Exploring the links between culture and innovation in micro firms: cultural dimensions, social mechanisms and outcomes

ABSTRACT

This article analyses the role of cultural components in the innovation processes of micro firms. The article develops an analytical and operational approach to the notion of culture of innovation departing from conceptual contributions from cultural and economic sociology. This framework is used in a study of micro firms in the Canary Islands (Spain). A survey, a group of open-ended interviews and in-depth case studies have been used to identify and explain the social and cultural mechanisms that make up the culture of innovation of small firms and shape their open innovation strategies. The results highlight the importance of firms’ knowledge base in the configuration of different innovation behaviours. The findings also help to explore the relationship between homogeneous and pluralistic conceptions of the culture of innovation.

KEYWORDS:

• Innovation
• culture
• micro firms
• institutions
• open innovation
• sociology of innovation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Madelon van Oostrom http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6505-3101

Notes

1 This table is based on a review of mainstream literature and earlier reviews on the connections between culture, innovation and firm performance (Bueschgens, Bausch, & Balkin, 2013; Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Hogan & Coote, 2014; McLean, 2005; van der Panne et al., 2003). Most earlier reviews concern the organizational level, with some exceptions that focus on the macro (regional) level (Trippl & Toedtling, 2008) or several levels of analysis (Castro & García, 2014).

2 The Canary Islands are Spain’s outermost region and are located in the Atlantic Ocean, close to the northwest coast of Africa and Morocco. They mainly have a service economy, which is highly dependent on tourism (30% of the region’s GDP). The region has one of the lowest rates of innovation performance in the European Union (Annoni, Dijkstra, & Gargano, 2017).

3 The survey covered the seven Canary Islands. The questionnaire was structured in five dimensions: (1) general characteristics of the company; (2) firms’ innovation activities and attitudes; (3) use of ICT; (4) assessment of the regional context; and (5) entrepreneurs’ personal traits. The methodology and the findings of this survey are found in González de la Fe et al. (2012). One of the main goals of the survey was to identify the subsector of micro firms carrying out activities in the knowledge economy, mainly in high-tech and intensive knowledge sectors.

4 Innovativeness of micro firms is measured according to the frequency and intensity of innovation activities: ‘Non innovative’ firms are those which almost never introduce innovative products or services in the market. ‘Moderate innovators’ are those with an average of three innovative activities in the last three years. ‘Active innovators’ are firms that have implemented at least four innovative products or services in the market in the last three years. Over 70% of this group has done so more than once.

5 An overwhelming part of active innovators belongs to the service sector, especially tourism and the more traditional commercial sectors.

6 We checked for visibility and reputation in the media, and whether these firms had received awards or public recognition.

7 In analytic knowledge base firms, codified knowledge prevails and innovations are produced by creating new knowledge through scientific research and formal models, often in collaboration with research centres. In synthetic knowledge, base firms tacit knowledge prevails and innovations arise through a novel combination of existing knowledge and applied problem-solving engineering processes. In symbolic knowledge, base firms’ innovation occurs by a recombination of existing knowledge in new ways, relying on tacit and practical crafts and skills (Asheim & Coenen, 2005).