Firms engage in innovative activities, either to maintain the status quo or to catch up with the front-runners. Innovation is difficult to comprehend as it may include efforts to introduce something ‘new to the world’ or it may include simply the efforts to introduce something ‘new to the firm’. It is equally difficult to comprehend how the clustered firms located in latecomer countries are coping with the fast technological changes happening within the industry at the global level. Therefore, taking the case of five manufacturing clusters belonging to the Indian state of Punjab, an attempt is made to comprehend the impact of innovative activities on firm performances. We have done a survey for collecting the primary data for different variables reflecting four types of innovations and four types of performance indicators from the firms belonging to bicycles, hand tools & machine tools, pharmaceuticals, sports goods and textile clusters located in the north Indian state of Punjab. The focus on different clusters belonging to a particular region was done with intent to control the broad social, economic, cultural, political and historical aspects of the different clusters. Estimating the structural equation model with partial least-squares method, we found that the impact of process innovation, organizational innovation and marketing innovation is significant for firm innovative performances, production performance, market performance and financial performance. Specifically, we found that the introduction of new machines with advanced production systems, improvements in the manner of doing routine activities, improving product quality and modernization of human management systems within the firms have a positive impact on firm performance.
AndriesP., & CzarnitzkiD. (2014). Small firm innovation performance and employee involvement. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 21–38. 10.1007/s11187-014-9577-1
2.
ArmbrusterH., BikfalviA., KinkelS., & LayG. (2008). Organizational innovation: The challenge of measuring non-technical innovations in large-scale survey,Technovation, 28(10), 644–657.
3.
ArranzN., ArroyabeM. F., & Fernandez de ArroyabeJ. C. (2019). An integrated mode of organizational innovation and firms performance: Generation, persistence and complementarity. Journal of Business Research, 105, 270–282. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.018
4.
BayusB. L., EricksonG., & JacobsonR. (2003). Financial rewards of new product introductions. Management Science, 49(2), 197–210.
5.
BeckerJ.-M., RingleC. M., SarstedtM., & VölcknerF. (2015). How collinearity affects mixture regression results. Marketing Letters, 26(4), 643–659.
6.
BecattiniG. (2004). Industrial districts. A new approach to industrial change. Edward Elgar Publishing.
7.
BellM., & AlbuM. (1999). Knowledge systems and technological dynamism in industrial clusters in developing countries. World Development, 27(9), 1715–1734.
8.
CaroliE., & Van ReenenJ. (2001). Skill biased organizational change? Evidence from a panel of British and French establishments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1149–1192.
9.
CawthorneP. (1990). Amoebic capitalism as a form of accumulation: The case of the cotton knitwear industry in a South Indian town [PhD thesis]. Open University, Milton Keynes.
10.
ChandrashekarD., Bala SubramanayaM. H., JoshiK., & PriyadarshiT. (2019). Effects of innovation on firm performance—The case of a technology intensive manufacturing cluster in India. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 16(7). 10.1142/S0219877019500524
11.
ChakrabortyM. (2024) Industrial clustering and location in India: Sectoral patterns of investments and employments. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 10.1016/j.rspp.2024.100041i
12.
ChinW. W. (2001). PLS-graph user’s guide (Vol. 15, pp. 1)–16). CT Bauer College of Business, University of Houston.
13.
DasK. (2015). Institutional constraints to innovation: Artisan clusters in rural India. Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy, 4(2), 132–153. 10.7545/AJIP.2015.4.2.132
14.
EdquistC. (2005). Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges, in MoweryFagerberg J. and NelsonD. C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press.
15.
EvangelistaR., & VezzaniA. (2010). The economic impact of technological and organizational innovation. A firm level analysis. Research Policy, 39(10), 1253–1263.
16.
FornellC. G., & BooksteinF. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452.
17.
GrossmanG. M., & HelpmanE. (1991). Endogenous growth trade, knowledge spillovers and growth. European Economic Review, 35(2–3), 517–526.
18.
GundayG., UlusoyG., KilicK., & AlpkanL. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662–676. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.014
19.
HagedoornJ., & CloodtM. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?Research Policy, 32, 1365–1379. 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00137-3
20.
HairJ. F., HultG. T. M., RingleC. M. & SarstedtM. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.) Sage Publications.
21.
HairJ. F., HultG. T. M., RingleC. M., SarstedtM., & ThieleK. O. (2017). Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 616–632.
22.
HairJ. F., RisherJ. J., SarstedtM., & RingleC. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
23.
HairJ. F., RingleC. M., & SarstedtM. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
24.
HenselerJ., RingleC. M., & SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
25.
KlompL., & Van LeeuwenG. (2001). Linking innovation and firm performance: A new approach. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(3), 343–364. 10.1080/13571510110079612
26.
LeeK. (2013). Schumpeterian analysis of economic catch-up: knowledge, path-creation and the middle-income trap. Cambridge University Press.
27.
LeeR., LeeJ-H, & GareettT. C. (2019). Synergy effect of innovation on firms performance. Journal of Business Research, 99, 507–515.
28.
LucasR. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3–42. 10.1016/0304-3932(88)90168-7
29.
LundvallB._A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter.
30.
LundvallB. A. (2016). The learning economy and the economics of hope. Anthem Press.
31.
MasonC. H., & PerreaultW. D. (1991). Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 268–280.
32.
MehtaS. (2021). Covid-19 and MSMEs in Punjab: Challenges ahead. In SinghS., SinghL., & VattaK. (Eds.), Covid-19 pandemic and economic development. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978-981-16-4442-9_9
33.
MehtaS. (2022). Upgrading within global value chains: Backward linkages, forward linkages and technological capabilities. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 30(3), 581–600. 10.1080/19761597.2021.1938152
34.
MehtaS. (2024). Innovation systems, value chains and industrial clusters in developing economies: Case of Jalandhar’s sports goods industry. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 16(1), 99–112. 10.1080/20421338.2023.2266193
35.
MehtaS., & KaurM. (2021). COVID-19 and Ludhiana’s woollen knitwear industry: Way forward. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel, 25(3), 209–225. 10.1108/RJTA-07-2020-0082
36.
NadviK. M. (1996). Small firm industrial districts in Pakistan [IDS DPhil thesis]. University of Sussex, Brighton.
37.
NelsonR., & WinterS. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
38.
Oslo Manual: OECD/Eurostat (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (3rd ed.). The measurement of scientific and technological Activities. OECD Publishing. 10.1787/9789264013100-en
39.
PietrobelliC., & RabellottiR. (2006). Upgrading to compete: Global value chains, clusters and SMEs in Latin America. Inter-American Development Bank.
40.
PivaM., & VivarelliM. (2002). The skill bias: Comparative evidence and an econometric test. International Review of Applied Economics, 16(3), 347–358.
41.
PorterM. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. The Free Press Quarterly.
42.
RabellottiR. (1995). Is there an ‘industrial district model’? Footwear districts in Italy and Mexico compared. World development, 23(1), 29–41.
43.
RabellottiR. (1997). External economies and cooperation in industrial districts: A comparison of Italy and Mexico. Macmillan.
44.
RaithelS., SarstedtM., ScharfS., & SchwaigerM. (2012). On the value relevance of customer satisfaction. Multiple drivers and multiple markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(4), 509–525.
45.
RamadaniV., HisrichR. D., Abazi-AliliH., DanaL., PanthiL., & Abazi-BexhetiL. (2019). Product innovation and firm performance in transition economies: A multi-stage estimation approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140, 271–280.
46.
RigdonE. E. (2012). Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: In praise of simple methods. Long Range Planning, 45(5/6), 341–358.
47.
RingleC. M., WendeS., & BeckerJ.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS, Bönningstedt.
48.
RingleC. M., WendeS. & BeckerJ.-M. (2022). SmartPLS 4. SmartPLS, Oststeinbek. Retrieved July12, 2023, from https://www.smartpls.com
49.
RingleC. M., WendeS., & WillA. (2005). SmartPLS 2, SmartPLS, Hamburg.
50.
RomerP. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5) S71–S102.
51.
SaxenianA. L. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 (xi, pp. 266). Harvard University Press.
52.
SarstedtM., RingleC. M., & HairJ. F. (2017). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In HomburgC., KlarmannM., & VombergA. (Eds.), Handbook of market research (pp. 1–40). Springer.
53.
SchumpeterJ. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press.
54.
ShmueliG., & KoppiusO. R. (2011). ‘Predictive analytics in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 553–572.
55.
ShmueliG., SarstedtM., HairJ.F., CheahJ.-H., TingH., VaithilingamS., & RingleC. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322–2347.
56.
SmithK. H. (2005). Measuring innovation . In FagerbergJ., MoweryM. C., & NelsonR. R. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford.
57.
StreukensS., & Leroi-WereldsS. (2016). Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: A step-by-step guide to get more out of your bootstrap results. European Management Journal, 34(6), 618–632.
58.
TewariM. (1996). When the marginal becomes mainstream: Lessons from half-century of dynamic small-firm growth in Ludhiana, India [PhD thesis]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
59.
TungJ. (2012). A study of product innovation on firm performance. The International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 4(3), 84–97.
60.
WillabyH. W., CostaD. S. J., BurnsB. D., MacCannC., & RobertsR. D. (2015). Testing complex models with small sample sizes: A historical overview and empirical demonstration of what partial least squares (PLS) can offer differential psychology. Personality and Individual Differences, 84, 73–78. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.008
