Purpose Although most of the literature supports the existence of a substitutive relationship between exploration and exploitation, some authors suggest that this relationship is complementary (ambidexterity), and others argue that there is no relationship. This paper aims to introduce organizational innovation into the analysis and discusses which of these three relationships prevails. Design/methodology/approach Analyses were performed using data from Spanish Technological Innovation Panel for the period 2008-2013. It should be emphasized that the use of panel data is essential in the analysis of the interaction of exploration and exploitation, as exploration only makes sense in the long run. Econometric strategy uses a two-stage selection model, estimated using the Wooldridge’s (1995) consistent estimator for panel data with sample selection. To perform the test, the hypothesis uses the approach of complementarity. Findings The results show that the relationships exploration-organizational innovation and exploitation-organizational innovation are complementary, provided that the analysis is performed on companies that simultaneously carry out exploration and exploitation activities, respectively. This indicates that the achievement of ambidexterity is strongly conditioned by the simultaneous realization of organizational innovations. Practical implications Managers and policymakers should be aware that the simultaneous implementation of exploration and exploitation yields better results when the corresponding organizational innovations are also implemented. Originality/value This paper extends the empirical investigation of the relationship between exploration and exploitation, seen in conjunction with organizational innovation, and using the complementarity approach as a research tool.

No abstract

In this study, we pursue two objectives. First, we analyse the influence of product, process, and non-technological innovation on environmental performance. Second, we explore the existence of complementarities or substitutabilities between the different combinations of these three types of innovations to learn which combinations improve or worsen environmental performance. The analyses were performed using data from the 2013 Technological Innovation Panel (PITEC) for Spanish manufacturing companies. We use the two-stage least-squares method as an instrumental variable estimator, which allows us to control the endogeneity and obtain consistent estimators. Our findings indicate that product innovation and process innovation have a negative influence on environmental performance. Likewise, we have also found that the simultaneous implementation of product innovation and process innovation is unconditionally substitutive and that the joint implementation of process innovation and non-technological innovation is conditionally substitutive. This result reinforces the position of those researchers who have pointed out that the association between a greater technology orientation and a better firm environmental performance is probably too simplistic. Finally, it should be emphasized that only non-technological innovation contributes to achieving better environmental performance and that the joint implementation of product innovation and non-technology innovation is conditionally complementary.

No abstract

No abstract