Government research and development (R&D) subsidies are more important in countries that are latecomers to the biotechnology industry, where venture capital has not been developed, and the ratio of start-ups is high. Previous studies have mostly focused on the additionality of the input and output through government R&D subsidies, such as private R&D investment, technological innovation, and financial performance. In addition, some studies have focused on the behavioral additionality (the change in a firm’s behavior) of firms through government R&D subsidies. However, each study is fragmented and does not provide integrated results and implications. Therefore, this study comprehensively investigated the effects of government R&D subsidies on the multifaceted aspects of input, output, and behavioral additionality based on data from South Korean biotechnology companies. This study used the propensity score matching (PSM) method to prevent selection bias. The results showed that firms benefiting from government R&D subsidies had a markedly higher R&D investment in terms of input additionality, and they produced more technological innovation within a shorter period in terms of output additionality, though financial performance was not determined. Moreover, government R&D subsidies have accelerated strategic alliances and suppressed external financing (debt financing) in terms of behavioral additionality.

Past studies examining survival factors of biotechnology firms have focused on pioneer countries, such as the USA, the UK and Germany. However, as the biotechnology industry in Asia is reaching the take-off stage and showing a high growth rate, the research on survival factors in the context of Asian latecomers is needed. The present research investigates internal and external factors affecting the survival of SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises) in the biotechnology industry in South Korea. The Cox hazard model was employed to perform a robust estimation in survival analysis. The analysis of internal factors showed that the origin of a firm (i.e., having prior experience or spin-offs) and the business sub-sector (i.e., platform-based) affect the hazard rates of biotechnology firms. In terms of external factors, unlike strategic alliances, government R&D funding lowered hazard rates for the firm’s survival. Additionally, considering that the reasons of firm exit can be divided into bankruptcy and M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions), the different effects of origins from other firms and strategic alliance for firm survival are confirmed. The results suggest that prior experience, platform-based and constant government R&D funding contribute to the sustainable development of SMEs in the biotechnology industry.

The phenomenon of innovation growing rapidly and having a shorter lifespan is a structural change due to the development of ICT (Information and Communications Technology), diverse investment methods, and reduced pattern of innovation adoption. For ICT companies to survive and maintain their success in this ever-changing environment, they need to succeed in fulfilling both productivity and accuracy of innovation. To sustain their innovative success, ICT companies should consistently maintain the direction of innovation towards consumers. The present study analyzes various cases of ICT companies which succeeded or failed to maintain their prior innovative success, and suggests consumer-centric innovation as a solution. To create consumer-centric innovations, companies have to (1) predict the dynamically evolving demand of consumers and continuously transform; (2) proactively employ observation method and big data analysis to discover hidden demands; and (3) identify hassles such as wastes, inconveniences, and anxieties, and put effort in solving these hassles.

This paper examines the multidimensional effects of entry conditions and firm strategies in the emerging solar cell industry. It extends prior research on entry conditions, specifically entry timing and entry size. There has been a noteworthy lack of empirical evidence on the relationship between entry conditions and firm strategies. To fill the gaps in extant research on entry conditions, this paper investigates whether entry timing and size have any effect on innovation performance, and how firm strategies, such as collaboration and technology portfolio after entry, strengthen or weaken these effects. Results suggest that entering the market earlier than competitors consistently works more beneficially for innovation performance than does firm size. Furthermore, empirical results reveal that after market entrance, collaboration strategy of the firm is positively related to innovation performance. However, any positive effect of collaboration is relatively diminished for early entrants. In contrast, the effect holds true for late entrants who require aggressive collaboration. Building a technology portfolio has a negative relationship on innovation performance, and such influence is more evident in late entrants.