IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT AND INNOVATION CAPABILITIES ON PERFORMANCE: ARE COOPERATIVES DIFFERENT?

www.ehu.es/basterretxea

Imanol Basterretxea and Ricardo MartínezImanol Basterretxea and Ricardo Martínez University of the Basque Country, SpainUniversity of the Basque Country, Spain

20122012

Impact of management and Impact of management and innovation capabilities on innovation capabilities on

performance: are performance: are cooperatives different? cooperatives different?


1)1) Introduction Introduction

2)2) Limitations of the cooperatives to Limitations of the cooperatives to attract and retain valuable managersattract and retain valuable managers

3)3) Limitations for innovation in Limitations for innovation in cooperative firmscooperative firms

4)4) MethodologyMethodology

5)5) Results.Results.

6)6) ConclusionsConclusions

IndexIndex


1) Introduction1) Introduction

Cuantitative Research: 861 industrial firms

Qualitative Research12 In depth interviews

+ Questionaries to 66 HR Managers

44 cooperatives. 31 cooperatives of the Mondragon Cooperative Group.


RESEARCH GOAL:Evaluate if management and innovation capabilities differ between cooperatives and investor owned firms.

1) Introduction1) Introduction


Los RR.HH. en las cooperativas de MCC constituyen un recurso escaso, valioso y conducente a ventajas competitivas.

2) Limitations of the cooperatives to attract and retain valuable managers

Management resources as particularly valuable and scarce resources for the generation and maintenance of business success (Penrose 1959; Child, 1972; Katz, 1974; Anderson and Paine, 1975; Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Andrews, 1987; Castanias and Helfat, 1991, 2001; Lado and Wilson, 1994; Pickett, 1998; Landeta et al., 2007; Basterretxea and Albizu, 2010; Martínez et al. 2010)

Empirical evidence of the positive Empirical evidence of the positive influence of management capabilities on influence of management capabilities on business performance business performance (Hitt and Ireland (1985), Finkelstein and (Hitt and Ireland (1985), Finkelstein and Hambrick (1990), Thomas et al., (1993), Markides and Williamson (1994), Robins and Hambrick (1990), Thomas et al., (1993), Markides and Williamson (1994), Robins and Wiersema (1995), Mehra (1996), Russo and Fouts (1996), Boeker (1997), Carmeli Wiersema (1995), Mehra (1996), Russo and Fouts (1996), Boeker (1997), Carmeli (2001), Lerner and Almor (2002), Acquaah (2003), Kor (2003), Carmeli and Tishler (2001), Lerner and Almor (2002), Acquaah (2003), Kor (2003), Carmeli and Tishler (2006) and Martínez et al. 2010)(2006) and Martínez et al. 2010)




Management salary below the market average and small wage differentials. (Altzian and Demsetz, 1972; Thomas and Logan, 1982; (Altzian and Demsetz, 1972; Thomas and Logan, 1982; Gorroño, 1988; Ormaechea, 1988; Gorroñogoita, 1988; Gorroño, 1988; Ormaechea, 1988; Gorroñogoita, 1988; Whyte and Whyte, 1988; Cornforth and Thomas, 1990; Abell, Whyte and Whyte, 1988; Cornforth and Thomas, 1990; Abell, 1990; Bartlett, 1990; Bartlett, et alet al. 1992; ILSR, 1992; Kasmir, 1996; Spear, . 1992; ILSR, 1992; Kasmir, 1996; Spear,

2004; Morales, 2004; Basterretxea and Albizu, 2010)2004; Morales, 2004; Basterretxea and Albizu, 2010)

Scarce promotion Scarce promotion prospects due to the small prospects due to the small size of most cooperatives size of most cooperatives (Gorroño, 1988)(Gorroño, 1988)



Continuous critical internal control by cooperative members (Bradley (Bradley and Gelb, 1985; Morales, 2004; Basterretxea and Albizu, and Gelb, 1985; Morales, 2004; Basterretxea and Albizu, 2010)2010)

Managers from ordinary Managers from ordinary companies not committed companies not committed to cooperative values to cooperative values (Bataille-(Bataille-Chedotel and Hutzinger, 2004; Chaves and Sajardo, 2004; Chedotel and Hutzinger, 2004; Chaves and Sajardo, 2004; Meek and Woodworth, 1990; Münkner, 2000; Davis, 2001; Meek and Woodworth, 1990; Münkner, 2000; Davis, 2001; Basterretxea and Albizu, 2010) Basterretxea and Albizu, 2010)



H 1: Management capabilities H 1: Management capabilities are lower in cooperative firms are lower in cooperative firms than in investor owned firms.than in investor owned firms.




Strong evidence in the literature of a positive relationship between innovation and business performance in industrial firms (e.g. Griliches and Mairesse, 1983, 1990; Crépon et al., 1998; Wakelin, 2001; Lööf and Heshmati, 2001, 2002; Mairesse and Mohnen, 2003; Kafouros et al., 2008, Martínez et al. 2010,etc.).

Fewer studies with evidence of a positive relationship in the services sector (e.g. Cainelli et al. (2004, 2006); The Oslo Manual (OECD, 2005))

3) Limitations for innovation in cooperative firms



Higher degree of risk aversion of the worker-owners and therefore, an obstacle for innovation. (Dow (2001, 2003); Park (2004); Melgarejo et al. (2007, 2010); Prychitko and Vanek (1996); Katz (1997); Van der Krogt et al (2007)



Limited access to capital in cooperatives implies finantial limitations to innovate. (Staatz (1987); Cobia & Brewer, (1989); Iliopoulos (1998); Chaddad (2001); Chaddad & Cook (2004); Van der Krogt et al (2007); Maietta and Sena, (2010))


- Capital Increase?- Bank Loans?--…



H 2: Innovation capabilities are H 2: Innovation capabilities are lower in cooperatives than in lower in cooperatives than in investor owned firms. investor owned firms.


4.- Methodology4.- Methodology


4.- Methodology.4.- Methodology.

Technical Information Technical InformationPopulation

firms with 10 or more employees in the manufacturing industry of the Basque Country

Sample

N = 3.275n = 861 (26,29%)Random Errormáx = 2,87% (c.i. 95%)

computer-assisted telephone surveys

24/04/2006 – 10/05/2006

- Analysis of individual items- Tests of reliability (Cronbach calculation) and validity tests (Confirmatory Factorial Analysis with EQS 6.1),


4.- Methodology.4.- Methodology.Cooperatives of the sampleCooperatives of the sample

MONDRAGÓN COOPERATIVES:MONDRAGÓN COOPERATIVES: ALECOP SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVAALECOP SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA BATZ S COOPBATZ S COOP BERRIOLA SCLBERRIOLA SCL CIKAUTXO SCLCIKAUTXO SCL CONSONNI SOC COOPCONSONNI SOC COOP COOPERATIVA INDUSTRIAL DE LA MADERA SCICOOPERATIVA INDUSTRIAL DE LA MADERA SCI COPRECI SCLCOPRECI SCL DANOBAT S.COOPDANOBAT S.COOP DANONA SCIDANONA SCI DOMUSA CALEFACCION S COOPDOMUSA CALEFACCION S COOP EDESA SDAD COOPEDESA SDAD COOP EREDU SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA INDUSTRIALEREDU SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA INDUSTRIAL FAGOR ARRASATE SCLFAGOR ARRASATE SCL FAGOR AUTOMATION SCOOPFAGOR AUTOMATION SCOOP FAGOR ELECTRODOMESTICOS SCLFAGOR ELECTRODOMESTICOS SCL FAGOR INDUSTRIAL S. COOP.FAGOR INDUSTRIAL S. COOP. GOITI SCLGOITI SCL INDUSTRIAS TAJO SCLINDUSTRIAS TAJO SCL LEALDE SCLLEALDE SCL MAIER SDAD COOP.MAIER SDAD COOP. MATRICI SCLMATRICI SCL MCC GRAFPHICSMCC GRAFPHICS MIBA SCLMIBA SCL MONDRAGON ASSEMBLY S.COOPMONDRAGON ASSEMBLY S.COOP OIARSO SCLOIARSO SCL ONA PRES, S.C.L.ONA PRES, S.C.L. ORKLI SCLORKLI SCL POYAM/AMPOPOYAM/AMPO SORALUCE S.C.L.SORALUCE S.C.L. TALLERES ELCORO S COOP LTDATALLERES ELCORO S COOP LTDA ULMA C Y E SCLULMA C Y E SCL

OTHER COOPERATIVES:OTHER COOPERATIVES: BURDINOLA SDAD COOP LIMITADABURDINOLA SDAD COOP LIMITADA CARPINTERIA MALMASIN SDAD COOP LMTDACARPINTERIA MALMASIN SDAD COOP LMTDA EQUIPOS DE PANIFICACION SCRLEQUIPOS DE PANIFICACION SCRL FARTECNIC S. COOP.FARTECNIC S. COOP. GOIZPER SCLGOIZPER SCL KIDELAN S COOPKIDELAN S COOP LAN MOBEL SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVALAN MOBEL SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA LOGOS SDAD COOPLOGOS SDAD COOP MANIPULADOS VIVASA SCLMANIPULADOS VIVASA SCL PANEL FIJACIONES SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA.PANEL FIJACIONES SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA. RPK SDAD COOPRPK SDAD COOP SPIRSIN SCLSPIRSIN SCL VENTILADORES Y TUBERIAS DEL NORTE VENTILADORES Y TUBERIAS DEL NORTE

SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVASOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA


Table 1: Factors, variables and Table 1: Factors, variables and results of the reliability and results of the reliability and

validity testsvalidity testsFactor Cronbach

Factor mean

Variable Factor Loading

Mean variable

0.768 3.5696 P7: Managers’ qualifications 0.753 3.7760

P6: Managers’ strategic vision 0.687 3.6807

P9: Innovation in management and administration 0.579 3.4522

F2: Management capabilities

P8: Investment in employee training and development 0.560 3.3695

0.822 3.1619 P16: Radical innovation in product 0.849 2.6275

P15: Incremental product innovation 0.818 3.1625

P17: Innovation in production and commercial process 0.785 3.1979

P9: Innovation in management and administration 0.373 3.4522

P8: Investment in employee training and development 0.265 3.3695

P18: Investment in RDI - 3.0605

F4: Innovation capabilities

P24: Collaboration with Universities and Technology centres (as a path to innovation)

- 2.2967

for measuring the management and innovation capabilities that form the object of study, we have developed subjective scales comprising 5-point Likert-type scales, using a previous qualitative methodology based on interviews with managers (Martínez et al. 2010)



ANOVA Analysis of the items – Cooperatives versus rest of the ANOVA Analysis of the items – Cooperatives versus rest of the sample.sample.

ANOVA Analysis of the items – Mondragon cooperatives versus ANOVA Analysis of the items – Mondragon cooperatives versus rest of the sample.rest of the sample.

ANOVA Analysis of the items – Mondragon cooperatives versus ANOVA Analysis of the items – Mondragon cooperatives versus other cooperatives.other cooperatives.

ANOVA Analysis of the innovation and management capabilities – ANOVA Analysis of the innovation and management capabilities – Cooperatives versus rest of the sample.Cooperatives versus rest of the sample.

ANOVA Analysis of the innovation and management capabilities- ANOVA Analysis of the innovation and management capabilities- Mondragon cooperatives versus rest of the sample. Mondragon cooperatives versus rest of the sample.

ANOVA Analysis of the innovation and management capabilities- ANOVA Analysis of the innovation and management capabilities- Mondragon cooperatives versus other cooperatives. Mondragon cooperatives versus other cooperatives.



ANOVA Analysis of the items – Cooperatives ANOVA Analysis of the items – Cooperatives versus rest of the sample.versus rest of the sample.

Límite inferior

Límite superior

NO 812 3,67 ,858 ,030 3,61 3,73 1 5

SI 43 3,84 ,924 ,141 3,55 4,12 1 5Total 855 3,68 ,862 ,029 3,62 3,74 1 5NO 813 3,77 ,793 ,028 3,72 3,83 1 5

SI 44 3,82 ,724 ,109 3,60 4,04 2 5Total 857 3,78 ,789 ,027 3,72 3,83 1 5NO 814 3,37 ,937 ,033 3,31 3,44 1 5

SI 44 3,34 ,914 ,138 3,06 3,62 1 5Total 858 3,37 ,935 ,032 3,31 3,43 1 5NO 814 3,45 ,906 ,032 3,39 3,51 1 5

SI 44 3,52 ,792 ,119 3,28 3,76 1 5Total 858 3,45 ,900 ,031 3,39 3,51 1 5NO 794 3,15 1,203 ,043 3,06 3,23 1 5

SI 43 3,44 ,934 ,142 3,15 3,73 1 5Total 837 3,16 1,192 ,041 3,08 3,24 1 5NO 792 2,62 1,230 ,044 2,54 2,71 1 5

SI 43 2,70 ,964 ,147 2,40 2,99 1 4Total 835 2,63 1,217 ,042 2,54 2,71 1 5NO 805 3,21 1,156 ,041 3,13 3,29 1 5

SI 44 3,05 ,914 ,138 2,77 3,32 1 4Total 849 3,20 1,144 ,039 3,12 3,27 1 5NO 754 3,04 1,313 ,048 2,94 3,13 1 5

SI 40 3,48 1,240 ,196 3,08 3,87 1 5Total 794 3,06 1,312 ,047 2,97 3,15 1 5NO 812 2,25 1,302 ,046 2,16 2,34 1 5

SI 44 3,16 1,462 ,220 2,71 3,60 1 5Total 856 2,30 1,325 ,045 2,21 2,39 1 5

P15.- EN NUESTRA EMPRESA SE INCORPORAN A MENUDO MODIFICACIONES IMPORTANTES EN LOS PRODUCTOS DE NUESTRA CARTERA

P6.- LOS DIRECTIVOS DE NUESTRA EMPRESA HEMOS IDENTIFICADO DE FORMA CLARA Y CONCRETA NUESTRAS PRINCIPALES DEBILIDADES, AM

P7.- LA CUALIFICACIÓN DE LOS DIRECTIVOS DE NUESTRA EMPRESA ES LA ADECUADA PARA HACER FRENTE A LOS RETOS QUE SE NOS PLANT

P8.- NUESTRA EMPRESA DESTACA POR UNA INVERSIÓN IMPORTANTE Y BIEN ORIENTADA EN LA FORMACIÓN Y DESARROLLO DE SUS EMPLEADOS

P9.- NUESTRA EMPRESA DESTACA POR UNA DIRECCIÓN Y UNA GESTIÓN INNOVADORA

P16.- NUESTRA EMPRESA DESTACA POR SU CAPACIDAD PARA DESARROLLAR Y LANZAR AL MERCADO PRODUCTOS RADICALMENTE INNOVADORES

N Media Desv. típicaError típico

Intervalo de confianza para la

media al 95%

Mín. Máx.

P17.- NUESTRA EMPRESA INVIERTE CONSTANTEMENTE EN INNOVACIÓN EN EL PROCESO PRODUCTIVO Y COMERCIAL

P18.- APROXIMADAMENTE, ¿QUÉ PORCENTAJE DE LA FACTURACIÓN TOTAL DE SU EMPRESA SE INVIERTE EN I+D+I, ES DECIR, EN INVESTIG

P24.- NUESTRA EMPRESA TRABAJA A MENUDO CON CENTROS TECNOLÓGICOS Y UNIVERSIDADES

Difference significant to 5% Difference significant to 1%


ANOVA Analysis of the items – Mondragon ANOVA Analysis of the items – Mondragon cooperatives versus rest of the sample.cooperatives versus rest of the sample.

Límite inferior

Límite superior

NO 825 3,68 ,858 ,030 3,62 3,73 1 5SI 30 3,83 ,950 ,173 3,48 4,19 1 5Total 855 3,68 ,862 ,029 3,62 3,74 1 5NO 826 3,78 ,791 ,028 3,72 3,83 1 5SI 31 3,77 ,762 ,137 3,49 4,05 2 5Total 857 3,78 ,789 ,027 3,72 3,83 1 5NO 827 3,37 ,935 ,033 3,31 3,44 1 5SI 31 3,23 ,956 ,172 2,88 3,58 1 5Total 858 3,37 ,935 ,032 3,31 3,43 1 5NO 827 3,45 ,902 ,031 3,39 3,51 1 5SI 31 3,55 ,850 ,153 3,24 3,86 1 5Total 858 3,45 ,900 ,031 3,39 3,51 1 5NO 806 3,15 1,196 ,042 3,07 3,23 1 5SI 31 3,52 1,029 ,185 3,14 3,89 1 5Total 837 3,16 1,192 ,041 3,08 3,24 1 5NO 804 2,63 1,228 ,043 2,54 2,71 1 5SI 31 2,61 ,882 ,158 2,29 2,94 1 4Total 835 2,63 1,217 ,042 2,54 2,71 1 5NO 818 3,21 1,154 ,040 3,13 3,28 1 5SI 31 3,00 ,856 ,154 2,69 3,31 1 4Total 849 3,20 1,144 ,039 3,12 3,27 1 5NO 766 3,04 1,308 ,047 2,94 3,13 1 5SI 28 3,71 1,272 ,240 3,22 4,21 1 5Total 794 3,06 1,312 ,047 2,97 3,15 1 5NO 825 2,24 1,300 ,045 2,15 2,33 1 5SI 31 3,71 1,216 ,218 3,26 4,16 1 5Total 856 2,30 1,325 ,045 2,21 2,39 1 5











Intervalo de

Mín. Máx.

Difference significant to 1%


ANOVA Analysis of the items – Mondragon ANOVA Analysis of the items – Mondragon cooperatives versus other cooperatives.cooperatives versus other cooperatives.


Límite inferior

Límite superior

NO 13 3,85 ,899 ,249 3,30 4,39 2 5SI 30 3,83 ,950 ,173 3,48 4,19 1 5Total 43 3,84 ,924 ,141 3,55 4,12 1 5NO 13 3,92 ,641 ,178 3,54 4,31 3 5SI 31 3,77 ,762 ,137 3,49 4,05 2 5Total 44 3,82 ,724 ,109 3,60 4,04 2 5NO 13 3,62 ,768 ,213 3,15 4,08 2 5SI 31 3,23 ,956 ,172 2,88 3,58 1 5Total 44 3,34 ,914 ,138 3,06 3,62 1 5NO 13 3,46 ,660 ,183 3,06 3,86 2 4SI 31 3,55 ,850 ,153 3,24 3,86 1 5Total 44 3,52 ,792 ,119 3,28 3,76 1 5NO 12 3,25 ,622 ,179 2,86 3,64 2 4SI 31 3,52 1,029 ,185 3,14 3,89 1 5Total 43 3,44 ,934 ,142 3,15 3,73 1 5NO 12 2,92 1,165 ,336 2,18 3,66 1 4SI 31 2,61 ,882 ,158 2,29 2,94 1 4Total 43 2,70 ,964 ,147 2,40 2,99 1 4NO 13 3,15 1,068 ,296 2,51 3,80 1 4SI 31 3,00 ,856 ,154 2,69 3,31 1 4Total 44 3,05 ,914 ,138 2,77 3,32 1 4NO 12 2,92 ,996 ,288 2,28 3,55 1 4SI 28 3,71 1,272 ,240 3,22 4,21 1 5Total 40 3,48 1,240 ,196 3,08 3,87 1 5NO 13 1,85 1,144 ,317 1,16 2,54 1 4SI 31 3,71 1,216 ,218 3,26 4,16 1 5Total 44 3,16 1,462 ,220 2,71 3,60 1 5











Intervalo de confianza para la

media al 95%

Mín. Máx.



ANOVA Analysis of the innovation and ANOVA Analysis of the innovation and management capabilities- Cooperatives versus management capabilities- Cooperatives versus

rest of the sample.rest of the sample.

ANALYISIS LEVEL: REFINED FACTORS: Reliable and valid. (Reliability tests (Cronbach calculation) and validity tests ((Confirmatory Factorial Analysis with EQS 6.1)

Management capabilities (P6; P7; P8; P9)

Innovation capabilities (P8; P9; P15; P16; P17)

Lower limit Upper limit

Non coops 817 3,5664 ,67000 ,02344 3,5204 3,6124 1,00 5,00

Cooperatives 44 3,6289 ,63655 ,09596 3,4353 3,8224 1,50 5,00

Total 861 3,5696 ,66812 ,02277 3,5249 3,6143 1,00 5,00

Non coops 817 3,1594 ,82816 ,02897 3,1026 3,2163 1,00 5,00

Cooperatives 44 3,2081 ,67867 ,10231 3,0018 3,4145 1,00 4,40

Total 861 3,1619 ,82091 ,02798 3,1070 3,2168 1,00 5,00

Maximum

Management capabilities

Innovation capabilities

N MeanStandard deviation Standard error

Confidence interval for

Minimum

DIFFERENCES ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT

H 1: Management capabilities are lower in cooperative firms than in investor owned firms.

H 2: Innovation capabilities are lower in cooperatives than in investor owned firms.


Results H1 in Mondragon cooperatives, Results H1 in Mondragon cooperatives, contrary to S.E. literature, but add contrary to S.E. literature, but add

evidence and are coherent with evidence and are coherent with Mondragon literature Mondragon literature

Mondragon cooperatives overcome limitations of Mondragon cooperatives overcome limitations of the cooperatives to attract and retain valuable the cooperatives to attract and retain valuable managers managers (Thomas and Logan, 1982; Logan, 1988; Whyte and (Thomas and Logan, 1982; Logan, 1988; Whyte and Whyte, 1988; Albizu and Basterretxea (1998); Cheney, 1999; Whyte, 1988; Albizu and Basterretxea (1998); Cheney, 1999; Bakaikoa Bakaikoa et alet al., 1999; Clamp, 2000, 2003; Smith, 2001; Jacobsen, ., 1999; Clamp, 2000, 2003; Smith, 2001; Jacobsen, 2001; Irizar, 2005; Aguirre 2001; Irizar, 2005; Aguirre et alet al., 2006; Charterina ., 2006; Charterina et alet al., 2007; ., 2007; Basterretxea and Albizu, 2010)Basterretxea and Albizu, 2010)

Reasons:Reasons:- Corporate Training centres, train - Corporate Training centres, train and create own managersand create own managers- Training and Promotion Training and Promotion opportunities opportunities - Training in cooperative culture and Training in cooperative culture and in taylored corporate management in taylored corporate management toolstools


Results H2 in Mondragon cooperatives, Results H2 in Mondragon cooperatives, contrary to SE literature, but add contrary to SE literature, but add

evidence and are coherent with recent evidence and are coherent with recent literature on Mondragonliterature on Mondragon

Posible reasons:- More access to capital for innovation than in other cooperatives (Group Bank, Subordinated debt in Fagor and Eroski, Corporate innovation funds (Mondragon Inversiones, Mondragón Innovación,…)- Diversification and risk reduction- Innovation policy and innovation and research facilities


Fagor HometekFagor Hometek

Results H2 in Mondragon cooperatives, Results H2 in Mondragon cooperatives, contrary to S.E. literature, but add contrary to S.E. literature, but add

evidence and are coherent with recent evidence and are coherent with recent literature on Mondragonliterature on Mondragon


Results H1 and H2 in NON Mondragon Results H1 and H2 in NON Mondragon cooperatives, contrary to Social cooperatives, contrary to Social

Economy literatureEconomy literature

?


ConclusionConclusion Basque manufacturing cooperatives are Basque manufacturing cooperatives are

able to overcome the limitations in able to overcome the limitations in management capabilities and innovation management capabilities and innovation capabilities stated by social economy capabilities stated by social economy literature. literature.

Both Mondragon cooperatives and non Both Mondragon cooperatives and non Mondragon cooperatives are, at least, in a Mondragon cooperatives are, at least, in a situation of competitive parity with situation of competitive parity with investor owned firms, with respect to their investor owned firms, with respect to their management and innovation capabilities. management and innovation capabilities.


ConclusionConclusion

This study adds empirical evidence to This study adds empirical evidence to some previous studies that suggested some previous studies that suggested that Mondragon cooperatives were that Mondragon cooperatives were able to overcome limitations in able to overcome limitations in management capabilities management capabilities

This empirical evidence is also This empirical evidence is also extended to other non-Mondragon extended to other non-Mondragon Basque industrial cooperatives.Basque industrial cooperatives.


Imanol Basterretxea and Ricardo Martínez Imanol Basterretxea and Ricardo Martínez Dept. of Financial Economy II, Faculty of Economic and Business StudiesDept. of Financial Economy II, Faculty of Economic and Business StudiesUniversity of the Basque Country, SpainUniversity of the Basque Country, Spain

[email protected]@[email protected]@ehu.es

The complete version of this work can be read in:

Basterretxea, I, Martínez, R (2012): “Impact of Management and innovation capabilities on performance: are cooperatives different?”, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 83, pp. 357-381.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2012.00467.x/pdf

IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT AND INNOVATION CAPABILITIES ON PERFORMANCE: ARE COOPERATIVES DIFFERENT?

Business

Transcript of IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT AND INNOVATION CAPABILITIES ON PERFORMANCE: ARE COOPERATIVES DIFFERENT?