Fostering innovation and entrepreneurship in Brazil through private equity and venture capital public policies

It is well documented the positive impact of the Private Equity and Venture Capital (PE/VC) industry on the creation and development of highly successful innovative companies in a few countries, mainly in the United States. PE/VC firms provide not only capital to startups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that usually have financing gap, especially in emerging markets, but also strategic resources that enable these enterprises to commercialize innovation. As consequence, government incentive and nurture of local PE/VC industries would be expected in emerging economies due to innovation‟s importance to economic growth. This paper aims to identify if the Brazilian government has supported local PE/VC industry throughout the years in order to foster favorable conditions to creating and developing successful innovative businesses. It also analyzes Brazil‟s main public policies towards PE/VC and if they encompass all the three stages of its cycle – fundraising, investing and exiting. I conducted an empirical research which collected primary data from a sample of 127 PE/VC firms (90% of the population) operating in Brazil as of June, 2008. All firms answered a webbased questionnaire that collected quantitative data regarding their investment vehicles, portfolio companies, investments and exits. I compared the data obtained from the survey with the main local governmental PE/VC support programs. First, I confirmed the hypothesis that the Brazilian government has been using the PE/VC industry as a public policy towards entrepreneurship and innovation. Second, I identified that although PE/VC public policies in Brazil are mostly concentrated in fundraising phase, they have been able to positively impact the whole cycle. Third, it became clear that the Brazilian government became more concerned about Seed and Venture Capital (VC) Early stages due to their importance to the entire PE/VC value chain. As consequence, I conclude that those public policies have been very important to build a dynamic and strong local PE/VC industry, whose committed capital grew 50% per year between 2005 and 2008 to achieve US$27 billion, which invested US$ 11 billion, which employs 1,400 professionals (75% with postgraduate degrees) and maintains 482 portfolio companies, mostly SMEs. In addition, PE/VCbacked companies represented one third of the Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) that occurred in Brazil between 2004 and 2008 (approximately US$15 billion).

The role of knowledge integration in innovation and capability development

Purpose This paper investigates the interrelationships between knowledge integration (KI), product innovation and capability development to enhance our understanding of how firms can develop capability at the firm level, which in turn enhances their performance. One of the critical underlying mechanisms for capability building identified in the literature is the role of knowledge integration, which operates within product innovation projects and contributes to dynamic capability development. Therefore, the main research question is “how does the integration of knowledge across product innovation projects lead to the development of capability?” Design/methodology/approach We adopted a case-based approach and investigated the case of a successful firm that was able to sustain its performance through a series of product innovation projects. In particular this research focused on the role of KI and firm-level capability development over the course of four projects, during which the firm successfully managed the transformation of its product base and renewal of its competitive advantage. For this purpose an in-depth case study of capability development was undertaken at the Iran Khodro Company (IKCO), the key player in the Iranian auto industry transformation. Originality/value This research revealed that along with changes at each level of product architecture “design knowledge” and “design capability” have been developed at the same level of product architecture, leading to capability development at that level. It can be argued that along the step by step maturation of radical innovation across the four case projects, architectural knowledge and capability have been developed at the case company, resulting in the gradual emergence of a modular product and capability architecture across different levels of product architecture. Such findings basically add to extensive emphasis in the literature on the interrelationship of the concept of modularity with knowledge management and capability development. Practical implications Findings of this study indicate that firms manage their knowledge in accordance with the level of specialization in knowledge and capability. Furthermore, firms design appropriate knowledge integration mechanisms within and among functions in order dynamically align knowledge processes at different levels of the product architecture. Accordingly, the outcomes of this study may guide practitioners in managing their knowledge processes, through dynamically employing knowledge integration modes step-by-step and from the part level to the architectural level of product architecture across a sequence of product innovation projects to encourage learning and radical innovation.

Organizational ambidexterity and corporate entrepreneurship : the differential effects on venturing, innovation and renewal processes

Most corporate entrepreneurship studies have focused on either innovation, venturing or strategic renewal making comparison between the antecedents of all three aspects of corporate entrepreneurship difficult. Moreover, studies on corporate entrepreneurship hardly address organizational antecedents, while simultaneously managing and organizing CE and mainstream activities has been seen as a major challenge for incumbent firms. Our findings show that organizational ambidexterity has strong and differential effects on venturing, innovation and renewal. We find, for example, that innovation is affected by horizontal integration, while strategic renewal is significantly influenced by integration on top management team level.

Creativity, design and entrepreneurship : management education and development for innovation

Creativity, design and entrepreneurship, have been recognized as important contributors to a firm’s innovation and to the nation’s economic growth. Creativity and design play important roles in the fuzzy front end of a firm’s innovation process and also in corporate venturing processes, but the relationship between creativity, design and entrepreneurship to a large extent has not explicitly been examined. This exploratory conceptual paper briefly reviews the separate bodies of research on creativity, design and entrepreneurship, identifying similarities and differences in constructs and applications and identifying implications for business and for management education.

Competing through service innovation : the role of bricolage and entrepreneurship in project-oriented firms

The criticality of service innovation in building and sustaining competitive advantage is gaining increasing recognition in the marketplace. Using empirical data from US and Australian project-oriented firms, the study uses a multi-staged multi-method research program to demonstrate how entrepreneurial service firms strategically combine resources at hand (bricolage) to innovate and stay ahead of rivals. The research shows that service entrepreneurship (SE) and bricolage influence two forms of service innovation (interactive and supportive), which in turn is associated with sustained competitive advantage (SCA). The results suggest that SE and bricolage indirectly relate to SCA through service innovation. The findings offer novel insights into how project-oriented service firms engage in innovation. In short, the findings encourage the “making do by combining resources at hand” as higher levels of entrepreneurial bricolage are associated with higher levels of interactive and supportive innovation enabling SCA, suggesting a new model.

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship a systematic review

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature suggests CSR initiatives extend beyond meeting the immediate interests of stakeholders of for-profit enterprises, offering the potential to also enhance performance. Growing disillusionment of for-profit business models has drawn attention to social entrepreneurship and social innovation to ease social issues. Adopting a systematic review of relevant research, the article provides collective insights into research linking social innovation with social entrepreneurship, demonstrating growing interest in the area over the last decade. The past 5 years have seen a surge in attention with particular focus on the role of the entrepreneur, networks, systems, institutions, and cross-sectoral partnerships. Based on the findings of the review, the authors synthesize formerly dispersed fields of research into an analytical framework, signposting a “systems of innovation” approach for future studies of social innovation and social entrepreneurship.

Small Business and entrepreneurship policy

There are two key approaches to entrepreneurship, each of which has different implications for small business policy (Danson 2002). The first conceives of entrepreneurship as an economic process and can be traced to the work of Joseph Schumpeter who developed the concept of creative destruction to describe the entrepreneurial process that led to the simultaneous elimination of old industries and activities and the creation of new activities through the commercial application of new ideas. While entrepreneurship as a process of creative destruction might include start up activity amongst small firms, it does not exclusively involve small firms as large firms may contribute to the entrepreneurial process through the generation of new knowledge and by assisting in financing the development of new ideas amongst small firms. Although innovation occurs in large as well as small firms, the literature on small enterprise innovation draws heavily on Schumpeter’s depiction of the central role of the entrepreneur in the process of creative destruction, whereby the economic system is transformed from within and new cycles in economic life emerge in which new industries and markets replace old industries and markets. Schumpeter argued that entrepreneurs drove the process of innovation and that innovation was a stimulus to economic development and involved the development of new products, processes, methods of production or new forms of commercial or financial organisation (Schumpeter 1911). At a time when technological development and structuraleconomic change are occurring at a rapid pace, small firm innovation is seen to be critically important because empirical evidence, although not undisputed, indicates that SMEs make an important contribution to radical innovations in new industries (Nooteboom 1994). The second view of entrepreneurship focuses on the individual entrepreneur more than the entrepreneurial process. The entrepreneur is depicted as an owner of small businesses, and is regarded as having particular personal characteristics such as self-reliance, individual initiative and self-motivation. Entrepreneurs are also considered to have a behavioural orientation towards the exploitation of new ideas and opportunities. They are the risk takers who are able to see an opportunity and pursue it commercially despite the uncertainty of rewards. The capacity to plan, manage and lead is also seen to be identifying characteristics of entrepreneurs. Different small business policy approaches arise from these different perspectives on entrepreneurship. Small business policy approaches that emphasise the process by which new ideas are generated and applied commercially arise from the first and broader view of entrepreneurship. Policies designed to generate a population of risk taking and self-motivated individuals with highly developed management and commercial skills are more in keeping with the second approach, which is focused on the individual entrepreneur rather than the entrepreneurial process.

Landcorp Farming Limited : cultivating livestock, ideas and innovation

In 1987 Landcorp was corporatised as a state-owned enterprise under New Zealand's public sector reforms and began operating as a collection of farms located throughout the country. Twenty years later, Landcorp had established a record of careful land management, productivity growth and solid financial returns, transforming from a fledgling company into one of the country's largest farmers. Landcorp was a major agribusiness with assets of more than $1.4 billion, built on a culture of continuous improvement and an innovative approach to business. The challenge going forward was to continue growth without increasing land ownership : cultivating ideas to grow in less conventional ways. This case study examines the operations, development and innovative approach to business undertaken by Landcorp Farming Limited, concentrating on the challenges faced by the company to maintain profits and growth, and its strategic direction for the future.

Social innovation and social enterprise : evidence from Australia

‘Social innovation’ is a construct increasingly used to explain the practices, processes and actors through which sustained positive transformation occurs in the network society (Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., Sander, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how can it be accelerated. Oxford:Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship; Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4):34–43, 2008.). Social innovation has been defined as a “novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions, and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals.” (Phills,J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6 (4):34–43, 2008: 34.) Emergent ideas of social innovation challenge some traditional understandings of the nature and role of the Third Sector, as well as shining a light on those enterprises within the social economy that configure resources in novel ways. In this context, social enterprises – which provide a social or community benefit and trade to fulfil their mission – have attracted considerable policy attention as one source of social innovation within a wider field of action (see Leadbeater, C. (2007). ‘Social enterprise and social innovation: Strategies for the next 10 years’, Cabinet office,Office of the third sector http://www.charlesleadbeater.net/cms xstandard/social_enterprise_innovation.pdf. Last accessed 19/5/2011.). And yet, while social enterprise seems to have gained some symbolic traction in society, there is to date relatively limited evidence of its real world impacts.(Dart, R. Not for Profit Management and Leadership, 14(4):411–424, 2004.) In other words, we do not know much about the social innovation capabilities and effects of social enterprise. In this chapter, we consider the social innovation practices of social enterprise, drawing on Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., Sander, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how can it be accelerated. Oxford: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship: 5) three dimensions of social innovation: new combinations or hybrids of existing elements; cutting across organisational, sectoral and disciplinary boundaries; and leaving behind compelling new relationships. Based on a detailed survey of 365 Australian social enterprises, we examine their self-reported business and mission-related innovations, the ways in which they configure and access resources and the practices through which they diffuse innovation in support of their mission. We then consider how these findings inform our understanding of the social innovation capabilities and effects of social enterprise,and their implications for public policy development.

Business planning, innovation and performance in nascent firms

Debate about the relationships between business planning and performance has been active for decades (Bhidé, 2000; Mintzberg, 1994). While results have been inconclusive, this topic still strongly divides the research community (Brinckmann et al., 2010; Chwolka & Raith, 2011; Delmar & Shane, 2004; Frese, 2009; Gruber, 2007; Honig & Karlsson, 2004). Previous research explored the relationships between innovation and the venture creation process (Amason et al., 2006, Dewar & Dutton, 1986; Jennings et al., 2009). However, the relationships between business planning and innovation have mostly been invoked indirectly in the strategy and entrepreneurship literatures through the notion of uncertainty surrounding the development of innovation. Some posited that planning may be irrelevant due to the iterative process, the numerous changes innovation development entails and the need to be flexible (Brews & Hunt, 1999). Others suggested that planning may facilitate the achievement of goals and overcoming of obstacles (Locke and Latham, 2000), guide the venture in its allocation of resources (Delmar and Shane, 2003) and help to foster the communication about the innovation being developed (Liao & Welsh, 2008). However, the nature and extents of the relationships between business planning, innovation and performance are still largely unknown. Moreover, if the reasons why ventures should engage (Frese, 2009) –or not- (Honig, 2004) in business planning have been investigated quite extensively (Brinckmann et al., 2010), the specific value of business planning for nascent firms developing innovation is still unclear. The objective of this paper is to shed some light on these important aspects by investigating the two following questions on a large sample of random nascent firms: 1) how is business planning use over time by new ventures developing different types and degrees of innovation? 2) how do business planning and innovation impact the performance of the nascent firms? Methods & Key propositions This PSED-type study draws its data from the first three waves of the CAUSEE project where 30,105 Australian households were randomly contacted by phone using a methodology to capture emerging firms (Davidsson, Steffens, Gordon, Reynolds, 2008). This screening led to the identification of 594 nascent ventures (i.e., firms that were not operating yet at the time of the identification) that were willing to participate in the study. Comprehensive phone interviews were conducted with these 594 ventures. Likewise, two comprehensive follow-ups were organised 12 months and 24 months later where 80% of the eligible cases of the previous wave completed the interview. The questionnaire contains specific sections investigating business plans such as: presence or absence, degree of formality and updates of the plan. Four types of innovation are measured along three degrees of intensity to produce a comprehensive continuous measure ranging from 0 to 12 (Dahlqvist & Wiklund, 2011). Other sections informing on the gestation activities, industry and different types of experiences will be used as controls to measure the relationships and the impacts of business planning and innovation on the performance of nascent firms overtime. Results from two rounds of pre-testing informed the design of the instrument included in the main survey. The three waves of data are used to first test and compare the use of planning amongst nascent firms by their degrees of innovation and then to examine their impact on performance overtime through regression analyses. Results and Implications Three waves of data collection have been completed. Preliminary results show that on average, innovative firms are more likely to have a business plans than their low innovative counterpart. They are also most likely to update their plan suggesting a more continuous use of the plan over time than previously thought. Further analyses regarding the relationships between business planning, innovation and performance are undergoing. This paper is expected to contribute to the literature on business planning and innovation by measuring quantitatively their impact on nascent firms activities and performance at different stages of their development. In addition, this study will shed a new light on the business planning-performance relationship by disentangling plans, types of nascent firms regarding their innovation degres and their performance over time. Finally, we expect to increase the understanding of the venture creation process by analysing those questions on nascent firms from a large longitudinal sample of randomly selected ventures. We acknowledge the results from this study will be preliminary and will have to be interpreted with caution as the business planning-performance is not a straightforward relationship (Brinckmann et al., 2010). Meanwhile, we believe that this study is important to the field of entrepreneurship as it provides some much needed insights on the processes used by nascent firms during their creation and early operating stages.