The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 267–284 | Cite as

Quadruple Helix and firms’ performance: an empirical verification in Europe

  • Francesco Campanella
  • Maria Rosaria Della Peruta
  • Stefano Bresciani
  • Luca Dezi


The emerging relationships connecting organizations are the condition on which innovation is founded nowadays, so it is pivotal to achieve a vaster comprehension of the phenomenon through the exploitation of new dynamics and the exploration of new trajectories. In line with the Quadruple Helix (QE) approach, it seems reasonable to expect that the different environments in which firms operate would highlight the expectations of the various market governance systems, which firms must comply with in order to gain social legitimacy and improve their capacity for survival. To determine whether the Quadruple Helix model has an effect on the firms’ profitability, the authors employed the classification analysis method (Classification And Regression Trees). The sample is composed by 4215 manufacturing firms located in science parks. In our empirical model, the variable “citizen” classifies businesses with high Return On Investment in the best way. This shows that in science parks “the fourth helix” (citizen) has an important role in classifying the firms with the highest performance. Moreover, the majority of firms that attribute high importance to the collaboration with private financial institutions in order to finance innovations have a high ROI. In addition, firms with high economic performance in the model of the quadruple helix generate product innovation.


Quadruple Helix Firms’ performance Innovation Classification and regression trees Science parks 


  1. Afuah, A. (2002). Innovation management: Strategies, implementation, and profits (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Altmann, A., & Ebersberger, B. (Eds.). (2012). Universities in change: Managing higher education institutions in the age of globalization. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Andersson, T., Formica, P., & Curley, M. G. (2009). Knowledge-driven entrepreneurship: the key to social and economic transformation. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Andone, I. & Sireteanu, N.A. (2009). A combination of two classification techniques for businesses bankruptcy prediction. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  5. Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P., & Piirainen, T. (2010). Exploring the quadruple helix. Report of quadruple helix research for the CLIQ project. Tampere: Work Research Centre, University of Tampere.Google Scholar
  6. Betz, F. (2010). Managing science: Methodology and organization of research. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Brida, J. G., Gómez, D. M., & Risso, W. A. (2009). Symbolic hierarchical analysis in currency markets: An application to contagion in currency crises. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 7721–7728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brida, J.G., Pulina, M., Riaño, E.M.M. & Zapata-Aguirre, S. (2010). A classification and regression tree (CART) to analyse cruisers’ expenditure pattern and perception in a port of call. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  9. Cai Y (2013) Enhancing context sensitivity of the Triple Helix model: An institutional logics perspective. The Triple Helix XI International Conference, London.Google Scholar
  10. Campanella, F. (2014). Assess the rating of SMEs by using classification and regression trees (CART) with qualitative variables. Review of Economics and Finance, 4, 16–32.Google Scholar
  11. Campanella, F., Del Giudice, M., & Della Peruta, M. R. (2013a). The role of information in the credit relationship. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campanella, F., Della Peruta, M. R., & Del Giudice, M. (2013b). The role of sociocultural background on the characteristics and the financing of youth entrepreneurship. An exploratory study of university graduates in Italy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(3), 244–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). ‘Mode 3′and’Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3), 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2011). Open innovation diplomacy and a 21st century fractal research, education and innovation (FREIE) ecosystem: building on the quadruple and quintuple helix innovation concepts and the “mode 3” knowledge production system. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2(3), 327–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carayannis, E. G., Dubina, I. N., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2011). Creative economy and a crisis of the economy? Coevolution of knowledge, innovation, and creativity, and the knowledge economy and knowledge society. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  17. Carayannis, E. G., Meissner, D., & Edelkina, A. (2015a). Targeted innovation policy and practice intelligence (TIP2E): concepts and implications for theory, policy and practice. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-25.Google Scholar
  18. Carayannis, E. G., Popescu, D., Sipp, C., & Stewart, M. (2006). Technological learning for entrepreneurial development (TL4ED) in the knowledge economy (KE): Case studies and lessons learned. Technovation, 26(4), 419–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carayannis, E. G., & Rakhmatullin, R. (2014). The quadruple/quintuple Innovation Helixes and Smart Specialisation Strategies for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in Europe and Beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 212–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carayannis, E. G., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2015b). Business model innovation as lever of organizational sustainability. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cho, M. H. (2014). Technological catch-up and the role of universities: South Korea’s innovation-based growth explained through the Corporate Helix model. Triple Helix, 1(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Colapinto, C., & Porlezza, C. (2012). Innovation in creative industries: from the quadruple helix model to the systems theory. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(4), 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deakin, M. (2010). SCRAN’s development of a Trans-National Comparator for the Standardisation of eE-Government Services. In C. Reddick (Ed.), Comparative E-government: An Examination of E-Government Across Countries. Berlin: Springer Press.Google Scholar
  24. Deakin, M. (2011). The embedded intelligence of smart cities. International Journal of Intelligent Buildings, 3(2), 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Deakin, M., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). The triple helix of smart cities: a neo-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Deakin, M., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). The Triple Helix Model of Smart Cities: a neo-evolutionary perspective. In Mark Deakin (Ed.), Smart cities: Governing, modelling and analysing the transition (pp. 134–149). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Del Giudice, M., Carayannis, E. G., & Della Peruta, M. R. (2012). Culture and Cooperative Strategies: Knowledge Management Perspectives. In Cross-Cultural Knowledge Management (pp. 49-62). Springer New York.Google Scholar
  28. Del Giudice, M., Della Peruta, M. R., & Carayannis, E. (2013a). Unpacking open innovation. highlights from a co-evolutionary inquiry. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Del Giudice, M., Della Peruta, M. R., & Maggioni, V. (2013b). Collective knowledge and organizational routines within academic communities of practice: An empirical research on science-entrepreneurs. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(3), 260–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Del Giudice, M., & Maggioni, V. (2014). Managerial practices and operative directions of knowledge management within inter-firm networks: a global view. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(5), 841–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Del Giudice, M., & Straub, D. (2011). IT and entrepreneurism: an on-again, off-again love affair or a marriage? MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 3–8.Google Scholar
  32. Della Peruta, M. R., Campanella, F., & Del Giudice, M. (2014). Knowledge sharing and exchange of information within bank and firm networks: the role of the intangibles on the access to credit. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(5), 1036–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dubina, I. N., Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). Creativity economy and a crisis of the economy? Coevolution of knowledge, innovation, and creativity, and of the knowledge economy and knowledge society. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: university-industry-government innovation in action. Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix–University-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. Easst Review, 14(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
  38. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The Dynamics of Innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. (2000). The Future of the University and the University of the Future: the Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., & Healey, P. (Eds.). (1998). Capitalizing knowledge: New intersections of industry and academia. Suny Press.Google Scholar
  41. Gouvea, R., Kassicieh, S., & Montoya, M. J. R. (2013). Using the quadruple helix to design strategies for the green economy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(2), 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hafkesbrink, J., & Schroll, M. (2011). Innovation 3.0: embedding into community knowledge-collaborative organizational learning beyond open innovation. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 1, 55–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Interorganizational modes of cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31(4), 477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hall, J., & Wagner, M. (2012). Integrating sustainability into firms’ processes: Performance effects and the moderating role of business models and innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(3), 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hansen, E. G., Grosse-Dunker, F., & Reichwald, R. (2009). Sustainability innovation cube—A framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(04), 683–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kaufmann, A., & Toedtling, F. (2001). Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: the importance of boundary-crossing. Between systems. Research Policy, 30(5), 791–804.Google Scholar
  49. Kim, C. W., & Mauborgne, R. (2004). Value innovation: The strategic logic of high growth. Harvard Business Review, 82(7–8), 172–180.Google Scholar
  50. Lemon, S. C., Roy, J., Clark, M. A., Friedmann, P. D., & Rakowski, W. (2003). Classification and regression tree analysis in public health: Methodological review and comparison with logistic regression. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 26(3), 172–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The triple helix, quadruple helix,…, and an n-tuple of helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Leydesdorff, L and Ahrweiler, P. (2013) In search of a network theory of innovations: relations, positions, and perspectives. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), forthcoming. Available at SSRN:, or
  53. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a Triple Helix of university—industry—government relations. Science and public policy, 23(5), 279–286.Google Scholar
  54. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The triple helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and public policy, 25(3), 195–203.Google Scholar
  55. Leydesdorff, L., & Park, H. W. (2014). Can synergy in Triple Helix relations be quantified? A review of the development of the Triple Helix indicator. Triple Helix, 1(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Leydesdorff, L., Park, H. W., & Lengyel, B. (2014). A routine for measuring synergy in university–industry–government relations: Mutual information as a Triple-Helix and Quadruple-Helix indicator. Scientometrics, 99(1), 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lindberg, M., Danilda, I., & Torstensson, B. M. (2012). Women Resource Centres—a creative knowledge environment of quadruple helix. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 36–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lindberg, M., Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2014). Quadruple Helix as a way to bridge the gender gap in entrepreneurship: the case of an innovation system project in the Baltic Sea region. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(1), 94–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lombardi, P., Del Bo, C., Calagliu, A., Deakin, M., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). An Advanced Triple-Helix Network Model for Smart Cities Performance in Ercoskun (O ed.). Green and Ecological Technologies for Urban Planning: ICI Publisher, Hershey.Google Scholar
  60. MacGregor, S. P., & Carleton, T. (2011). Sustaining Innovation: Collaboration Models for a Complex World. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  61. MacGregor, S. P., Marques-Gou, P., & Simon-Villar, A. (2010). Gauging readiness for the quadruple helix: a study of 16 European organizations. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1(3), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Maggioni, V., & Del Giudice, M. (2011). a cura di. Egea: Affari di famiglia.Google Scholar
  63. Maldonado, V., Lobera, J., & Escrigas, C. (2009). The role of higher education in a new quadruple helix context. Triple Helix, 7, 17–19.Google Scholar
  64. Mieg, H. A. (2012). Sustainability and innovation in urban development: concept and case. Sustainable Development, 20(4), 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mieg, H. A., & Töpfer, K. (Eds.). (2013). Institutional and social innovation for sustainable urban development. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  66. Nicotra, M., Romano, M., & Del Giudice, M. (2014). The evolution dynamic of a cluster knowledge network: the role of firms’ absorptive capacity. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 240–264.Google Scholar
  67. Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 56–64.Google Scholar
  68. Olshen, R., Breiman, L., Friedman, J.H. & Stone, C.J. (1984). Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth International Group.Google Scholar
  69. Palacios-Marqués, D., Merigó, J. M., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2015a). Online social networks as an enabler of innovation in organizations. Management Decision, 53(9), 1906–1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Palacios-Marqués, D., Soto-Acosta, P., & Merigó, J. M. (2015b). Analyzing the effects of technological, organizational and competition factors on Web knowledge exchange in SMEs. Telematics and Informatics, 32(1), 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Park, H. W. (2014). Transition from the Triple Helix to N-Tuple Helices? An interview with Elias G. Carayannis and David FJ Campbell. Scientometrics, 99(1), 203–207.Google Scholar
  72. Pfeffer, T. (2011). Virtualization of universities: Digital media and the organization of higher education institutions. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  73. Pisano, G. (2006). Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. Research Policy, 35(8), 1122–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Razi, M. A., & Athappilly, K. (2005). A comparative predictive analysis of neural networks (NNs), nonlinear regression and classification and regression tree (CART) models. Expert Systems with Applications, 29(1), 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rieu, A. M. (2014). Innovation today: the Triple Helix and research diversity. Triple Helix, 1(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sassen, S. (2003) The participation of states and citizens in global governance. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 10(1), Article 2.Google Scholar
  77. Soto-Acosta, P., Casado-Lumbreras, C., & Cabezas-Isla, F. (2010). Shaping human capital in software development teams: the case of mentoring enabled by semantics. IET Software, 4(6), 445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2015). E-business, organizational innovation and firm performance in manufacturing SMEs: An empirical study in Spain. Technological and Economic Development of Economy,. doi: 10.3846/20294913.2015.1074126.Google Scholar
  79. Yang, Y., Holgaard, J. E., & Remmen, A. (2012). What can triple helix frameworks offer to the analysis of eco-innovation dynamics? Theoretical and methodological considerations. Science and Public Policy, 39(3), 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yawson, Robert M., The Ecological System of Innovation: A New Architectural Framework for a Functional Evidence-Based Platform for Science and Innovation Policy (June 10, 2009). The Future of Innovation Proceedings of the XXIV ISPIM 2009 Conference, Vienna, Austria, June 21-24, 2009. Available at SSRN: or

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Campanella
    • 1
  • Maria Rosaria Della Peruta
    • 1
  • Stefano Bresciani
    • 2
  • Luca Dezi
    • 3
  1. 1.Second University of NaplesCapuaItaly
  2. 2.University of TurinTurinItaly
  3. 3.University of Naples “Parthenope”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations