This paper examined the nonlinear R&D-innovation relationships of SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) and the differences in the strength and productivity of R&D investment between low-, medium-, and high-tech industry sectors. Using 2740 firm data in South Korea, this study found that R&D investment has an inverted U-shaped relationship with registered patents such that patents increase at a decreasing rate as R&D investment increases. The relationship between R&D investment and innovative sales resulting from R&D investment in manufacturing SMEs also exhibits an inverted U-shaped form. The R&D-innovation relationship of SMEs in high-tech sectors is more strengthened such that the optimal level of R&D investment in high-tech sectors is higher than those for SMEs in low-tech sectors. This study also demonstrated that the R&D-innovation relationship for high-tech sectors is more flattened so that the diminishing returns to R&D investment is weakened with the increase of technological intensity of industry sectors.

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which R&D subsidy can affect the innovation process of manufacturing venture firms by examining the output additionality measured as both proximal indicators of innovation and distal indicators of growth. Further, the differences in output additionality between the clusters in the subcontracting regime were examined to investigate whether the effect of R&D subsidy can vary depending on subcontracting practices and structure among large enterprises and venture firms.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses survey data of the Korea Venture Business Association conducted in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 respectively, which selects a random sample from venture firms by stratified random sampling method based on the industry sector, size and location for each survey year. This study analyzed the data using an endogenous treatment effects model to estimate the average treatment effect of R&D subsidy, yielding more accurate estimates than a traditional treatment effects model by controlling the unobserved endogenous components.FindingsThis research found that R&D subsidy may not facilitate the process of transformation of innovation into financial growth even though R&D subsidy can facilitate the innovation process and contribute to producing new and improved products. This research also reveals that the relationship between R&D subsidy and innovation performance for firms heavily dependent on subcontracting is generally much weaker than those for independent subcontractors. Further, the present study exhibits that public R&D subsidy for independently subcontracting venture firms is more effective for the growth in both employment and sales than those for subcontracting with large enterprises or other subcontractors.Research limitations/implicationsR&D subsidy for venture firms does not relieve the burden of liability of newness and smallness of venture firms, especially the disadvantage in market penetration and competition. In addition, venture firms subcontracting with large enterprises or other prime subcontractors tend to achieve incremental innovation with the help of the technology and competence of large companies and run stable businesses through a predetermined market.Practical implicationsR&D subsidy for venture firms does not relieve the burden of liability of newness and smallness of venture firms, especially the disadvantage in market penetration and competition. Further policy measures should be implemented so as to identify and eliminate barriers to market acceptance for new products of venture firms.Originality/valueThis research verifies that the effect of R&D subsidy may harmful to the sales growth of venture firms and the output additionality differs with the degree of dependency on subcontracting practices and structure.

No abstract

Exploring the duality and balance research on human resource management (HRM), this study established two different HRM systems or bundles based on distinct guiding principles—the performance-oriented HRM system and the commitment-oriented HRM system. This study investigated whether the performance- and commitment-oriented HRM systems or bundles with different philosophical backgrounds have their own independent and additive effects on organizational outcomes. The relationships between these HRM systems and organizational outcomes were examined with 1735 firm-period samples in the longitudinal setting. The empirical results show that the commitment-oriented HRM systems have independent and additive effects on organizational commitment and human capital. However, the performance-oriented HRM systems have no independent and additive effect on organizational outcomes. Our study also indicates that increasing the performance-oriented HRM practices can be redundant and unnecessary unless firms have sufficiently high levels of the commitment-oriented HRM practices. Given that the definition and measures of commitment-oriented HRM bundles nearly match the characteristics of sustainable HRM, we thus argue that the commitment-oriented HRM systems have more potential to improve not only organizational outcomes and performance, but also human and social sustainability, than the performance-oriented HRM systems.