No abstract

This paper examines the effect of curricular and extracurricular activities on the entrepreneurial motivation and competences of university students. In order to address these issues, we have used Azjen's (1991Azjen's ( , 2002 INTRODUCTIONThe importance of universities in the task of orienting graduates to develop their entrepreneurial intention has been stressed by numerous researchers. Over the years researchers have tried to provide an answer to these questions: What, How and When to teach at universities in order to foment entrepreneurial initiative? (Krueger et al., 2000; Autio et al., 2001; Kirby, 2005; Liñan and Chen, 2009;Nabi et al., 2006;Nabi and Holden, 2008;Fayolle et al., 2006; Cranmer, 2006: Pittaway andCope, 2007; Buckland, 2009;De Silva, 2015). Taking into account the importance of entrepreneurship in the economy (Acs and Szerb, 2007), universities devote considerable effort to developing both curricular and extracurricular activities to encourage entrepreneurial intention in their students (Fayolle et al., 2006;Shinnar et al., 2009;Souitaris et al., 2007;Wilson et al., 2007;Davey et al., 2010;Ertuna and Gurel, 2011;Thomas et al., 2014).In recent years, academicians have developed a growing interest in the effectiveness of those efforts on entrepreneurship initiative (Kirby, 2005;Fayolle et al., 2006;Shinnar et al., 2009; Souitaris et al., 2009; Markman et al., 2002; Boissin et al., 2009a, b). The results of such research have produced numerous studies on education in entrepreneurship (Alexei and Kolvereid, 1999;Karanja et al., 2012;Shinnar et al., 2009; Soutaris et al., 2007; Liñan and Chen, 2009;Venciana et al., 2005;Peterman and Kennedy, 2003), but these tend to be limited and contradictory (Collins et al., 2004;Guerrero et al., 2008;Gurel et al., 2010;Thompson et al., 2010;Wu and Wu, 2008). While some researchers complain that formal education reduces the individual's desire for entrepreneurship (e.g., Shapero and Sokol, 1982; Collins et al., 2004), others consider that education increases the individual's entrepreneurship motivation (e.g., Davidsson, 1995; Boissin et al., 2009a). This controversy was the starting point of some studies whose aim was to explain the effectiveness of university education in entrepreneurial motivation.Following the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Acs et al., (2005) point out that some of the actions developed by universities were not channelled correctly. In this way, Laukkanen (2000) and Kirby (2005) regarding the application of educational models designed to develop entrepreneurship intention, no model has been consolidated yet, and the lack of this general model means that university attempts to develop entrepreneurial initiative lack effectiveness. In spite of these efforts, the controversy continues, with this research question being a major debate issue: the role that university should play in developing and fomenting university students' entrepreneurship motivation.Our work tries to shed light on this question. Based on the issues raised above,...

This paper examines the effect of governance mechanisms -formal contracts, relational norms and trust -on the performance of exploration and exploitation joint research and development (R&D) projects. While the authors acknowledge the need for a twofold approach, transactional and relational, to understand the interfirm exchange governance, the joint action of formal contracts and relational governance has been caught between the complementary or substitutive forces involved in interorganizational relationships. Using survey data on joint exploration and exploitation R&D projects developed by the European biotechnology companies, the synergies of both mechanisms and their effects in improving project performance are investigated. The analysis suggests that contracts and relational norms and trust act as complementary mechanisms, but while contracts are more effective in exploitation projects, relational norms and trust are more powerful in improving the performance of exploration projects.

The aim of this study is to investigate how innovative capabilities of the firm affect eco‐innovation from a dynamic capability lens. We build on OECD research to conceptualise eco‐innovation as the capacity with which firms modify, redesign, and create products, processes, procedures, and organisations in order to reduce environmental impact. We propose and test the temporal and relational properties of eco‐innovation as a capability. We demonstrate that eco‐innovation possesses two properties of innovative capabilities, namely, persistence over time and interrelation with other innovations. We thus shed new light on the mechanism through which firms engage in eco‐innovation. We also provide empirical evidence to the debate on the relationship between the “normal” innovation (technological or nontechnological) and eco‐innovation. We show that eco‐innovation and innovation are interrelated both simultaneously and sequentially. Moreover, we show that innovation capabilities and eco‐innovation are not only related, but they also have a complementary nature, which facilitates the development of future eco‐innovation.

This paper investigates the incentives and inhibiting factors of eco-innovation capacities in the firm. Firms materialize the objectives of eco-innovation from a reactive attitude to external pressures, to a more proactive attitude that implies the voluntary incorporation of eco-innovation activities. This variability in the behaviour of companies with respect to the level of eco-innovation development has been a motivator for the research. However, despite the importance of this research question, this has been approached in a dispersed way from multiple approaches. From a dynamic capabilities perspective, we assume that the innovation capacity of the firm encourages eco-innovations. Our paper is focused on the process of ecoinnovation, identifying the elements that facilitate or hinder the eco-innovation in the firm. We study the Spanish case, using a panel from the Spanish Innovation Survey, with a sample of 5,461 Spanish firms. The results highlight that the complexity of the eco-innovation process negatively affects the decision to develop eco-innovations. However, our results suggest that institutions and organizations of the Spanish environment are making efforts to compensate these obstacles and provide incentives to develop eco-innovations.