The Impact of Supply Chain Network Embeddedness on Firms’ General-Purpose Technology Innovation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62051/8vnp2821Keywords:
Supply chain network; Complex networks; General purpose technologies; Technological innovation.Abstract
With the gradual refinement of the division of labor in the market, suppliers in the upstream of the supply chain and customers in the downstream have become increasingly closely connected, forming a supply chain network among firms. As one of the important components of the social network in which firms are located, the supply chain network also affects the innovation activities of firms. Under the severe situation of “bottlenecking” of key common technologies in the industry, it is especially important to study the innovation effect and mechanism of the embedded position of firms in the supply relationship structure. In this theoretical and practical context, this study focuses on collecting supply chain data of the biopharmaceutical industry, constructing a biopharmaceutical supply chain network, using tools such as UCINET for social network analysis, identifying key core common technologies of the biopharmaceutical industry based on patent data, and finally constructing and validating the research model. The research process mainly explores two key issues: firstly, the impact of firm centrality on firm General-Purpose Technologies (GPTs) innovation; and secondly, the impact of structural holes on firm General-Purpose Technologies.
Downloads
References
[1] Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness[J]. The American Journal of Sociology, 1985, 91(3): 481-510. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/228311
[2] Granberg A, Stankiewicz R. The development of generic technologies - the cognitive aspects[J]. 1981.
[3] Bekar C, Carlaw K, Lipsey R. General purpose technologies in theory, application and controversy: a review[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 2018, 28(5): 1005-1033. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-017-0546-0
[4] Petralia S. Mapping general purpose technologies with patent data[J]. Research Policy, 2020, 49(7). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104013
[5] Schumpeter J A, Ye H. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle [M]. Jiuzhou Publishing House, 2007.
[6] Badar K, Hite JM, Badir YF. Examining the relationship of co-authorship network centrality and gender on academic research performance: the case of chemistry researchers in Pakistan[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 94(2): 755-775. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0764-z
[7] Guan J, Liu N. Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: a patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy[J]. Research Policy, 2016, 45: 97-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.08.002
[8] Ahuja G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2000, 45(3): 425-455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2667105
[9] Obstfeld D. Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2005, 50(1): 100-130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.100
[10] Coleman JS. Social capital in the creation of human capital[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1988, 94: S95-S120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
[11] Uzzi B. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect[J]. American Sociological Review, 1996, 61: 674-698. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2096399
[12] March JG. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning[J]. Organization Science, 1991, 2(1): 71-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
[13] Zang J. Structural holes, exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation[J]. Management Decision, 2018, 56(8): 1682-1695. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0485
[14] Ellram LM. Supply‐chain management: the industrial organisation perspective[J]. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 1991, 21(1): 13-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09600039110137082
[15] Pittaway L, Robertson M, Munir K, et al. Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence[J]. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2004, 5‐6(3‐4): 137-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00101.x
[16] Isaksson OHD, Simeth M, Seifert RW. Knowledge spillovers in the supply chain: Evidence from the high tech sectors[J]. Research Policy, 2016, 45(3): 699-706. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.12.007
[17] Gassmann O, Sandmeier P, Wecht CH. Extreme customer innovation in the front-end: learning from a new software paradigm[J]. International Journal of Technology Management, 2006, 33(1): 46-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2006.008191
[18] Jajja MSS, Farooq S, Moeen M. Linkages between firm innovation strategy, suppliers, product innovation, and business performance: Insights from resource dependence theory[J]. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2017, 37(8): 1054-1075. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2014-0424
[19] Kim Y, Choi TY, Dooley KJ. The role of supplier innovation in customer satisfaction under supply chain disruptions: An empirical study[J]. International Journal of Production Economics, 2014, 147: 452-464.
[20] Un CA, Cuervo-Cazurra A, Asakawa K. R&D collaborations and product innovation[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2010, 27(5): 673-689. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00744.x
[21] Jean RJB, Sinkovics RR, Kim D. Antecedents and outcomes of supplier innovativeness in international customer–supplier relationships: The role of knowledge distance[J]. Management International Review, 2017, 57(1): 121-151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-016-0291-x
[22] Moon H, Kim J, Choi T. Supplier and customer involvement in new product development stages: Implications for new product innovation outcomes[J]. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 2018, 15(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877018500049
[23] Kang KH, Kang J. Does partner type matter in R&D collaboration for product innovation?[J]. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2010, 22(8): 945-959. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2010.520473
[24] Cui A S, Wu F. Utilizing customer knowledge in innovation: Antecedents and impact of customer involvement on new product performance[J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2016, 44(4): 516-538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0433-x
[25] Ragatz G, Handfield R, Scannell T. Success factors for integrating suppliers into new product development[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1997, 14: 190-202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1430190
[26] Freeman C. The Economics of Industrial Innovation[M]. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982.
[27] Von Hippel E. Successful industrial products from customer ideas: A paradigm, evidence and implications[J]. Journal of Marketing, 1978, 42(1): 39-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297804200109
[28] Fitjar R D, Rodríguez-Pose A. Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway[J]. Research Policy, 2013, 42(1): 128-138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.009
[29] Wang X, Zhao Y, Hou L. How does green innovation affect supplier-customer relationships? A study on customer and relationship contingencies[J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2020, 90: 170-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.07.008
[30] Goldberg JM, Schiele H. Innovating with dominant suppliers: Lessons from the race for laser light[J]. International Journal of Innovation Management, 2020, 24(01): 2050008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919620500085
[31] Potter A, Paulraj A. Unravelling supplier-laboratory knowledge spillovers: Evidence from Toyota's central R&D laboratory and subsidiary R&D centers[J]. Research Policy, 2021, 50(4): 104200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104200
[32] Li Y, Li S, Cui H. Effect of supplier supply network resources on buyer–supplier collaborative product innovation: A contingency perspective[J]. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 2021, 36(10). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-06-2020-0288
[33] Belderbos R, Carree M, Diederen B, Lokshin B, Veugelers R. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies[J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2004, 22(8-9): 1237-1263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2004.08.001
[34] Gambardella A, McGahan A M. Business-model innovation: General purpose technologies and their implications for industry structure[J]. Long Range Planning, 2010, 43(2-3): 262-271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.009
[35] Choi H, Zo H. Network closure versus structural hole: The role of knowledge spillover networks in national innovation performance[J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2022, 69: 1011-1021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.2972347
[36] Jiang R J, Tao Q T, Santoro M D. Alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2010, 31(10). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.869
[37] Park B J R, Srivastava M K, Gnyawali D R. Walking the tight rope of coopetition: Impact of competition and cooperation intensities and balance on firm innovation performance[J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2014, 43(2): 210-221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.11.003
[38] Zheng Y, Yang H. Does familiarity foster innovation? The impact of alliance partner repeatedness on breakthrough innovations[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2015, 52(2): 213-230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12112
[39] Khanna R, Guler I, Nerkar A. Fail often, fail big, and fail fast? Learning from small failures and R&D performance in the pharmaceutical industry[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2016, 59(2): 436-459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1109
[40] Donohue J C. Understanding Scientific Literatures: A Bibliometric Approach[J]. 1973.
[41] Liang X, Liu A. The evolution of government sponsored collaboration network and its impact on innovation: A bibliometric analysis in the Chinese solar PV sector[J]. Research Policy, 2018, 47(7): 1295-1308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.012
[42] Burt R S. Structural holes: the social structure of competition[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674029095
[43] Lin B W, Wu C H. How does knowledge depth moderate the performance of internal and external knowledge sourcing strategies? [J]. Technovation, 2010, 30(11-12). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.07.001
[44] Palit S, Hora M, Ghosh S. Global buyer–supplier networks and innovation: The role of technological distance and technological breadth[J]. Journal of Operations Management, 2022, 68(6-7): 755-774. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1205
[45] González-Moreno Á, Triguero Á, Sáez-Martínez F J. Many or trusted partners for eco-innovation? The influence of breadth and depth of firms' knowledge network in the food sector[J]. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 2019, 147(C). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.011
[46] Chen Y S, Shih C Y, Chang C H. The effects of related and unrelated technological diversification on innovation performance and corporate growth in the Taiwan's semiconductor industry[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 92(1): 117-134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0720-y
[47] Grant R M, Baden-Fuller C. A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2004, 41(1): 61-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00421.x
[48] Lind J T, Mehlum H. With or without U? The appropriate test for a U‐shaped relationship[J]. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 2010, 72(1): 109-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Transactions on Economics, Business and Management Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
