The aim of the study is to explore the links that firms from low and medium technology (LMT) industries establish with universities for innovative purposes. Even though knowledge transfer from university to industry has generally increased over time, it has mostly been directed at firms in high-tech industries (HT) due to the belief that firms from LMT industries often lack the absorptive capacity necessary to take advantage of external knowledge. In the case of LMT industries, university-industry knowledge transfer has received less attention from management and innovation studies, and understanding the specific conditions where universities may contribute to the innovative effort of LMT firms largely remains unexplored. With the aim of contributing to this debate, the paper focuses on the wine sector, generally considered an LMT industry. Firstly, the study assesses to which type of innovation promoted by winemakers do universities effectively contribute. Secondly, the study examines under what conditions universities assume a relevant role in the innovative activity of LMT firms. To test our hypotheses, the study uses primary data collected through a survey targeting Italian wine SMEs and runs a set of econometric evaluations. Findings show that universities represent a relevant source of knowledge mainly for organizational and commercial innovation, but not for product innovation. For these purposes, university knowledge related to social sciences has a more relevant input for firms than does knowledge with higher scientific and technological content.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
For a complete list of LMT industries, see https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:High-tech_classification_of_manufacturing_industries. Last accessed on March 11, 2019.
Implications for the generalizability of results are further discussed in the limitation section of the paper.
See https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/conferences/state-aid/sme/smedefinitionguide_en.pdf, last accessed on March 8, 2019.
See https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/community-innovation-survey, last accessed on March 8, 2019.
The complete list of scientific fields included in the Science Citation Index Expanded can be obtained from https://mjl.clarivate.com/scope/scope_scie/, last accessed on March 8, 2019.
Fields included in the Social Sciences Citation Index are listed in https://mjl.clarivate.com/scope/scope_ssci/, last accessed on March 8, 2019.
Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2004). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal,22, 197–220.
Almirall, E., & Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2010). Open versus closed innovation: A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of Management Review,35, 27–47.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,53(3), 41.
Assoenologi (2018). Vendemmia 2018. I dati definitivi dell’Associazione Enologi Enotecnici Italiani. Retrieved from https://www.assoenologi.it/main/images/pics/previsioni_vendemmiali2018_assoenologi_dati_definitivi.pdf
Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (2004). Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation. In J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 4, pp. 2713–2739). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies,44(7), 1242–1254.
Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy,43(7), 1097–1108.
Baptista, R. (1998). Clusters, innovation and growth: a survey of the literature. In G. M. P. Swann, M. Prevezer, & D. Stout (Eds.), The dynamics of industrial clustering: International comparisons in computing and biotechnology (pp. 13–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. The Journal of Technology Transfer,31(1), 175–188.
Bernetti, I., Casini, L., & Marinelli, N. (2006). Wine and globalization: changes in the international market structure and the position of Italy. British Food Journal,108(4), 306–315.
Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2001). Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change,10(4), 975–1005.
Caloghirou, Y., Tsakanikas, A., & Vonortas, N. S. (2001). University-industry cooperation in the context of the European framework programmes. The Journal of Technology Transfer,26(1–2), 153–161.
Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., & Tsakanikas, A. (2004). Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: Complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation,24(1), 29–39.
Carayannis, E. G., & Meissner, D. (2017). Glocal targeted open innovation: Challenges, opportunities and implications for theory, policy and practice. The Journal of Technology Transfer,42(2), 236–252.
Ceci, F., Masciarelli, F., & Poledrini, S. (2014). Innovation in a bonding social capital context: The case of CDO Marche Sud. In: Paper presented at the DRUID society conference 2014.
Cesaroni, F., & Piccaluga, A. (2016). The activities of university knowledge transfer offices: Towards the third mission in Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer,41(4), 753–777.
Chatterjee, S., & Hadi, A. S. (2015). Regression analysis by example. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Chen, J., Chen, Y., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2011). The influence of scope, depth, and orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms. Technovation,31, 362–373.
Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high-tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management,36(3), 229–326.
Chesbrough H., Di Minin A., Piccaluga A. (2013) Business model innovation paths. In Cinquini L., Minin A.D., Varaldo R. (Eds.) New business models and value creation: A service science perspective. Sxi — Springer per l’Innovazione / Sxi – Springer for Innovation, vol 8. Springer, Milano.
Chiang, Y. H., & Hung, K. P. (2010). Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from the perspective of inter-organizational knowledge flows. R&D Management, 40(3), 292–299.
Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). The open innovation journey: How firms dynamically implement the emerging innovation management paradigm. Technovation,31(1), 34–43.
Chirico, F., & Nordqvist, M. (2010). Dynamic capabilities and trans-generational value creation in family firms: The role of organizational culture. International Small Business Journal,28(5), 487–504.
Cohen, W. M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1349–1367.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R & D. The Economic Journal,99(397), 569–596.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive-capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,35(1), 128–152.
Contò, F., Fiore, M., Vrontis, D., & Silvestri, R. (2015). Innovative marketing behaviour determinants in wine SMEs: the case of an Italian wine region. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business,7(2), 107–124.
Cox, N. J. (2005). Speaking Stata: Density probability plots. Stata Journal,5(4), 259–273.
Cusmano, L., Morrison, A., & Rabellotti, R. (2010). Catching up trajectories in the wine sector: A comparative study of Chile, Italy, and South Africa. World Development,38(11), 1588–1602.
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy,39(6), 699–709.
de Jong, J. P., & Freel, M. (2010). Absorptive capacity and the reach of collaboration in high technology small firms. Research Policy,39(1), 47–54.
Derrick, B., Ruck, A., Toher, D., & White, P. (2018). Tests for equality of variances between two samples which contain both paired observations and independent observations. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods,13(2), 36–47.
Deshpande, R., & Farley, J. U. (2004). Organizational culture, market orientation, innovativeness and firm performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing,22, 3–22.
Dries, L., Pascucci, S., Torok, A., & Toth, J. (2013). Open innovation: A case-study of the Hungarian wine sector. EuroChoices,12(1), 53–59.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal,21, 1105–1121.
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.
Fait, M., & Iazzi, A. (2008). The role of denomination of origins in the competition of the wine sector. In 4th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research. Siena, Italy, July 17–19, 2008.
Fabrizio, K. R. (2009). Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Research Policy,38, 117–132.
Feldman, M. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (1999). Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. European Economic Review,43(2), 409–429.
Fitjar, R. D., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway. Research Policy,42(1), 128–138.
Friesike, S., Widenmayer, B., Gassmann, O., & Schildhauer, T. (2015). Opening science: Towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer,40(4), 581–601.
Galati, A., Crescimanno, M., Rossi, M., Farruggia, D., & Tinervia, S. (2014). The determinants affecting the internationalisation of the Italian SMEs producing sparkling wines: An empirical study on the RBV of the firms. International Journal of Globalization and Small Business,6(2), 100–118.
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management,19(2), 110–132.
Garibaldo, F., & Jacobson, D. (2005). The role of company and social networks in low-tech industry. In Bender, G., Jacobson, D., Robertson, P.L. (Eds.), Non-research- intensive industries in the knowledge economy. Journal for Perspectives on Economic Political and Social Integration, 11(1–2), 233–270.
George, G., Zahra, S. A., & Wood, D. R. (2002). The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: A study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing,17(6), 577–609.
Giacosa, E., Giovando, G., & Mazzoleni, A. (2014). Wine sector as a driver of growth for the Italian economy. In 2nd international symposium systems thinking for a sustainable economy advancements in economic and managerial theory and practice conference proceedings (pp. 23–24).
Giuliani, E., & Arza, V. (2009). What drives the formation of ‘valuable’ university–industry linkages?: Insights from the wine industry. Research Policy,38(6), 906–921.
Giuliani, E., Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2010). Who are the researchers that are collaborating with industry? An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, South Africa and Italy. Research Policy,39(6), 748–761.
Giuliani, E., Morrison, A., & Rabellotti, R. (2011). Innovation and catching up: The changing geography of wine production. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Goedhuys, M., Janz, N., & Mohnen, P. (2013). Innovation paths and the innovation performance of low-technology firms—An empirical analysis of German industry. Industrial and Corporate Change,23(1), 1–23.
Grimpea, C., & Sofka, W. (2009). Search patterns and absorptive capacity: Low- and high-technology sectors in European countries. Research Policy,38, 495–506.
Grossmann, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1994). Endogenous Innovation in the theory of growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives,8(1), 23–44.
Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy,31(4), 477–492.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Bush, R. P., & Ortinau, D. J. (2003). Marketing research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Hanel, P., & St-Pierre, M. (2006). Industry–university collaboration by Canadian manufacturing firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer,31(4), 485–499.
Hasan, I., & Tucci, C. L. (2010). The innovation-economic growth nexus: Global evidence. Research Policy,39, 1264–1276.
Hervas-Oliver, J. L., Garrigos, J. A., & Gil-Pechuan, I. (2011). Making sense of innovation by R&D and non-R&D innovators in low technology contexts: A forgotten lesson for policymakers. Technovation,31(9), 427–446.
Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2008). Low-tech Innovations. Industry and Innovation,15(1), 19–43.
Houston, M. J., & Sudman, S. (1975). A methodological assessment of the use of key informants. Social Science Research,4(2), 151–164.
ISTAT. (2010). ISTAT 6° Censimento Generale dell’Agricoltura. Roma: ISTAT.
Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review,79(5), 957–970.
Kamal, E. M. (2013). Absorptive capacity in construction SMEs: A literature synthesis. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21(8), 1122–1127.
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal,45(6), 1183–1194.
Kenney, M., & Mowery, D. C. (2014). Public universities and regional growth. Insights from the University of California. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kindström, D., & Kowalkowski, C. (2014). Service innovation in product-centric firms: A multidimensional business model perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,29(2), 96–111.
Kirner, E., Kinkel, S., & Jaeger, A. (2009). Innovation paths and the innovation performance of low-technology firms. An empirical analysis of German industry. Research Policy, 38(3), 447–458.
Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1995). On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy,24(2), 185–205.
Lapsley, J., & Sumner, D. (2014). “We are both hosts” Napa Valley, UC Davis, and the search for quality. In M. Kenney & D. C. Mowery (Eds.), Public universities and regional growth. Insights from the University of California (pp. 180–234). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2003). Searching low and high: Why do firms use universities as a source of innovation. In 3rd European meeting on applied evolutionary economics, Augsburg, Germany (pp. 10–12).
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,27(2), 131–150.
Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies,45(4), 507–523.
Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs. An intermediated network model. Research Policy,39(2), 290–300.
Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2004). Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: University–industry links for technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer,29(3–4), 311–326.
Maietta, O. W. (2015). Determinants of university–firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry. Research Policy,44(7), 1341–1359.
Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy,20(1), 1–12.
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2015). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford University Press.
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
OECD. (2002). Frascati manual: Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development. Paris, France: OECD Publications.
Parida, V., Westerberg, M., & Frishammar, J. (2012). Inbound open innovation activities in high-tech SMEs: The impact on innovation performance. Journal of Small Business Management,50(2), 283–309.
Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy,13(6), 343–373.
Pavitt, K. (2001). Public policies to support basic research: What can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (And what they should not learn). Industrial and Corporate Change,10(3), 761–779.
Perkmann, M. (2015). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy,42(2), 423–442.
Presenza, A., Abbate, T., Meleddu, M., & Cesaroni, F. (2017). Small- and medium-scale Italian winemaking companies facing the open innovation challenge. International Small Business Journal,35(3), 327–348.
Qui, S., Liu, X., & Gao, T. (2017). Do emerging countries prefer local knowledge or distant knowledge? Spillover effect of university collaborations on local firms. Research Policy,46, 1299–1311.
Raspe, O., & van Oort, F. (2011). Growth of new firms and spatially bounded knowledge externalities. The Annals of Regional Science,46(3), 495–518.
Rossi, M., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2012). Wine business in a changing competitive environment–strategic and financial choices of Campania wine firms. International Journal of Business and Globalisation,8(1), 112–130.
Rothaermel, F. T., & Alexandre, M. T. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science,20(4), 759–780.
Santamaría, L., Nieto, M. J., & Barge-Gil, A. (2009). Beyond formal R&D: Taking advantage of other sources of innovation in low- and medium-technology industries. Research Policy,38, 507–517.
Sellers, R., & Alampi-Sottini, V. (2016). The influence of size on winery performance: Evidence from Italy. Wine Economics and Policy,5(1), 33–41.
Sena, V. (2004). Total factor productivity and the spillover hypothesis: some new evidence. International Journal of Production Economics,92, 31–42.
Smith, K. (2007). Technological and economic dynamics of the world wine industry: An introduction. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation,3(2–3), 127–137.
Sorenson, O., & Audia, P. G. (2000). The social structure of entrepreneurial activity: Geographic concentration of footwear production in the United States, 1940–1989. American Journal of Socioliology,106(2), 424–462.
Spencer, J. W. (2001). How relevant is university-based scientific research to private high-technology firms? A United States–Japan comparison. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 432–440.
Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation,31(1), 10–21.
Stuart, T., & Sorenson, O. (2003). The geography of opportunity: spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy,32(2), 229–253.
Tödtling, F., Lehner, P., & Kaufmann, A. (2009). Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation,29(1), 59–71.
Vega-Jurado, J., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., Fernández-de-Lucio, I., & Manjarrés-Henríquez, L. (2008). The effect of external and internal factors on firms’ product innovation. Research Policy,37(4), 616–632.
Von Hippel, E. (1988). The source of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Von Tunzelmann, N., & Acha, V. (2005). Innovation in “low-tech” industries. In J. Fagerberg & D. C. Mowery (Eds.), The oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 407–432). New York: Oxford University Press.
Vrontis, D., & Papasolomou, I. (2007). Brand and product building: The case of the Cyprus wine industry. Journal of Product & Brand Management,16(3), 159–167.
Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Rossi, M. (2011). Italian wine firms: Strategic branding and financial performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,19(4), 288–304.
West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3), 319–331.
Westerberg, M., Singh, J., & Häckner, E. (1997). Does the CEO matter? An empirical study of small Swedish firms operating in turbulent environments. Scandinavian Journal of Management,13(3), 251–270.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. USA: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review,27(2), 185–203.
Zanni, L. (2004). Leading firms and wine clusters: Understanding the evolution of the tuscan wine business through an international comparative analysis. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Zanni, L., Devigili, L., & Cordero di Montezemolo, S. (2010). Managing succession in family business: Successful lessons from long lasting wineries in Tuscany. The wine business in California and Tuscany: A cross-country analysis (pp. 63–92). Milan: McGraw-Hill.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Abbate, T., Cesaroni, F. & Presenza, A. Knowledge transfer from universities to low- and medium-technology industries: evidence from Italian winemakers. J Technol Transf (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09800-x
- Wine industry
- Low- and medium-technology industry
- Knowledge transfer
- Local context