no impact on sustainable innovation performance. This result confirms the nature of IP strategic planning as the higher-order resource, which will not affect performance directly. IP operation is regarded as the operating resource, which will yield profits directly [18,66]. Furthermore, the coefficients and significance for main variables in robustness checks reinforce our regression results, indicating that anticipated impacts are consistently verified. In other words, our rationale seems to be reasonable for formulating hypotheses on value appropriation approaches and deserves to be developed further.

5.1. Theoretical Contribution

This study advances the growing literature on open innovation, appropriability, and sustainability in two important ways. Firstly, this study provides a new explanatory mechanism of open innovation affecting sustainable innovation performance. Rather than grasping only a particular dimension of open innovation, this study introduces the contractual/non-contractual view in understanding the impact of open innovation on sustainable innovation performance [67,68]. We clarify the mechanism of open innovation by distinguishing external partnering and external sourcing, and by integrating economic, environmental, and social aspects of sustainable innovation performance. Our findings are in line with most prior studies asserting a positive impact of open innovation on sustainable innovation performance, contributing to enlarge sustainability literature.
Secondly, this study contributes to bringing IP strategic planning and IP operation into focus, which expands the boundary conditions of how different open innovation strategies impact sustainable innovation performance. This study highlights that firms that pursue a fit between external partnering/external sourcing and IP management approaches will enjoy greater sustainable innovation performance. Firms will benefit from external partnering and external sourcing as long as they have IP operations. IP strategic planning also acts as an enabler, but the positive impact occurs while they are open to a certain extent. This study thus solves the puzzle on the complex interplay between open innovation and IP management and provides more viewpoints with regard to IP management and calls for more detailed research.

5.2. Practical Implications

This study offers managerial implications for decision-makers. This study adds to plenty of evidence on how to enhance sustainable innovation performance through open innovation and IP management approaches. The findings show that external partnering and external sourcing are effective at promoting sustainable innovation performance, and managers might be well advised to rely on these activities to improve sustainability. Moreover, managers should not only take into account IP operation as usual, but also IP strategic planning, as these can have positive impacts on enhancing sustainable innovation performance. Firms should consider IP operation as long as they engage in open innovation activities, for example, applying for patents and trademarks and protecting their secrets. They should engage in IP strategic planning especially while they engage in enough open innovation activities to reap the economic, environmental, and social benefits. Our findings encourage firms to invest in IP strategic planning to deal with situations in which they are extremely open.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Research Conclusions

Based on 764 manufacturing firms, this study empirically explores how different open innovation strategies impact sustainable innovation performance, and how they interact with different IP management approaches. We found that both open innovation strategies—external partnering and external sourcing—can improve sustainable innovation performance. Furthermore, both IP management approaches—IP strategic planning and IP operation—can positively moderate the relationship between open innovation strategies and sustainable innovation performance. Interestingly, IP operation functions well once firms engage in open innovation, while IP strategic planning functions well when firms are open to some certain extent.

6.2. Limitations and Future Research

There are some limitations to our work and topics that could be explored further. Firstly, the measurement of IP strategic planning and IP operation only reflects their presence rather than the complex process. Promising research may extend this in terms of details of IP management approaches. Secondly, we examine cross-sectional relations here, rather than being able to make causal inferences. Further studies should take into account the time lag between dependent and independent variables.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.Z. and X.C.; data curation, X.C.; formal analysis, X.C.; funding acquisition, H.Z.; investigation, X.C.; methodology, X.C.; resources, H.Z. and X.C.; software, X.C.; supervision, H.Z.; validation, H.Z. and X.C.; visualization, H.Z.; writing—original draft, X.C.; writing—review and editing, H.Z. and X.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 72062011, and the Tianjin Municipal Education Commission, grant number 2019JWZD26.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editor and anonymous referees for helpful suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. West, J.; Salter, A.; Vanhaverbeke, W.; Chesbrough, H. Open innovation: The next decade. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 805–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rosienkiewicz, M.; Helman, J.; Cholewa, M.; Molasy, M. Open Innovation Readiness Assessment within Students in Poland: Investigating State-of-the-Art and Challenges. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, S.T.; Tsai, M.H. A dynamic taxonomy for managing knowledge assets. Technovation 2009, 29, 284–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Khurana, S.; Haleem, A.; Luthra, S.; Mannan, B. Evaluating critical factors to implement sustainable oriented innovation practices: An analysis of micro, small, and medium manufacturing enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 285, 125377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Battisti, G.; Gallego, J.; Rubalcaba, L.; Windrum, P. Open innovation in services: Knowledge sources, intellectual property rights and internationalization. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2014, 24, 223–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Brem, A.; Nylund, P.A.; Hitchen, E.L. Open innovation and intellectual property rights: How do SMEs benefit from patents, industrial designs, trademarks and copyrights? Manag. Decis. 2017, 55, 1285–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Monteiro, F.; Mol, M.; Birkinshaw, J. Ready to be Open? Explaining the Firm Level Barriers to Benefiting from Openness to External Knowledge. Long Range Plan. 2017, 50, 282–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Wadhwa, A.; Freitas, I.M.B.; Sarkar, M.B. The Paradox of Openness and Value Protection Strategies: Effect of Extramural R&D on Innovative Performance. Organ. Sci. 2017, 28, 873–893. [Google Scholar]
  9. De Oliveira, J.A.; Silva, D.; Ganga, G.M.D.; Filho, M.G.; Ferreira, A.A.; Esposto, K.F.; Ometto, A.R. Cleaner Production practices, motivators and performance in the Brazilian industrial companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Aldowaish, A.; Kokuryo, J.; Almazyad, O.; Goi, H.C. Environmental, Social, and Governance Integration into the Business Model: Literature Review and Research Agenda. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ketata, I.; Sofka, W.; Grimpe, C. The role of internal capabilities and firms’ environment for sustainable innovation: Evidence for Germany. R&D Manag. 2015, 45, 60–75. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ma, Y.; Hou, G.; Yin, Q.; Xin, B.; Pan, Y. The sources of green management innovation: Does internal efficiency demand pull or external knowledge supply push? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 582–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Roh, T.; Lee, K.; Yang, J.Y. How do intellectual property rights and government support drive a firm’s green innovation? The mediating role of open innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 317, 128422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Laursen, K.; Salter, A.J. The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 867–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Mina, A.; Bascavusoglu-Moreau, E.; Hughes, A.; Hoenig, D.; Henkel, J. Open Service Innovation and the Firm’s Search for External Knowledge. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2014, 43, 853–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Ebersberger, B.; Galia, F.; Laursen, K.; Salter, A. Inbound Open Innovation and Innovation Performance: A Robustness Study. Res. Policy 2021, 50, 104271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Holgersson, M.; Granstrand, O.; Bogers, M. The evolution of intellectual property strategy in innovation ecosystems: Uncovering complementary and substitute appropriability regimes. Long Range Plan. 2018, 51, 303–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wibbens, P.D. Performance persistence in the presence of higher-order resources. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 40, 181–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. International Organization for Standardization. Innovation Management—Tools and Methods for Intellectual Property Management—Guidance. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/72761.html (accessed on 10 April 2022).
  20. Eppinger, E.; Vladova, G. Intellectual property management practices at small and medium-sized enterprises. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2013, 61, 64–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lopes, A.; Polónia, D.; Gradim, A.; Cunha, J. Challenges in the Integration of Quality and Innovation Management Systems. Standards 2022, 2, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Greco, M.; Cricelli, L.; Grimaldi, M.; Strazzullo, S.; Ferruzzi, G. Unveiling the relationships among intellectual property strategies, protection mechanisms and outbound open innovation. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2022, 31, 376–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ellegaard, C.; Medlin, C.J.; Geersbro, J. Value appropriation in business exchange–literature review and future research opportunities. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2014, 29, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Xu, K.; Huang, K.-F.; Gao, S. Technology sourcing, appropriability regimes, and new product development. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2012, 29, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Abdul, M.M.; Mithun, A.S.; Simonov, K.S.; Ali, S. Assessing challenges for implementing Industry 4.0: Implications for process safety and environmental protection. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 117, 730–741. [Google Scholar]
  26. Agostini, L.; Nosella, A. A dual knowledge perspective on the determinants of SME patenting: Results of an empirical investigation. Manag. Decis. 2017, 55, 1226–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Scherz, M.; Zunk, B.M.; Steinmann, C.; Kreiner, H. How to Assess Sustainable Planning Processes of Buildings? A Maturity Assessment Model Approach for Designers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lopes, C.M.; Scavarda, A.; Hofmeister, L.F.; Thomé, A.M.T.; Vaccaro, G.L.R. An analysis of the interplay between organizational sustainability, knowledge management, and open innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 142, 476–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. West, J.; Bogers, M. Open innovation: Current status and research opportunities. Innovation 2017, 19, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Carson, S.J.; Madhok, A.; Wu, T. Uncertainty, Opportunism, and Governance: The Effects of Volatility and Ambiguity on Formal and Relational Contracting. Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 49, 1058–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, Y.; Liang, H.; Yang, N.; Sun, S. How contract enforcement reduces opportunism? The paradoxical moderating effect of interfirm guanxi. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 97, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Poppo, L.; Zenger, T. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 707–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Capaldo, A. Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 585–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Christensen, C. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, 2nd ed.; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; pp. 23–182. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mothe, C.; Nguyen-Thi, U.T. Persistent openness and environmental innovation: An empirical analysis of French manufacturing firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, S59–S69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Rauter, R.; Globocnik, D.; Perl-Vorbach, E.; Baumgartner, R.J. Open innovation and its effects on economic and sustainability innovation performance. J. Innov. Knowl. 2019, 4, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ghassim, B.; Bogers, M. Linking stakeholder engagement to profitability through sustainability-oriented innovation: A quantitative study of the minerals industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 224, 905–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dekker, H.C. Control of inter-organizational relationships: Evidence on appropriation concerns and coordination requirements. Account. Organ. Soc. 2004, 29, 27–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ghisetti, C.; Marzucchi, A.; Montresor, S. The open eco-innovation mode. An empirical investigation of eleven European countries. Res. Policy 2015, 44, 1080–1093. [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Aken, J.E.; Weggeman, M.P. Managing learning in informal innovation networks: Overcoming the Daphne-dilemma. R&D Manag. 2000, 30, 139–150. [Google Scholar]
  41. Spithoven, A.; Vanhaverbeke, W.; Roijakkers, N. Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises. Small Bus. Econ. 2013, 41, 537–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Behnam, S.; Cagliano, R.; Grijalvo, M. How Should Firms Reconcile Their Open Innovation Capabilities for Incorporating External Actors in Innovations Aimed at Sustainable Development? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 170, 950–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Reitzig, M.; Puranam, P. Value appropriation as an organizational capability: The case of IP protection through patents. Strateg. Manag. J. 2009, 30, 765–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Veer, T.; Lorenz, A.; Blind, K. How open is too open? The mitigating role of appropriation mechanisms in R&D cooperation settings. R&D Manag. 2016, 46, 1113–1128. [Google Scholar]
  45. Buss, P.; Peukert, C. R&D outsourcing and intellectual property infringement. Res. Policy 2015, 44, 977–989. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lorenz, A.; Veer, T. Once bitten, less shy? The influence of prior misappropriation experience on R&D collaboration. Ind. Innov. 2017, 26, 31–56. [Google Scholar]
  47. Gama, F. Managing collaborative ideation: The role of formal and informal appropriability mechanisms. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2019, 15, 97–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Agostini, L.; Nosella, A.; Filippini, R. Does intellectual capital allow improving innovation performance? A quantitative analysis in the SME context. J. Intellect. Cap. 2017, 18, 400–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zobel, A.-K.; Lokshin, B.; Hagedoorn, J. Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness. Technovation 2017, 59, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Hagedoorn, J.; Zobel, A.-K. The role of contracts and intellectual property rights in open innovation. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2015, 27, 1050–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Alexy, O.; Criscuolo, P.; Salter, A. Does IP sttrategy have to cripple open innovation? Mit. Sloan. Manag. Rev. 2009, 51, 71–77. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P.; Sainio, L.M.; Jauhiainen, T. Appropriability regime for radical and incremental innovations. R&D Manag. 2008, 38, 278–289. [Google Scholar]
  53. Yacoub, G.; Haefliger, S.; Storey, C. Heads or Tails? The Openness-Appropriability Duality and its Implications for Innovative Performance. In Proceedings of the DRUID Academy Conference, Aalborg, Denmark, 23 January 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Belingheri, P.; Leone, M.I. Walking into the room with IP: Exploring start-ups’ IP licensing strategy. Manag. Decis. 2017, 55, 1209–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Freel, M.; Robson, P.J. Appropriation strategies and open innovation in SMEs. Int. Small Bus. J. 2017, 35, 578–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Levine, D.S.; Sichelman, T. Why do startups use trade secrets? Notre Dame Law Rev. 2018, 94, 751–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Seldon, T. Beyond patents: Effective intellectual property strategy in biotechnology. Innovation 2011, 13, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Andries, P.; Faems, D. Patenting activities and firm performance: Does firm size matter? J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 2013, 30, 1089–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rev, I. Technology Intensity Definition Classification of Manufacturing Industries into Categories Based on R&D Intensities; OECD Directories for Science, Technology and Industry Economic Analysis and Statistics Division: Paris, France, 2011; Volume 9. [Google Scholar]
  60. Leiponen, A.; Byma, J. If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 1478–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wang, N.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, X.; Wang, W. How to Improve Green Innovation Performance: A Conditional Process Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Thomä, J.; Bizer, K. To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Thakur, R.; Hale, D. Service innovation: A comparative study of U.S. and Indian service firms. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1108–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Leiponen, A.; Helfat, C.E. Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strateg. Manag. J. 2010, 31, 224–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Aloini, D.; Lazzarotti, V.; Manzini, R.; Pellegrini, L. IP, openness, and innovation performance: An empirical study. Manag. Decis. 2017, 55, 1307–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Vanhaverbeke, W.; Cloodt, M. Theories of the firm and open innovation. In New Frontiers in Open Innovation, 1st ed.; Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; Volume 14, p. 256. [Google Scholar]
  68. Gesing, J.; Antons, D.; Piening, E.P.; Rese, M.; Salge, T.O. Joining Forces or Going It Alone? On the Interplay among External Collaboration Partner Types, Interfirm Governance Modes, and Internal R&D. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2015, 32, 424–440. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 14 08693 g001 550
Figure 1. The conceptual framework.
Figure 1. The conceptual framework.
Sustainability 14 08693 g001
Sustainability 14 08693 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) The moderating role of IP strategic planning in the relationship between external partnering and sustainable innovation performance; (b) the moderating role of IP strategic planning in the relationship between external sourcing and sustainable innovation performance; (c) the moderating role of IP operation in the relationship between external partnering and sustainable innovation performance; (d) the moderating role of IP operation in the relationship between external sourcing and sustainable innovation performance.
Figure 2. (a) The moderating role of IP strategic planning in the relationship between external partnering and sustainable innovation performance; (b) the moderating role of IP strategic planning in the relationship between external sourcing and sustainable innovation performance; (c) the moderating role of IP operation in the relationship between external partnering and sustainable innovation performance; (d) the moderating role of IP operation in the relationship between external sourcing and sustainable innovation performance.
Sustainability 14 08693 g002
Table
Table 1. Reliability and validity.
Table 1. Reliability and validity.
VariablesItemsLoadingsCACRAVE
Sustainable innovation performanceIncreased market share or entering of new markets0.8440.9360.9500.758
Increased range of products or services0.847
Reduced labor costs per produced unit0.901
Reduced materials and energy consumption per produced unit0.888
Reduced environmental pollution0.867
Improved working conditions and safety0.876
Note: CA, Cronbach’s alpha; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
VariablesMeanSDMinMax
Sustainable innovation performance3.7490.81315
External partnering3.3102.19306
External sourcing3.6632.33106
IP strategic planning0.4560.49801
IP operation0.4630.49901
R&D intensity2.2501.28816
Firm size1.8411.05915
Firm age10.8225.484135
S10.0500.21801
S20.0470.21201
S30.0760.26501
S40.1390.34601
S50.1780.38301
S60.1160.32101
S70.0730.26101
S80.0170.12901
Table
Table 3. Correlations.
Table 3. Correlations.
VariablesSustainable
Innovation
Performance		External PartneringExternal SourcingIP Strategic PlanningIP
Operation		R&D
Intensity		Firm Size
Sustainable innovation performance
External partnering0.100 ***
External sourcing0.544 ***−0.001
IP strategic planning0.135 ***0.184 ***0.124 ***
IP operation0.158 ***0.122 ***0.079 **0.644 ***
R&D intensity0.071 *0.154 ***0.0090.264 ***0.250 ***
Firm size0.082 **0.077 **0.069 *0.164 ***0.235 ***0.163 ***
Firm age−0.077 *−0.001−0.0410.079 *0.044−0.0320.139 ***
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
Table
Table 4. Regression results.
Table 4. Regression results.
VariablesSustainable Innovation Performance
M1M2M3M4M5M6
External partnering 0.113 ***0.0250.115 ***0.0530.135 ***
(2.699)(0.415)(2.687)(0.872)(3.125)
External sourcing 0.543 ***0.532 ***0.457 ***0.544 ***0.470 ***
(14.254)(13.583)(8.866)(14.039)(8.979)
IP strategic planning 0.0240.033
(0.283)(0.390)
External partnering *IP strategic planning 0.190 **
(2.215)
External sourcing *IP strategic planning 0.185 **
(2.348)
IP operation 0.177 **0.190 **
(2.117)(2.301)
External partnering *IP operation 0.142 *
(1.670)
External sourcing *IP operation 0.146 *
(1.893)
R&D intensity0.0380.0340.0160.0220.0000.000
(0.840)(0.871)(0.379)(0.518)(0.011)(0.003)
Firm size0.105 **0.0330.0270.0250.0140.017
(2.292)(0.840)(0.670)(0.635)(0.356)(0.424)
Firm age−0.047−0.006−0.007−0.001−0.005−0.007
(−1.038)(−0.148)(−0.182)(−0.032)(−0.125)(−0.176)
S1−0.546 ***−0.507 ***−0.515 ***−0.453 **−0.513 ***−0.481 ***
(−2.615)(−2.853)(−2.862)(−2.520)(−2.870)(−2.703)
S2−0.198−0.147−0.085−0.091−0.144−0.128
(−0.903)(−0.758)(−0.428)(−0.458)(−0.741)(−0.661)
S3−0.048−0.076−0.058−0.051−0.069−0.048
(−0.276)(−0.515)(−0.384)(−0.338)(−0.460)(−0.323)
S4−0.265 *−0.207−0.237 *−0.203−0.216−0.206
(−1.727)(−1.560)(−1.752)(−1.508)(−1.614)(−1.534)
S5−0.191−0.017−0.030−0.005−0.035−0.032
(−1.440)(−0.145)(−0.254)(−0.039)(−0.290)(−0.265)
S6−0.137−0.068−0.084−0.021−0.086−0.055
(−0.906)(−0.514)(−0.624)(−0.156)(−0.634)(−0.408)
S7−0.265−0.164−0.178−0.131−0.174−0.156
(−1.393)(−1.026)(−1.098)(−0.814)(−1.084)(−0.978)
S8−0.555 *−0.339−0.315−0.355−0.299−0.321
(−1.744)(−1.276)(−1.179)(−1.329)(−1.125)(−1.206)
_cons0.216 **0.130 *0.1020.0740.0350.017
(2.496)(1.719)(1.118)(0.807)(0.386)(0.189)
N525490476476477477
F1.689 ***18.127 ***15.452 ***15.512 ***16.127 ***16.208 ***
R-Square0.0350.3310.3350.3360.3440.345
Adj.R-Square0.0140.3130.3130.3140.3230.324
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
Table
Table 5. Robustness checks.
Table 5. Robustness checks.
VariablesAlternative Measurement for
External Sourcing		Alternative Measurement for Sustainable Innovation Performance
Economic PerformanceEnvironmental and Social
Performance
External partnering0.0260.117 ***0.0480.137 ***0.0370.118 ***0.0810.139 ***0.0110.109 **0.0220.125 ***
(0.426)(2.720)(0.788)(3.191)(0.639)(2.851)(1.352)(3.325)(0.170)(2.399)(0.342)(2.740)
External sourcing0.543 ***0.476 ***0.554 ***0.469 ***0.517 ***0.441 ***0.531 ***0.466 ***0.502 ***0.436 ***0.512 ***0.437 ***
(13.962)(9.337)(14.373)(9.091)(13.650)(8.826)(14.114)(9.159)(12.165)(8.022)(12.524)(7.902)
IP strategic planning0.0190.028 0.1040.110 −0.059−0.048
(0.217)(0.331) (1.254)(1.340) (−0.654)(−0.531)
External partnering *IP strategic planning0.189 ** 0.166 ** 0.205 **
(2.213) (2.005) (2.268)
External sourcing *IP strategic planning 0.168 ** 0.185 ** 0.166 **
(2.135) (2.426) (1.999)
IP operation 0.173 **0.186 ** 0.190 **0.196 ** 0.1430.162 *
(2.073)(2.258) (2.340)(2.445) (1.619)(1.858)
External partnering *IP operation 0.152 * 0.097 0.184 **
(1.794) (1.167) (2.050)
External sourcing *IP operation 0.171 ** 0.131 * 0.144 *
(2.225) (1.751) (1.772)
R&D intensity0.0200.0250.0040.0040.0300.0330.0240.0230.0020.008−0.021−0.022
(0.479)(0.608)(0.097)(0.108)(0.750)(0.824)(0.597)(0.571)(0.048)(0.191)(−0.487)(−0.510)
Firm size0.0290.0260.0180.0170.0160.0140.0080.0100.0260.0250.0110.015
(0.739)(0.662)(0.437)(0.432)(0.413)(0.370)(0.208)(0.253)(0.618)(0.613)(0.262)(0.348)
Firm age−0.018−0.014−0.016−0.018−0.043−0.036−0.036−0.0370.0310.0370.0300.028
(−0.476)(−0.369)(−0.418)(−0.466)(−1.138)(−0.942)(−0.973)(−0.992)(0.759)(0.893)(0.746)(0.697)
Industry dummiesYes
_cons0.1000.0730.0340.0130.022−0.004−0.007−0.0180.177 *0.1490.0800.057
(1.100)(0.802)(0.374)(0.149)(0.253)(−0.044)(−0.075)(−0.212)(1.845)(1.564)(0.837)(0.599)
N472472473473483483484484478478479479
F16.16316.12816.77516.95216.03516.22216.50316.67612.28912.18312.84612.747
R-Square0.3470.3470.3550.3580.3400.3430.3460.3480.2850.2830.2940.292
Adj.R-Square0.3260.3250.3340.3360.3190.3210.3250.3270.2620.2600.2710.269
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, H.; Chen, X. Open Innovation and Sustainable Innovation Performance: The Moderating Role of IP Strategic Planning and IP Operation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148693

AMA Style

Zhang H, Chen X. Open Innovation and Sustainable Innovation Performance: The Moderating Role of IP Strategic Planning and IP Operation. Sustainability. 2022; 14(14):8693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148693

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Huiying, and Xiguang Chen. 2022. "Open Innovation and Sustainable Innovation Performance: The Moderating Role of IP Strategic Planning and IP Operation" Sustainability 14, no. 14: 8693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148693

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop