The influence of science–industry collaboration on firms’ innovative performance – evidence from the Republic of Croatia

Figures & data

Table 1. The structure of the surveyed companies according to their activity (according to National Classification of Activities [NKD], version 2007).

Activity of the company (NKD 2007)	N1 companies (collaboration existed)	N2 companies (collaboration absent)	The total number of companies (N1+N2)
A Agriculture, forestry and fishing	0	2	2
B Mining and quarrying	0	2	2
C Manufacturing	26	24	50
D Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	1	1	2
E Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities	1	1	2
F Construction	5	1	6
G Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles	2	10	12
H Transportation and storage	1	2	3
I Accommodation and food service activities	1	0	1
J Information and communication	6	11	17
K Financial and insurance activities	1	1	2
M Professional, scientific and technical activities	8	10	18
N Administrative and support service activities	0	1	1
P Education	1	0	1
R Arts, entertainment and recreation	1	0	1
Total	54	66	120

Source: Results of the empirical research.

Table 2. Companies that have implemented some form of innovation (N1 and N2 sample) (2008–2010).

Has your company introduced some of these forms of innovation in a period of three years (2008–2010)?
	N1 companies (collaboration existed)	Share in N1 (%)	N2 companies (collaboration absent)	Share in N2 (%)
Yes, new or significantly improved product	22	40.7	25	37.9
Yes, new or significantly improved service	23	42.6	26	39.4
Yes, new or significantly improved production process	24	44.4	29	44.0
Total	69	42.6	66	40.4

Source: Results of the empirical research.

Table 3. Implemented innovations and registered patents according to the N1 and N2 samples (2008–2010).

	N1 companies (collaboration existed) (54 companies)			N2 companies (collaboration absent) (66 companies)
	Total	Mo	Me	Total	Mo	Me
Number of innovations	236	0	3	183	0	2
Number of registered patents	9	0	0	4	0	0

Source: Results of the empirical research and authors' calculations.

Table 4. Results of Chi-Square test.

Statistic	DF	Value	Prob
Chi-Square	20	12.4977	0.8979
Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square	20	11.2527	0.9394
Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square	1	0.7890	0.3744
Phi Coefficient		0.3686
Contingency Coefficient		0.3458
Cramer’s V		0.2606

Source: Authors' calculations based on the results of the empirical research.

Table 5. Spearman’s correlation of number of innovations and patents with (I) assessed intensity, (II) quality of collaboration and its (III) impact on innovativeness.

	Total number of innovations in company	Number of registered patents
(I) Intensity of science–economy collaboration (2008–2010)	0.00529	0.24782
	Insignificant correlation	Slight correlation
(II) Quality of science–economy collaboration (2008–2010)	0.01534	0.28181
	Insignificant correlation	Slight correlation
(III) Impact of the collaboration on innovativeness of the company	0.05619	0.31814
	Insignificant correlation	Slight correlation

Source: Authors' calculations based on the results of the empirical research.

Table 6. Pearson’s correlation of number of innovations and patents with assessed (I) intensity, (II) quality of collaboration and its (III) impact on innovativeness.

	Total number of innovations in company	Number of registered patents
(I) Intensity of science–economy collaboration (2008–2010)	−0.06314	0.40387
	Insignificant correlation	A moderate correlation
(II) Quality of science–economy collaboration (2008–2010)	−0.08012	0.34733
	Insignificant correlation	Slight correlation
(III) Impact of the collaboration on innovativeness of the company	0.01206	0.26861
	Insignificant correlation	Slight correlation

Note: The interpretation of the correlation coefficient is the same as in Table 5.

Source: Authors' calculations based on the results of the empirical research.