Innovation is recognised as one of the most important determinant of organisational performance. Yet, the results of studies that investigate the relationship between innovation and organisational performance are inconclusive. The inconsistency has been attributed to a number of factors, which include, among others, the measures used to evaluate organisational performance.
This study was set out to identify, categorise and critically analyse the instruments used to assess organisational performance when investigating the relationship between innovation and organisational performance.
The study focuses on all scientific publications reporting on organisational performance, inclusive of both financial and non-financial indicators of performance, and are not limited to any specific country or industry.
The systematic literature review methodology was used to identify studies which investigated the relationship between innovation and organisational performance. Once identified, articles were analysed on the way organisational performance was measured. Classification was done with reference to financial and non-financial indicators, accounting and market-based, as well as objective and subjective measures.
The findings show that profitability, sales growth and return on assets (ROA) are the most preferred accounting-based financial measures of organisation performance. In addition, Tobin’s Q was found to be the most favoured market-based financial measure of organisational performance. The study further reveals that market share, customer satisfaction and productivity are the most popular non-financial-based measures of organisational performance.
The use of measures of organisational performance is often left to the discussion of the researcher, which is not implicitly wrong, but does little to contribute to the body of knowledge on this important topic. Researchers are firstly urged to clearly define which aspects of organisational performance they intend to study, secondly to use established instruments or often used indicators of organisational performance, and thirdly to combine both objective and subjective measures of organisational performance. This would allow for researchers to build on the work of other and strengthen the body of knowledge in this area.
Organisational performance is an important indicator of organisational success (Stegerean & Gavrea
Research indicates that organisational performance is influenced by innovation (Durán-Vázquez, Lorenzo-Valdés & Moreno-Quezada
An important aspect to consider when evaluating innovation efforts and organisational performance is the time factor, given that there is a time lag between innovation initiatives and the outcome that follows (Likar
Although the study of organisational performance has been at the core of management research, very little has been done with regard to appropriate measures to assess the effectiveness of innovation initiatives. In addition, a cursory review of the literature shows that researchers focus on the discussion around typologies of organisational performance on financial and non-financial aspects, with very little attention to other dimensions, such as objective and subjective measures. The present study, therefore, aims primarily to investigate the most frequently used instruments. The results of this investigation will then be used as a lens through which to investigate which typologies (financial vs. non-financial; objective vs. subjective) of organisational performance were adopted and further to investigate whether the instruments selected played a role in the outcome of the study. This will result in the compilation of a more comprehensive and updated literature review that can form the basis for future research when selecting measures of organisational performance.
The results of studies that investigate the relationship between innovation and organisational performance are inconclusive, with some studies (Carvalho
In an attempt to understand these inconsistences, Rubera and Kirca (
Therefore, the objective of this study is twofold: firstly, the study seeks to investigate the most frequently used instruments and, secondly, the study will investigate whether the type of instruments used does influence the nature of the relationship between these constructs.
The construct of organisational performance is central to the understanding of organisational success and the factors responsible for that variation (Hoopes, Hadsen & Walker
Despite the general consensus among scholars that a firm’s performance is a multidimensional construct, one of the most extensively used measures is the financial component – the fulfilment of the economic goal of the organisation (Gentry & Shen
The literature research reveals that to assess the financial aspects of organisational performance, researchers generally use either accounting-based measures, such as profitability, sales growth, return on assets (ROA), return on sales (ROS), return on equity (ROE) and/or ROI, or stock market measures, such as Tobin’s Q and price earning (P/E) ratio (Hult
In the 1980s, researchers primarily used accounting-based measures of financial performance (Hoskisson
Despite its limitations, profit maximisation remains one of the key measures of organisational performance (Garg, Joubert & Pellissier
For the sake of clarity, a short explanation of the aforementioned measures has been provided in
Financial instruments.
Instrument | Description |
---|---|
Return on assets | ROA is an accounting measure of a firm’s financial performance based on income before tax and interest, and it indicates how profitable a firm is in relation to its assets (Alexander & Nobes |
Return on sales | ROS is a performance variable used to evaluate the firm’s operational efficiency (Karanja |
Return on investment | ROI is defined as net operating income divided by average operating assets (Garrison, Noreen & Brewer |
Return on equity | ROE, on the contrary, measures the return earned on the owner’s investment. It relates to the return generated for shareholders with finance made available by the shareholders (Alexander & Nobes |
According to Campbell and Mínguez-Vera (
The challenge of uncovering the true financial value of innovation is a result of practices such as international financial reporting standards (IFRS) not adequately reflecting innovation expenditure (Frigo
Despite the need to measure the effects of innovation, Morris (
Several market-related measures are proposed in order to account for the long-tern benefits of innovation in an organisation. These include Tobin’s Q and price earning (P/E):
Advocates of Tobin’s Q argue that stock market measures incorporate all relevant information and thus, unlike accounting-based measures, are not limited to a single aspect of financial performance (Lubatkin & Shrieves
Price earning (P/E), on the contrary, is calculated by dividing share price by earnings per share (EPS). In this method, the relationship between the market share price of a share of stock and the stock’s current EPS is often stated in terms of P/E ratio (Garrison
Despite the intuitive appeal of the above-mentioned measures of the stock market (Lubatkin & Shrieves
According to Ndregjoni and Elmazi (
Alam (
More recently, Gentry and Shen (
Objective measures are the absolute values of a firm’s actual performance (Battor & Battor
This study adopted two generic steps central to the systematic review methodology (Nightingale
The keywords ‘innovation’ (innov*) and ‘performance’ (perform*) were used in the search. The options (criteria) selected for the search were full text, peer-reviewed and scholarly journals. Target articles needed to match both keywords in a title. Fifty-eight databases on the major database (presented in
In the sample of 71 studies, five studies (Articles 10; 17; 19; 40 and 46) focused exclusively on non-financial measures, 29 studies (Articles 2; 6; 7; 9; 11; 12; 15; 20; 25; 26; 27; 30; 32; 34; 36; 39; 43; 45; 47; 51; 52; 55; 56; 60; 61; 65; 69; 70 and 71) focused exclusively on the financial component and 37 studies (Articles 1; 3; 4; 5; 8; 13; 14; 16; 18; 21; 22; 23; 24; 28; 29; 31; 33; 35; 37; 38; 41; 42; 44; 48; 49; 50; 53; 54; 57; 58; 59; 62; 63; 64; 66; 67 and 68) combined both the financial and non-financial instruments to measure organisational performance. The financial (accounting and market) measures are discussed first, followed immediately by the non-financial measures.
The different instruments used to measure financial performance in the sample of 71 studies are presented in
Financial instruments used to measure organisational performance.
Number | Financial instruments | Article reference number | Number of articles |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Profitability | 3, 4, (7), 8, 12, 13, 14, 16, 24, (25), (26), (27), 28, 31, 37, (39), 42, (43), 44, 53, (55), (56), 57, 59, 62, 66, (68), (69), (70) | 29 |
2 | Sales/sales growth | (2), 3, 4, (11), 13, 14, 24, (25), (27), 28, (30), 31, 35, 38, 41, 42, 44, 48, 49, 53, (55), (56), 58, (60), 62, (69), (71) | 28 |
3 | Return on assets | (6), (9), (11), (15), 18, (20), (26), 31, 48, 49, 52, 58, (65), (69), (70), (71) | 16 |
4 | Return on investment | 3, 4, (6), (27), 33, (34), 38, 41, (56), (70) | 10 |
5 | Revenue/turnover | 5, 18, 23, 41, (45), 47, (61), 63, (69), (71) | 10 |
6 | Return on equity | (6), (15), 18, (20), (26), (69), (71) | 7 |
7 | Return on sales | (9), (34), (56), 66, (69), (71) | 6 |
8 | Tobin’s Q | (34), (36), (51), (65) | 4 |
9 | Operating costs | 58, 64 | 2 |
10 | Income | (6), 18 | 2 |
11 | Cash flow | 18, 66 | 2 |
12 | Market to book | (9) | 1 |
13 | Basic earning power | 21 | 1 |
14 | Risk/long-term debt | (6) | 1 |
15 | Inventory turnover | 29 | 1 |
16 |
Earnings per share |
(20) |
1 |
Note: Numbers in brackets represent studies that exclusively used financial measures.
In support of the argument by Cho and Pucik (
In agreement with literature, ROA completes the top three most commonly used instruments to measure financial performance. Consistent with the rationale for using profitability and sales growth instruments, ROA, ROS, ROI and ROE are generally selected for their popularity in prior studies that investigated innovation and organisational performance (Postruznik & Moretti
Tobin’s Q is the most preferred market-based measure of financial performance, with five studies opting to use this measure. In contrast to the reasons provided for using accounting-based measures, Tobin’s Q is used mainly because of its ability to capture the value of long-term investment, such as innovation investment (Padgett & Moura-Leite
Non-financial instruments used to measure organisational performance.
Number | Non-financial instruments | Article reference number | Number of articles |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Market share | 1, 3, 4, 8, 18, 24, 27, 33, 35, 38, 41, 53, 591, 67 | 14 |
2 | Customer satisfaction or retention | 2, 13, 18, (19), 23, 29, (40), 44, 50, 62, 64, 66 | 12 |
3 | Productivity | (10), (17), 21, 22, 35, 42, 58, 64, 66, 68 | 10 |
4 | Operational efficiency | 17, 18,(19), 23, 29, 60 | 6 |
5 | Employment growth | 5, 22, 23, 35, 58, 71 | 6 |
6 | Quality | (17), (19), 23, 64, 66 | 5 |
7 | Competitiveness | 31, 48, 49, 66 | 4 |
8 | Reputation/branding | 23, (46), 50 | 3 |
9 | Product attractiveness | (17), 46 | 2 |
10 |
Quick to market |
(17) |
1 |
Note: Numbers in brackets represent studies that exclusively used non-financial measures.
Other studies used competitiveness, branding, product attractiveness and quick to market as instruments to measure organisational performance. Studies that focused exclusively on non-financial aspects of organisational performance prefer to use the top three frequently used measures, namely customer satisfaction (Modi
Only three studies (Articles 50, 53 and 54) used both objective and subjective measures. In two studies (Articles 50 and 53), the results of the study revealed mixed results and in one study (Article 54), the results showed that innovation leads to superior organisational performance. Despite the importance of using both objective and subjective measures, a considerable number of studies adopted either subjective or objective measures of organisational performance.
Subjective measures of organisational performance.
Article reference number | Findings | Number of articles |
---|---|---|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 71 | Innovation is significantly and positively related to organisational performance | 41 |
17, 19 |
The results were mixed (positive, negative or no relationship) |
2 |
As stated in the literature, subjective measures are perceived organisational performance, where respondents are requested to assess their company’s performance relative to that of their competitors. Of the 71 studies that investigated the relationship between innovation and organisational performance, 43 studies used the subjective measures of organisational performance. The findings provide overwhelming evidence (41 studies) indicating innovation is positively and significantly related to organisational performance. In contrast, two studies found mixed results.
Objective measures of organisational performance.
Article reference number | Findings | Number of articles |
---|---|---|
7, 9, 26, 27, 30, 36, 47, 52, 60, 61, 63, 65, 71 | Innovation is significantly and positively related to organisational performance | 13 |
6, 11, 15, 20, 21, 22, 25, 32, 43, 45, 51, 69 |
The results were mixed (positive, negative or no relationship) |
12 |
The primary purpose of this study is to report on the instruments used to measure organisational performance and investigate whether the type of instrument used influences the results of those studies that investigated the relationship between innovation and organisational performance. Using the systematic review methodology, this study finds that combining both financial and non-financial measures is touted as the most effective measure of organisational performance. In total, 37 studies use both financial and non-financial measures, which constitute 50.7% of the overall sample of articles. However, a substantial number of authors still prefer to use financial measures as the sole measure of organisational performance, with 29 studies focusing exclusively on the financial measures, which constitute 40.8% of the overall sample. The sole use of financial indicators as a proxy for organisational performance may be informed by the popular notion that ultimately the goal of the organisation is to maximise profit in the short term and to maximise shareholder value in the long-term.
In addition, the study provides evidence that profitability, sales growth, ROA, ROS, ROI, ROE and turnover are the most preferred accounting measures for financial performance. Similarly, the study further reveals that Tobin’s Q is the most favoured market-related measure used by innovation scholars to measure financial aspects of organisational performance.
On the contrary, market share, customer satisfaction and productivity measures are reported as the most preferred non-financial measures of organisational performance. This study provides clear evidence that the use of non-financial measures as a sole measure is not a common trend, with only 5 (7%) of 71 studies opting to exclusively use non-financial measures to measure organisational performance.
The use of any specific measure of organisational performance is not implicitly wrong, but Gentry and Shen (
When findings were studied, this study showed that organisations that practise innovative behaviour generally exhibit superior organisational performance relative to organisations with less innovative behaviour. The study showed that 54 studies, which constitute 76% of the overall sample, supported the hypothesis that innovation leads to superior organisational performance. In addition, the findings also showed that 60.6% of the overall sample used the subjective measures of organisational performance, relative to only 35.2% which used objective measures of organisational performance. When objective measures were used, the findings reveal that a higher number of studies (48%) showed mixed results, no relationship or negative relationship, relative to 0.05% which showed mixed results, no relationship or negative relationship when subjective measures are used. This finding suggests that the selection of the instruments to measure organisational performance does influence the outcome of the results, as shown in studies that investigate the relationship between innovation and organisational performance.
Thus, the implications of the research for both researchers and practitioners can be divided into two main areas:
Firstly, the study revealed the measurement instrument favoured by researchers. But of significance is that the reasons for selecting the instruments are generally based on the popularity of the instrument in this domain, and not necessarily based on the objective of the study. This observation suggests that researchers should be more cautious when selecting the instrument to measure organisational performance because the instrument has a direct impact on the outcome of the study.
Secondly, the finding shows that the method in which the instruments is used can affect the outcome of the research. In other words, when subjective measures of organisational performance are used, the outcome of the results is easily predictable. In contrast, when objective measures are used, the extent of variability of the results increases. In other words, the outcome of the results is not easily predictable when objective measures are used. As such, researchers and practitioners should be more alert to the possible false inferences that may be the result of using a specific method to measure organisational performance, particularly the use of subjective measures.
In conclusion, this finding supports the argument put forward by Gentry and Shen (
This study should serve as stimulus for future studies to explore all the possible factors that influence findings related to the relationship between innovation and organisational performance. Future studies that investigate the relationship between innovation and organisational performance should try to isolate the role of innovation on organisations, and eliminate the cloud created by factors such as measurement tools, by selecting the instrument(s) based on the objective of the study.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
T.S. was responsible for all aspects of the research, including matters such as identifying the research problem, formulating the research objective, the research design, execution of the research and drafting the article. R.S. played a mentoring role and assisted with the critical comments and provided guidance in drafting the article.
EBSCOhost databases.
Abstracts in Social Gerontology;
Academic Search Premier;
Africa-Wide Information;
AHFS Consumer Medication Information;
America: History & Life;
Art Source;
ATLA Catholic Periodical and Literature Index;
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials;
Audiobook Collection (EBSCOhost);
CAB Abstracts;
Child Development & Adolescent Studies;
CINAHL with Full Text;
Communication & Mass Media Complete;
Communication Abstracts;
eBook Collection (EBSCOhost);
EconLit with Full Text;
Education Source;
Environment Complete;
ERIC;
Family & Society Studies Worldwide;
Garden;
Landscape & Horticulture Index;
Gender Studies Database;
Global Health;
GreenFILE;
Health Source – Consumer Edition;
Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition;
Historical Abstracts with Full Text;
Hospitality & Tourism Complete;
Humanities & Social Sciences Index Retrospective: 1907–1984 (H.W. Wilson);
Humanities Source;
Index to Legal Periodicals Retrospective: 1908–1981 (H.W. Wilson);
Inspec;
Inspec Archive – Science Abstracts 1898–1968;
Legal Source;
LGBT Life with Full Text;
Library & Information Science Source;
Library;
Information Science & Technology Abstracts;
MasterFILE Premier;
MEDLINE;
Mental Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print;
New Testament Abstracts;
Newspaper Source;
Old Testament Abstracts;
Political Science Complete;
PsycARTICLES;
PsycBOOKS;
PsycCRITIQUES;
PsycEXTRA;
PsycINFO;
PsycTESTS;
Race Relations Abstracts;
Regional Business News;
RILM Abstracts of Music Literature;
Social Work Abstracts;
SocINDEX with Full Text;
Teacher Reference Center;
Urban Studies Abstracts;
Waters & Oceans Worldwide;
Wildlife & Ecology Studies Worldwide.
Chronological list of articles selected for the research.
Article reference number | Year | Author(s) | Title |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2010 | Adner & Kapoor | Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations |
2 | 2010 | Aspara, Hietanen & Tikkanen | Business model innovation versus replication: financial performance implications of strategic emphases |
3 | 2010 | Battor & Battor | The impact of customer relationship management capability on innovation and performance advantages: testing a mediated model |
4 | 2010 | Bodlaj | The impact of a responsive and proactive market orientation on innovation and business performance |
5 | 2010 | Clifton, Keast, Pickernell & Senior | Network structure, knowledge governance and firm performance: evidence from innovation networks and small and medium enterprises (smes) in the United Kingdom |
6 | 2010 | Cortez & Cudia | The impact of environmental innovations on financial performance: the case of Japanese automotive and electronics companies |
7 | 2010 | Faems, Visser, Andries & Looy | Technology alliance portfolios and financial performance: value-enhancing and cost-increasing effects of open innovation |
8 | 2010 | Gibb & Haar | Risk-taking, innovativeness and competitive rivalry: a three-way interaction towards firm performance |
9 | 2010 | Huffman & Skaggs | The effects of customer–firm interaction on innovation and performance in service firms |
10 | 2010 | Ito & Lechevalier | Why some firms persistently out-perform others: investigating the interactions between innovation and exporting strategies |
11 | 2010 | Artz, Norman, Hatfield & Cardinal | A longitudinal study of the impact of R & D, patents and product innovation on firm performance |
12 | 2010 | Kreiser & Davis | Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the unique impact of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking |
13 | 2010 | Lau, Tang & Yam | Effects of supplier and customer integration on product innovation and performance: empirical evidence in Hong Kong manufacturers |
14 | 2010 | McNally, Cavusgil & Calantone | Product innovativeness dimensions and their relationships with product advantage, product financial performance and project protocol |
15 | 2010 | Mat Rabi, Zulkafli &Che-Haat | Corporate governance, innovation investment and firm performance: evidence from Malaysian public-listed companies |
16 | 2010 | Stegerean & Gavrea | Innovation and development – criteria for organisational performance |
17 | 2010 | Terziovski | Innovation practice and its performance implications in smes in the manufacturing sector: a resource-based view |
18 | 2010 | Tsai & Tsai | Innovation capability and performance in Taiwanese science parks: exploring the moderating effects of industrial clusters fabric |
19 | 2010 | Walker, Damanpour & Devece | Management innovation and organisational performance: the mediating effect of performance management |
20 | 2010 | Wheatley & Doty | Executive compensation as a moderator of the innovation–performance relationship |
21 | 2011 | Aas & Pedersen | The impact of service innovation on firm-level financial performance |
22 | 2011 | Cainelli, Mazzanti & Zoboli | Environment-oriented innovative strategies and firm performance in services |
23 | 2011 | Camarero, Garrido & Vicente | How cultural organisations’ size and funding influence innovation and performance: the case of museums |
24 | 2011 | Cambra-Fierro, Hart, Mur & Redondo | Looking for performance: how innovation and strategy may affect market orientation models |
25 | 2011 | Cortez & Cudia | The impact of environmental innovations on financial performance: the case of Japanese automotive and electronics companies |
26 | 2011 | Fang, Palmatier & Grewal | Effects of customer and innovation asset configuration strategies on firm performance |
27 | 2011 | Forsman & Temel | Innovation and business performance in small enterprises: an enterprise-level analysis |
28 | 2011 | Gökmen & Hamşioğlu | The effect of knowledge management, technological capability and innovation on the enterprise performance: a comprehensive empirical study of the Turkish textile sector |
29 | 2011 | Grawe, Daugherty & Roath | Knowledge synthesis and innovative logistics processes: enhancing operational flexibility and performance |
30 | 2011 | Huang, Chen & Han | The effect of business reorganisation and technical innovation on firm performance |
31 | 2011 | Liu & Wu | Technology embeddedness, innovation differentiation strategies and firm performance: evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms |
32 | 2011 | Sivakumar, Roy, Zhu & Hanvanich | Global innovation generation and financial performance in business-to-business relationships: the case of cross-border alliances in the pharmaceutical industry |
33 | 2011 | Song, Im, Van Der Bij & Song | Does strategic planning enhance or impede innovation and firm performance? |
34 | 2011 | Stock & Zacharias | Patterns and performance outcomes of innovation orientation |
35 | 2011 | Subrahmanya | Technological innovations and firm performance of manufacturing SMEs: determinants and outcomes |
36 | 2011 | Talke, Salomo & Kock | Top management team diversity and strategic innovation orientation: the relationship and consequences for innovativeness and performance |
37 | 2011 | Wu & Lin | The influence of innovation strategy and organisational innovation on innovation quality and performance |
38 | 2012 | Alpay, Bodur, Yilmaz & Büyükbalci | How does innovativeness yield superior firm performance? the role of marketing effectiveness |
39 | 2012 | Basterretxea & Mart´Inez | Impact of management and innovation capabilities on performance: are cooperatives different? |
40 | 2012 | Brockman, Jones & Becherer | Customer orientation and performance in small firms: examining the moderating influence of risk-taking, innovativeness and opportunity focus |
41 | 2012 | Eris & Ozmen | The effect of market orientation, learning orientation and innovativeness on firm performance: a research from Turkish logistics sector |
42 | 2012 | Gronum, Verreynne & Kastelle | The role of networks in small- and medium-sized enterprise innovation and firm performance |
43 | 2012 | Guiral | Corporate social performance, innovation intensity and financial performance: evidence from lending decisions |
44 | 2012 | Huang, Lai, Kao & Chen | Target costing, business model innovation and firm performance: an empirical analysis of Chinese firms |
45 | 2012 | Mazzola, Bruccoleri & Errone | The effect of inbound, outbound and coupled innovation on performance |
46 | 2012 | Modi | Market orientation in non-profit organisations: innovativeness, resource scarcity and performance |
47 | 2012 | Mollick | People and process, suits and innovators: the role of individuals in firm performance |
48 | 2012 | Nybakk | Learning orientation, innovativeness and financial performance in traditional manufacturing firms: a higher-order structural equation model |
49 | 2012 | Nybakk & Jenssen | Innovation strategy, working climate and financial performance in traditional manufacturing firms: an empirical analysis |
50 | 2012 | Oke, Walumbwa & Myers | Innovation strategy, human resource policy and firms’ revenue growth: the roles of environmental uncertainty and innovation performance |
51 | 2012 | Padgett & Moura-Leite | Innovation with high social benefits and corporate financial performance |
52 | 2012 | Postružnik & Moretti | Innovation and communication as dimensions of the marketing culture: Their influence on financial performance in Slovenia’s insurance and construction industries |
53 | 2012 | Ritala | Coopetition strategy – When is it successful? Empirical evidence on innovation and market performance |
54 | 2012 | Rubera & Kirca | Firm innovativeness and its performance outcomes: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration |
55 | 2012 | Ruiz-Arroyo, Mar Fuentes-Fuentes, Bojica & Rodriguez-Ariza | Innovativeness and performance in women-owned small firms: The role of knowledge acquisition |
56 | 2013 | Stock, Six & Zacharias | Linking multiple layers of innovation-oriented corporate culture, product program innovativeness, and business performance: A contingency approach |
57 | 2012 | Ndregjoni & Elmazi | The effects of relationship between information technology and firm innovation on firm performance: The case of Albani |
58 | 2013 | Bigliardi | The effect of innovation on financial performance: A research study involving SMEs innovation |
59 | 2013 | García-Zamora, González-Benito & Muñoz-Gallego | Organisational and environmental factors as moderators of the relationship between multidimensional innovation and performance |
60 | 2013 | Hemert, Nijkamp & Masurel | From innovation to commercialisation through networks and agglomerations: Analysis of sources of innovation, innovation capabilities and performance of Dutch SMEs |
61 | 2013 | Iona, Leonida & Navarra | Business group affiliation, innovation, internationalisation and performance: A semi-parametric analysis |
62 | 2013 | Noruzy, Dalfard, Azhdari , Nazari-Shirkouhi & Rezazadeh | Relations between transformational leadership, organisational learning, knowledge management, organisational innovation and organisational performance: An empirical investigation of manufacturing firms |
63 | 2013 | Robeson & O’connor | Boards of directors, innovation and performance: An exploration at multiple levels |
64 | 2013 | Slavković & Babic | Global innovation generation and financial performance in business-to-business relationships: The case of cross-border alliances in the pharmaceutical industry |
65 | 2013 | Tsao & Lien | Family management and internationalisation: The impact on firm performance and innovation |
66 | 2013 | Ul Hassan, Shaukat, Nawaz & Naz | Effects of innovation types on firm performance: An empirical study on Pakistan’s manufacturing sector |
67 | 2013 | Yen | The impact of bank’s human capital on organisational performance: How innovation influences performance |
68 | 2013 | Zhou, Hong & Liu | Internal commitment or external collaboration? The impact of human resource management systems on firm innovation and performance |
69 | 2014 | Likar, Kopac & Fatur | Innovation investment and economic performance in transition economies: Evidence from Slovenia |
70 | 2014 | Nawaz, Hassan & Shaukat | Impact of knowledge management practices on firm performance: Testing the mediation role of innovation in the manufacturing sector of Pakistan |
71 | 2014 | Yang, Yang & Chen | Effects of service innovation on financial performance of small audit firms in Taiwan |