This study attempts to identify and evaluate the key elements associated with triggering and facilitating the cross‐boundary innovation of manufacturing enterprises. For this purpose, we used discourse analysis to construct a research framework of cross‐boundary innovation risks based on the in‐depth interview and semi‐structured questionnaire responses of the senior executives of 15 manufacturing enterprises in the central provinces of China. Results identify five main categories of cross‐boundary innovation risks, namely, cross‐boundary characteristics, cross‐boundary innovation process, subject intention, subject capability, and subject relationships. These categories are further refined into subcategories to theorize their interconnections, which guide the researchers in formulating strategies for reducing risks from cross‐boundary innovation. This study also proposes some strategies for controlling cross‐boundary innovation risks based on the case study findings and proposes an interesting viewpoint that adds to its theoretical and managerial implications. Specifically, this study identifies risk identification as the foundation of risk control and management for cross‐boundary innovation. The outcomes of this research not only introduce opportunities for future researchers to examine our propositions based on grounded theory but may also help practitioners in identifying the critical elements of cross‐boundary innovation.

No abstract

No abstract

Mining and the utilization of mineral resources, especially coal for energy consumption, are considered a major contributor to China’s total index of environmental pollution, but there is less focus on its sustainable development. This study focused on the influence of research and development (R&D) on the sustainable development capabilities of 45 coal mining cities in China from 2008 to 2017. These cities were grouped into growing, maturity, declining, and regeneration categories. A DEAP model together with the Malmquist productivity index were used in calculating their sustainable development capabilities. It emerged that the R&D inclination for the coal mining cities was low at an average of 0.3406 and its influence has not pushed enough to reach the production frontier. The overall sustainable development capabilities of the four categories of coal mining cities were 0.6918 and also proved to have an unstable trend. There was evidence of inefficiencies in some categories of resource input and output. Technological changes (TECHCH) that promote the sustainable development capabilities grew at 12.2% for the period, which is moderately significant but still needs improvement. Major factors hindering the sustainable development of coal mining cities were insufficient desired input indicators including decisional capabilities, recovery in the treatment of pollution, and effective utilization of resources.

There is a clear disparity between different regions of the world regarding the type and number of entrepreneurs. These differences are most prominent between low-income regions like Africa and middle- to high-income regions such as South-East Asia. Thirty years ago, Asian and African countries were at similar stages of development, but today their difference in entrepreneurship and economic development is massive, which makes them intriguing cases to compare. To investigate the extent of this and explain why it happens, this study identifies the main influences on entrepreneurial activity, according to entrepreneurship ecosystem (EE) theory and knowledge spillover theory. Making use of multivariate analysis of variance, the most prominent factors responsible for the difference in entrepreneurship capacity in the regions were found to be technology development, political situation and the quality of public institutions. South-East Asia provides these to a sufficient degree thereby giving rise to a healthy EE, while Africa’s ability to build this infrastructure is still in its embryonic stage. This study’s efficacy is to inform on possible policies that low- and middle-income nations can follow to build entrepreneurship in their current economic situations, as well as to expand EE theory in the underexplored context of developing countries.