Innovative activity of Polish enterprises--a strategic aspect. The similarity of NACE divisions.

• Author: Bielinska-Dusza, Edyta

INTRODUCTION

The issues related to the innovativeness of modern enterprises, regions and countries remain relevant, and are considered an important area of research by both theoreticians and practitioners around the world (Szopik-Depczyhska, 2018; Dyduch, 2018; Zartha et al., 2016; Dyduch, 2015; Casadeus-Masanell & Zhu, 2013; Pichlak, 2012; Christensen, 2010; Conway & Steward, 2009; Baldwin & Gelletly, 2003; Pomykalski, 2001; Kay, 1996). On the one hand, the reasons for the continued interest in innovativeness can be seen in the heterogeneity and diversity of its understanding, and on the other hand, as an accelerator of change and improvement, success and wealth. However, the complexity of processes taking place in the modern world, including the dynamics of ICT technology development and the related digital revolution, shortening the life cycle of products, networking, force enterprises to make decisions in the field of innovation and implementation of innovation strategies. They allow for raising the level of their competitiveness and obtaining wider social, cultural and economic benefits for the regions in which they operate and in which they constitute an important pillar of economic, technological, and civilization development (Block, Fisch, & van Praag, 2017; Rahimi, Rostami, Shad, & Vafaei, 2017). Moreover, as researchers rightly point out (Nogalski & Karpacz, 2012; Branzei & Vertinsky, 2006), the creation of innovation strategies that are effective in shaping competitiveness requires building the innovative capacity of enterprises. This is done through the implementation of various activities in generating or absorbing new ideas and their implementation and supporting processes of innovativeness and a properly oriented action strategy. The scope of these activities is not unified and it differs not only between sectors but also between enterprises operating in the same industries.

In the subject literature concerning research in the field of innovative enterprise activity patterns, two main research trends can be distinguished (Wziatek-Kubiak, 2010). The first focuses on studying the homogeneity of enterprise innovation behaviors in various fields of industrial production from the perspective of how diversified the enterprise innovation strategies are (Urbankova & Krizek, 2020; Jakimowicz & Rzeczkowski, 2019; Srholec & Verspagen, 2008; Llerena & Oltra, 2002; Elliott, Greenaway, & Hine, 2000). The second trend, which emerged in the 1990s, assumes cross-industry differentiation of enterprise innovation behaviors, and focuses on the study of the specificity of patterns in terms of the innovation of companies with high, medium, and low technological intensity. These studies contributed to the capture of the inter-sectoral differentiation of factors and patterns in the field of innovation between these two groups of enterprises (Wziatek-Kubiak, 2010; Hirsch-Kreisen, Hahn, & Jacobson, 2008).

The above-mentioned approaches raised the question of whether industries are similar in terms of the share of innovative enterprises. The lack of such studies was the main factor that inspired the authors to take up this topic and fill the research gap.

Therefore, the aim of the paper is to divide industries, classified according to NACE (the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community) divisions, into groups that will be homogeneous in terms of the share of innovative enterprises in a given industry based on the original concept. Based on the goal defined in this way, the following research hypotheses were formulated:

H1: Within NACE divisions, there are industries that can be grouped into clusters in terms of the share of innovative enterprises. H2: The specified clusters include industries in which enterprises run a similar type of business. H3: Clusters listed on the basis of the share of innovative companies that introduced new or improved products, and clusters listed on the basis of the share of innovative companies that introduced new or improved business processes, are very similar. The aim of the study was achieved and the research hypotheses were verified on the basis of the results of an empirical study using the methods of multivariate statistical analysis. The structure of the study includes three main parts. In the first, the authors describe the concept of innovation as an unwavering subject of interest for researchers. Moreover, they pay attention to the typology of innovations and the dimensions of organizational innovativeness and describe innovativeness as the fundamental dimension of enterprise strategic innovativeness. The second part deals with the methodological aspects of the discussed issues. The third and last part presents the results of the quantitative methods used for the statistical evaluation and verification of the adopted goal. The research procedure includes a cluster analysis method and calculations that were performed using R software.

As part of the research, the classification of industries adopted by the Polish Central Statistical Office (GUS) was used, divided into service and industrial enterprises, and the classification of innovations divided into the introduction of new or improved products and new or improved business processes, including the type of innovation.

Moreover, the data used in the analysis came from a report published in January 2020 by the Polish Central Statistical Office--Innovative activity of enterprises in the years 2016-2018 (GUS, 2020). The following tables were adopted as the source of input data for the grouping procedure, which are an integral part of the indicated report: 1) Product innovations in the years 2016-2018; 2) Enterprises that introduced new or improved business processes in the years 2016-2018. This tool was also supported by a classic review of foreign and domestic literature and a narrative review. Undoubtedly, the advantage of the study is that it fills a research gap by presenting the similarity between industries and attempting to divide NACE divisions into homogeneous groups in terms of the share of innovative enterprises.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In an era of digital revolution and globalization, it is known that there is no escape from change, continuous improvement, and the implementation of innovative solutions at the level of an individual, enterprise, region, or country. However, the essence of these changes should focus on replacing those solutions that are no longer sufficient with strategies that are based on the implementation of innovative solutions, allowing in the long-term perspective the achievement of lasting competitive advantage and favoring the achievement of sustainable development (Mallinguh & Zoltan, 2020; Szopik-Depczyhska, 2018; Okwiet, Grabara, 2016; Stawarz, 2013; Bowonder, Dambal, Kumar, & Shirodkar, 2010; Low & Kalafut, 2004; Gadomski, 2004). The authors do not doubt that the implementation of innovations is perceived as a key determinant of enterprise development.

Although the topic of innovation is not new, one can still observe the heterogeneity and difficulties in interpreting the very concept of innovation and a number of analyses and scientific research in this field. There are many definitions and classifications, ways of understanding it, and levels of its perception (Jansza & Koziot-Nadolna, 2011; Biaton, 2010). Due to its nature, there has not been one unified definition so far, there is none presently, and there will not be one in the future. It seems that, like the concept of technology, innovation often carries a large interpretative burden and, therefore, it is pointless to spend too much effort on attempting to solve this challenge (Bielihska-Dusza, 2020). However, for the accuracy and correctness of the research, the main assumptions in this matter should be accepted.

Innovations resulting from creative and planned activities are related to technological and non-technological areas, such as operational, organizational, process, financial, marketing, and economic. They are a key intangible asset and the main tool for improving and shaping competitiveness and are a fundamental process of organizational renewal. They arouse the interest of both practitioners and theoreticians, not only in the field of management and applied sciences, but also economists, lawyers, and politicians. Innovations are becoming the engine of change and the driving force behind changes in enterprises as well as economies, regions, and countries. With their growing importance, innovations are treated more and more widely, and today they constitute a condition for development and an inherent attribute of the enterprise (Dyduch, 2018; Szopik-Depczyhska, 2018; tunarski, 2016; Low & Kalafut, 2004).

Also, the issue of the typology of innovations is challenging to characterize unambiguously due to the large diversity and varied criteria of division. As a result, this division is not standardized, precise, or transparent (Penc, 1999) and numerous research and literature reviews have attempted to systematize this issue (Szopik-Depczyhska, 2018; Szatkowski, 2016; tunarski, 2016; Dyduch, 2015, Karlik, 2013).

Due to the limitations on content, the authors present the typology contained in the Oslo Manual. This is due to the fact that this paper uses the data contained in the GUS report, which is based on the methodology developed by Eurostat and the OECD, presented in the same manual (GUS, 2020).

The Oslo Manual distinguishes four main types of innovation: 1) Product innovations--new or significantly improved compared to the previous version of a good or service, taking into account technical specification, components and materials, software, user-friendliness or other functional features;

2) Process innovations--new, significantly improved methods of producing or delivering a product, taking into account techniques, tools and/or software;

3) Marketing innovations--new marketing methods...