Do Technology Alliance Network Characteristics Promote Ambidextrous Green Innovation? A Perspective from Internal and External Pressures of Firms in China

Corporate alliances have become an important way for firms to share the resources and costs of innovation. However, whether corporate technology alliances can effectively enhance the ambidextrous green innovation (AGI) capabilities of firms is a question that still needs to be answered. Building networks of corporate technology alliances based on joint patent application data from the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) for the period of 2015–2019, this study investigated the impact of network centrality and structural hole characteristics on exploitative green innovation (IGI) and exploratory green innovation (RGI) from the perspective of internal and external pressures. The empirical results showed that (1) network centrality and structural holes could promote AGI and that the impact on IGI was greater than that on RGI. However, an examination based on lagged effects found a greater impact on RGI. (2) The impact of alliance networks on AGI was positively moderated by internal and external pressures. (3) There were complementary effects between the internal and external pressures. Our study emphasized that it was important to balance AGI to win short-term and long-term competition.

[1]  Xian-ping Yue,et al.  How the Pilot Low-Carbon City Policy Promotes Urban Green Innovation: Based on Temporal-Spatial Dual Perspectives , 2022, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[2]  Huaping Sun,et al.  The Impact of Renewable Energy Technology Innovation on Industrial Green Transformation and Upgrading: Beggar Thy Neighbor or Benefiting Thy Neighbor , 2022, Sustainability.

[3]  Hui Wang,et al.  How does renewable energy technology innovation affect manufacturing carbon intensity in China? , 2022, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[4]  Yuan Zhou,et al.  Elements, characteristics, and performances of inter-enterprise knowledge recombination: Empirical research on green innovation adoption in China's heavily polluting industry. , 2022, Journal of environmental management.

[5]  W. Wen,et al.  What cause regional inequality of technology innovation in renewable energy? Evidence from China , 2022, Applied Energy.

[6]  D. Rosenberg,et al.  Agent‐Based Model to Manage Household Water Use Through Social‐Environmental Strategies of Encouragement and Peer Pressure , 2022, Earth's Future.

[7]  Jie Cen,et al.  Who are building technical knowledge mansions? Impact of patent cooperation networks on the generic technology R&D performance of emerging enterprises , 2021, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[8]  Yanlin Yang,et al.  Environmental regulation, environmental responsibility, and green technology innovation: Empirical research from China , 2021, PloS one.

[9]  Lei Shi,et al.  Peer pressure induced punishment resolves social dilemma on interdependent networks , 2021, Scientific Reports.

[10]  Md. Sajjad Hosain,et al.  Accelerating Green Innovation Performance from the Relations of Network Potential, Absorptive Capacity, and Environmental Turbulence , 2021, Sustainability.

[11]  Chien‐Chiang Lee,et al.  Green technology innovation and financial development: Do environmental regulation and innovation output matter? , 2021 .

[12]  Daniela Paolotti,et al.  Prediction of new scientific collaborations through multiplex networks , 2021, EPJ Data Sci..

[13]  Hui Sun,et al.  Green Innovation Strategy and Ambidextrous Green Innovation: The Mediating Effects of Green Supply Chain Integration , 2021, Sustainability.

[14]  Sang-Jin Ahn,et al.  ‘Green chasm’ in clean-tech for air pollution: Patent evidence of a long innovation cycle and a technological level gap , 2020 .

[15]  L. Ardito,et al.  The influence of inbound open innovation on ambidexterity performance: Does it pay to source knowledge from supply chain stakeholders? , 2020 .

[16]  W. Qualls,et al.  To explore or exploit: The influence of inter-firm R&D network diversity and structural holes on innovation outcomes , 2020, Technovation.

[17]  Yun Yang,et al.  Analyzing the green innovation practices based on sustainability performance indicators: a Chinese manufacturing industry case , 2020, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[18]  E. Carayannis,et al.  How does coopetition affect radical innovation? The roles of internal knowledge structure and external knowledge integration , 2020 .

[19]  Jian Zuo,et al.  The impact of environmental regulations on urban Green innovation efficiency: The case of Xi'an , 2020, Sustainable Cities and Society.

[20]  Eva Niesten,et al.  Credibly reducing information asymmetry: Signaling on economic or environmental value by environmental alliances , 2020, Long Range Planning.

[21]  Bari L. Bendell,et al.  Gender, technology and decision-making: insights from an experimental conjoint analysis , 2020 .

[22]  Benhong Peng,et al.  The cultivation mechanism of green technology innovation in manufacturing industry: From the perspective of ecological niche , 2020 .

[23]  Chaoying Tang,et al.  Alliance Network Diversity and Innovation Ambidexterity: The Differential Roles of Industrial Diversity, Geographical Diversity, and Functional Diversity , 2020, Sustainability.

[24]  Yajiong Xue,et al.  Boundary‐spanning search and firms' green innovation: The moderating role of resource orchestration capability , 2020, Business Strategy and the Environment.

[25]  Zhenghui Li,et al.  Does corporate environmental responsibility engagement affect firm value? The mediating role of corporate innovation , 2019, Business Strategy and the Environment.

[26]  Xuemei Xie,et al.  Turning green subsidies into sustainability: How green process innovation improves firms' green image , 2019, Business Strategy and the Environment.

[27]  Shaozhen Han,et al.  Zombie firms, external support and corporate environmental responsibility: Evidence from China , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[28]  Yuan Zhou,et al.  How do low-carbon policies promote green diffusion among alliance-based firms in China? An evolutionary-game model of complex networks , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[29]  Lei Zhu,et al.  Does environmental responsibility matter in cross-sector partnership formation? A legitimacy perspective. , 2019, Journal of environmental management.

[30]  Taiwen Feng,et al.  Green innovation to respond to environmental regulation: How external knowledge adoption and green absorptive capacity matter? , 2019, Business Strategy and the Environment.

[31]  Lu Qiu,et al.  Green product innovation, green dynamic capability, and competitive advantage: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing enterprises , 2019, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.

[32]  P. Teirlinck,et al.  The influence of functional and geographical diversity in collaboration on product innovation performance in SMEs , 2018 .

[33]  V. Meliciani,et al.  Green patents, regulatory policies and research network policies , 2018, Research Policy.

[34]  W. Qualls,et al.  Do social ties matter for the emergence of dominant design? The moderating roles of technological turbulence and IRP enforcement , 2018 .

[35]  Die Hu,et al.  How do different innovation forms mediate the relationship between environmental regulation and performance , 2017 .

[36]  G. Ma,et al.  Technological Peer Pressure and Product Disclosure , 2017 .

[37]  Kai Foerstl,et al.  The Supply Chain Position Paradox: Green Practices and Firm Performance , 2017 .

[38]  Thomas W. Guenther,et al.  Too Little or too much? Exploring U‐shaped Relationships between Corporate Environmental Performance and Corporate Financial Performance , 2017 .

[39]  Hsiu-FenTsai,et al.  What Makes Firms Embrace Risks? A Risk-Taking Capability Perspective , 2016 .

[40]  Victor Gilsing,et al.  The two faces of inventions: The relationship between recombination and impact in pharmaceutical biotechnology , 2016 .

[41]  Gaoqing Zhang,et al.  Accounting Manipulation, Peer Pressure, and Internal Control , 2016 .

[42]  J. Wincent,et al.  Exploration and exploitation and firm performance variability: a study of ambidexterity in entrepreneurial firms , 2016 .

[43]  César Camisón,et al.  Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size , 2016 .

[44]  P. Aghion,et al.  Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency, and Directed Technical Change: Evidence from the Auto Industry , 2012, Journal of Political Economy.

[45]  M. Colombo,et al.  Hybrid alliances and radical innovation: the performance implications of integrating exploration and exploitation , 2015 .

[46]  Peter Teirlinck,et al.  Internal capabilities, network resources and appropriation mechanisms as determinants of R&D outsourcing , 2015 .

[47]  Xuan Tian,et al.  Does Banking Competition Affect Innovation , 2015 .

[48]  C. V. Beers,et al.  R&D Cooperation, Partner Diversity, and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Analysis† , 2014 .

[49]  N. Ashraf,et al.  Alliance Network Position, Embeddedness and Effects on the Carbon Performance of Firms in Emerging Economies , 2014 .

[50]  Gianluca Carnabuci,et al.  Where do firms' recombinant capabilities come from? Intraorganizational networks, knowledge, and firms' ability to innovate through technological recombination , 2013 .

[51]  M. Tushman,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future , 2013 .

[52]  T. Cornelissen,et al.  Peer Effects in the Workplace , 2013, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[53]  Satish Nambisan,et al.  Industry technical committees, technological distance, and innovation performance , 2013 .

[54]  Pierre Dussauge,et al.  Network resource stocks and flows: how do alliance portfolios affect the value of new alliance formations? , 2012 .

[55]  Haibin Yang,et al.  Behind Acquisitions of Alliance Partners: Exploratory Learning and Network Embeddedness , 2011 .

[56]  Klaus Rennings,et al.  The Impact of Regulation-Driven Environmental Innovation on Innovation Success and Firm Performance , 2011 .

[57]  R. Duane Ireland,et al.  Resource Orchestration to Create Competitive Advantage , 2010 .

[58]  Mark T. Leary,et al.  Do Peer Firms Affect Corporate Financial Policy? , 2010 .

[59]  A. Bojica,et al.  Prior knowledge and social networks in the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities , 2010 .

[60]  S. Roper,et al.  Output Additionality of Public Support for Innovation: Evidence for Irish Manufacturing Plants , 2010 .

[61]  Qing Cao,et al.  Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[62]  Mark P. McHenry,et al.  Policy options when giving negative externalities market value : Clean energy policymaking and restructuring the Western Australian energy sector , 2009 .

[63]  Michael Song,et al.  The role of suppliers in market intelligence gathering for radical and incremental innovation , 2009 .

[64]  Michel Patry,et al.  Environmental regulation and productivity: testing the porter hypothesis , 2008 .

[65]  John E. Prescott,et al.  Designing alliance networks: the influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance , 2008 .

[66]  A. Low,et al.  Managerial Risk-Taking Behavior and Equity-Based Compensation , 2008 .

[67]  D. Teece.  Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance , 2007 .

[68]  Corey C. Phelps,et al.  Interfirm Collaboration Networks: The Impact of Large-Scale Network Structure on Firm Innovation , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[69]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  Network Effects in the Governance of Strategic Alliances , 2006 .

[70]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation and Peformance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[71]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  The interplay between exploration and exploitation. , 2006 .

[72]  H. Ohtsuki,et al.  A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks , 2006, Nature.

[73]  A. Salter,et al.  Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms , 2006 .

[74]  Alfred A. Marcus,et al.  EMBEDDED TIES AND THE ACQUISITION OF COMPETITIVE CAPABILITIES , 2005 .

[75]  Geoffrey G. Bell,et al.  Benefiting from network position: firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance , 2005 .

[76]  Ashish Sood,et al.  Technological Evolution and Radical Innovation , 2005 .

[77]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Impact of Social Structure on Economic Outcomes Social Networks and Economic Outcomes: Core Principles , 2022 .

[78]  J. Tirole,et al.  Incentives and Prosocial Behavior , 2004 .

[79]  R. Burt.  Structural Holes and Good Ideas1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

[80]  Zi-Lin He,et al.  Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[81]  R. Chandy,et al.  Sources and Financial Consequences of Radical Innovation: Insights from Pharmaceuticals , 2003 .

[82]  Mary J. Benner,et al.  Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited , 2003 .

[83]  H. Mitsuhashi.  Effects of the Social Origins of Alliances on Alliance Performance , 2003 .

[84]  Robert Brame,et al.  Tobit Models in Social Science Research , 2003 .

[85]  William J. Wilhelm,et al.  Partnership Firms, Reputation, and Human Capital , 2003 .

[86]  Erwin Danneels.  The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences , 2002 .

[87]  S. Zahra,et al.  Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension , 2002 .

[88]  B. E. Hogan,et al.  Social support interventions: do they work? , 2002, Clinical psychology review.

[89]  Scott Shane,et al.  Network Ties, Reputation, and the Financing of New Ventures , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[90]  Roger Miller,et al.  The Strategic Management of Large Engineering Projects: Shaping Institutions, Risks, and Governance , 2001 .

[91]  D. Macbeth,et al.  Implementing Collaboration Between Organizations: An Empirical Study Of Supply Chain Partnering , 2000 .

[92]  G. Ahuja.  Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study , 1998 .

[93]  S. Shane.  Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities , 2000 .

[94]  Martin Gargiulo,et al.  Trapped in Your Own Net? Network Cohesion, Structural Holes, and the Adaptation of Social Capital , 2000 .

[95]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Don't go it alone: alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology , 2000 .

[96]  Jesper B. Sørensen,et al.  Aging, Obsolescence, and Organizational Innovation , 2000 .

[97]  T. Khanna,et al.  Do Firms Learn to Create Value? The Case of Alliances , 2000 .

[98]  R. Gulati.  Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation , 1999 .

[99]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage , 1998 .

[100]  Rebel A. Cole,et al.  The Importance of Relationships to the Availability of Credit , 1998 .

[101]  R. Gulati.  Alliances and networks , 1998 .

[102]  R. Gulati.  Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliances , 1995 .

[103]  Joel Podolny.  A Status-Based Model of Market Competition , 1993, American Journal of Sociology.

[104]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[105]  C. Solo,et al.  Innovation in the Capitalist Process: A Critique of the Schumpeterian Theory , 1951 .