BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Burinskienė Aurelija (Vilnius Gediminas Technical Unitersity Vilnius, Lithuania), Janušauskienė Vita Marytė (Vilnius Gediminas Technical Unitersity Vilnius, Lithuania)
Tytuł
Innovations in the Practice of Production and Trade Enterprises in EU Countries
Źródło
Ekonomia - Wroclaw Economic Review, 2016, tom 22, nr 1, s. 9-33, rys., tab., aneks, bibliogr. s. 29-31
Słowa kluczowe
Innowacje, Przedsiębiorstwo, Handel, Produkcja
Innovations, Enterprises, Trade, Production
Uwagi
summ.; Klasyfikacja JEL: O30, O31, O32, O33, O39
Firma/Organizacja
Unia Europejska (UE)
European Union (EU)
Abstrakt
Modern theories are increasingly focusing on innovations. Scientific literature states that the implementation of innovations causes increase in sales volume: enterprises are improving the organization of production and trade methods, reducing production and trade costs, producing and selling competitive products as a result of technological progress. Technological progress also influences the development of production and trade prospects. Although the implementation of innovations is different, the main aspects are related to the novelty of product, production and service R&D intensity and the qualification of employees. Enterprises without the capacity to innovate may invest time and resources in studies of research results but are unable to transform this knowledge into practice (Hult et al., 2004). In such sense it is important to create innovative behaviors and related outcomes on country level (Koellinger, Thurik, 2009). Production and trade enterprises have a significant impact on the national economy, but the number of enterprises that have excellent understanding about innovations and their results is not sufficient. Sales of the trade enterprises in the European Union amount to 66%, and 74% of gross domestic product (GDP) in Lithuania. At the same time sales of the production enterprises in the European Union amount to 15.5% of GDP, and in Lithuania - 21% of GDP. Production and trade enterprises play a significant part among business companies. In corporate structure of the European Union 9.8% of companies are production companies which employ 22.6% of EU workers, while in the structure of the European Union 28.6% of companies are trade companies and these companies employ 24.7% of EU workers. However, in the trade sector there are 90% of companies, and in the production - 84% of companies with up to nine employees (Euro-stat, 2010). Nevertheless, the European Commission's (2013) study shows the declining contribution of production enterprises to GDP. Eurostat (2010) statistics show that small and medium-sized manufacturing companies are very slow to improve their operations and labor productivity. The EU companies are anticipated to increase by only 2.4% compared with the US companies, where growth of labor productivity is 3.5% Therefore, innovations are also important for the EU trade and production companies. To sum up the above set out material, it can be said that the application of innovations must be considered as a very complex cognitive subject. The article consists of three parts to fully examine the implementation of innovations in production and trade enterprises. First, literature analysis is carried out and topic related aspects are identified. In the second part the paper presents empirical research methodology. Herein, practices of production and trade enterprises are presented, comparison of production and trade enterprises is carried out, and effects on the activeness of enterprises regarding the opportunities of innovation implementation in this area are analyzed. In the third part the article presents empirical research results, conclusions and recommendations. Literature analysis reveals that the greatest role innovation plays in international companies, however the number of such enterprises is very small in the EU. The results also show that production and trade companies from Luxembourg have higher competitiveness than the enterprises from other countries. Overall the paper glances into whether, to what extent, how companies innovate, and how this differs between production and trade service industries. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Andriuškevičius, A. (2005). Evaluation of contractors by using COPRAS - the multiple criteria method. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 3 (11), 158-169.
  2. Balkytė A., Valentinavičius S. (2006). Ekonomikos augimo veiksniai ir jų įtaka gyvenimo lygiui Lietuvoje. Verslas, vadyba ir studijos' 2005. Mokslo darbai. Vilnius: Technika, 125-136.
  3. Bivainis, J., Drejeris, R. (2009). Naujų paslaugų technologijos tinkamumo daugiakriterinis vertinimas. Verslas: teorija ir praktika. 2(10), 93-106.
  4. Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A. (1998). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D - Implications for the analysis of R & D investment. Economic Journal. 99, 569-596.
  5. Davis F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 13(3), 319-339.
  6. Department of Statistics (2010). Database. Retrieved December 18, 2015, from http://www.std.lt.
  7. Deshpande, R., Frederick E. Webster, F. E. (1993). Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 57, 23-27.
  8. European Commision. (2011). Retail and Wholesale Trade Sector. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/proinno/sector-report-retail_en.pdf.
  9. Eurostat. (2010). Innovation statistics. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics
  10. Europos Komisija (2013). European Competitiveness Report: Towards knowledge driven reindustrialisation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  11. Eurostat. (2006). Science, technology and innovation in Europe. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
  12. Fang, E. (2008). Customer Participation and the Trade-Off Between New Product Innovativeness and Speed to Market. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 72, 90-104.
  13. Ginevičius, R. (2008). Normalization of quantities of various dimensions. Journal of Business Economics and Management. 9 (1), 79-86.
  14. Ginevičius, R., Podvezko, V. (2007). Complex assessment of sustainable development of state regions with emphasis on ecological and dwelling conditions. Ekologija. 53, 41-48.
  15. Ginevičius, R., Podvezko, V. (2009). Evaluating the changes in economic and social development of Lithuania country by multiple criteria methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 15 (3), 418-436.
  16. Hart O. A., Barinedum M. N., Benjamin J. I. (2010). The uptake of electronic commerce by SMEs: a meta theoretical framework expanding the determining constructs of TAM and TOE frameworks. Journal of Global Business and Technology. 6(1): 1-27.
  17. Hertog, P. (2000). Knowledge intensive business services as co-producers of innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management. 4, 491-528.
  18. Hult, G. T., Hurley, R. F., Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management. 33, 429 - 438.
  19. Hurley, R. F., Hult, G. T., Knight, G. A. (2005). Innovativeness and capacity to innovate in a complexity of firm-level relationships: A response to Woodside. Industrial Marketing Management. 34, 281 - 283.
  20. Jakštas, V. 2001. Pramonės įmonės technologinės plėtros projektavimas. Vilnius: Technika.
  21. Jakutis A., Petraškevičius V., Stepanovas A., Šečkutė L., Zaicev S. (2005). Ekonomikos teorija. Vilnius: Eugrinmas.
  22. Kaklauskas, A., Gulbinas, A., Krutinis, M. Naimavičienė, J., Šatkauskas, G. (2007). Mokymo procese naudojamų pasirenkamų modulių daugiavariantės analizės metodai. Ūkio technologinis ir ekonominis vystymas. 3 (13), 253-258.
  23. Kildienė, S., Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K. (2011). COPRAS based comparative analysis of the European country management capabilities within the construction sector in the time of crisis. Journal of Business Economics and Management. 12 (2), 417-434.
  24. Knašas, A. B. (2002). Inovacijos strategijos rinkų internacionalizavimo sąlygomis. Vilnius: Technika.
  25. Koellinger, Ph. D., Thurik, A. R. (2009). Entrepreneurship and the Business Cycle. Tinbergen
  26. Institute Discussion Paper, No. 09-032/3. Retrieved November 18, 2015, from http://hdl.handle.net/10419/86678Re
  27. Lee, Y., Shin, J., Park, Y. (2012). The changing pattern of SME&
  28. 39;s innovativeness through business model globalization. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 79, 832-842.
  29. Maceika, A. (2003). Technologijų perdavimo vadyba. Vilnius: Technika.
  30. Marelli, E., Signorelli, M. (2010). Employment, productivity and models of growth in the EU, International Journal of Manpower. 31(7): 732-754.
  31. Malinauskas, P., Kalibatas, D. (2005). Racionalių statybos technologinių procesų parinkimas taikant COPRAS metodą. Ūkio technologinis ir ekonominis vystymas. 11 (3), 197-203.
  32. Melnikas, B. (2002). Transformacijos. Vilnius: Vaga.
  33. Melnikas, B., Chlivickas, E., Jakubavičius, A., Lobanova, L., Pipirienė, V., Burinskienė, A. (2008). Tarptautinis verslas. Vilnius: Technika.
  34. Mets, T. (2012). Creative Business Model Innovation for Globalizing SMEs Entrepreneurship - Creativity and Innovative Business Models. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from http://www.intechopen.com/books/entrepreneurship-creativity- and-innovative-businessmodels/creative-business- model-innovation- for-globalizing- smes
  35. Podvezko, V. (2005). Ekspertų įverčių suderinamumas. Ūkio technologinis ir ekonominis vystymas. 2 (11), 101-107.
  36. Porter, M. (1999). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
  37. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe: Free Press.
  38. Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F., Hult G. T. (2005). The performance Implications of Fit Amount Business Strategy, Marketing Organization Structure, and strategic Behavior. Journal of Marketing. 69, 49-65.
  39. Tajeddini, K. (2010). Effect of customer orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on innovativeness: Evidence from the hotel industry in Switzerland. Retrieved February 25, 2016, from www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
  40. Tornatzky, L., Fleischer, M. (1990). The process of technology innovation. Lexington: MA, Lexington Books.
  41. Turskis, Z, Zavadskas, E. K., Peldschus, F. (2009). Multi-criteria optimization system for decision making in construction design and management. Engineering Economics 1 (61), 7-17.
  42. Woodside, A. G. (2005). Firm orientations, innovativeness, and business performance: Advancing a system dynamics view following a comment on Hult, Hurley, and Knight's 2004 study. Industrial Marketing Management. 34, 275 - 279.
  43. Zavadskas, E. K., Simanauskas, L., Kaklauskas, A. (1999). Sprendimų paramos sistemos statyboje. Vilnius: Technika.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2084-4093
Język
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.19195/ 2084-4093.22.1.1
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu