The function of ability, benevolence, and integrity-based trust in innovation networks

Figures & data

Table 1. Network and sample characteristics.

Network	Founded	No of members 1.6.15	No of core members 1.6.15	No of responses	Response rate %	% of total sample
Network 1	2007	70	52	27	52	20
Network 2	1998	46	43	20	47	15
Network 3	2009	179	124	62	50	47
Network 4	2006	60	43	13	30	10
Network 5	2009	20	20	11	55	8
Total sample		375	282	133	47	100

Source: The authors

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the three dimensions of trust.

	Mean	N	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Ability	4.34	118	.630	3	5
Benevolence	3.01	118	1.050	1	5
Integrity	4.36	118	.636	2	5

Source: Own survey

Table 3. OLS estimation of the empirical model – three dimensions of trustworthiness.

	Knowledge sharing	Increased innovation efforts	More innovation-collaboration	Network-dependent innovation	Conflict
Integrity	.88(.67).18	.16(.66).03	−.17(.73)-.03	−1.17(0.84)-.20	−0,90(0,38)-0,34**
Ability	−.06(.25)-.03	.03(.25).02	.36(.27).18	0.77(0.32)0.34	0,04(0,14)0,04
Benevolence	.25(.11).22**	.39(.10).35***	.41(.11).33***	.35(.13).26***	−0,03(0,06)-0,05
NW_d1	.55(.31).17*	.65(.31).20**	.57(.34).16*	.73(.39).18***	0,26(0,18)0,14
NW_d2	−.74(.36)-.19**	−.82(.36)-.21**	−.80(.40)-.18**	−.67(.45)-.14**	−0,01(0,21)0,00
NW_d3	−.28(.28)-.10	−.40(.28)-.14	.04(.31).01	.30(.35).09	0,39(0,16)0,24**
NW_d4	.12(.40).03	.03(.39).01	−.22(.43)-.05	.24(.49).05	0,41(0,22)0,17*
Constant	3,55(1,85)*	1.25(1.81)	−.16(2.00)	−3.53(2.30)	−.08(1,04)
R2	.13***	.19***	.17***	.14***	.15***
N	118–133	118–133	118–133	118–133	118–133

*P < 0.10. **P < 0.05. ***P < 0.01.

Source: Own survey

Table 4. Network and inter-organisational level risks, consequences, relevant trust dimensions and outcomes.

Level	Risk	Consequence	Relevant trust dimension	Outcome
NETWORK	Time invested in network meetings yields low or no return	Firms withdraw from network or reduce network activities	Ability	Increased involvement in network
	Low ability in network threatens individual reputation	Firms withdraw from network	Ability	Firms remain in network
	Benevolence may not survive in a crisis	Reciprocal helping and knowledge sharing would stop	Benevolence	Reciprocal helping and knowledge sharing
	Network member does not honor agreements, e.g. on confidentiality	Undermines the very existence of the network	Integrity	The network continues
INTER-ORGANISATION	Low ability in partner may threaten joint deliveries and firm’s future reputation, resulting in economic loss and deterring future customers	Initial phase: Collaboration is not initiated	Ability	Initial phase: Collaboration is initiated
	Low benevolence in partner may result in your partner ridiculing your question	Collaboration phase: Low quality communication and problem solving	Benevolence	Collaboration phase: High quality communication and problem solving
	Low integrity in partner results in partners not honoring agreements, e.g. on confidentiality	Initial phase: Collaboration is not initiated	Integrity	Initial phase: Collaboration is initiated

Source: The authors