Business angels,venture capitalists,and open innovation: A pathway for SME success

Abstract

Open innovation has become a key strategic lever for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operating in dynamic and uncertain economic environments. However, few studies empirically examine how open innovation influences SME internationalization, particularly in developing countries. This study addresses this gap by analyzing the internal and external determinants, where internal determinants originate within the organization and external determinants stem from its surrounding environment, together shaping organizational outcomes.

Using a mixed-methods approach, the research combines qualitative interviews with managers of innovative firms in Tunisia and quantitative analysis through linear regression to evaluate the proposed theoretical model. The findings identify critical factors affecting internationalization and highlight the strategic role of business angels and venture capital investors in developing international networks and stimulating open innovation.

These results make a significant contribution to the literature on innovation and SME internationalization by elucidating the mechanisms through which external investor support enhances organizational agility and international competitiveness. The practical implications are relevant for policymakers and entrepreneurial ecosystem actors seeking to foster an environment conducive to the global growth of SMEs.

Keywords

open innovation SME internationalization business angels venture capital

1. Introduction

Open innovation is a concept that has experienced significant research across institutional, entrepreneurial, and academic spheres. Despite certain challenges, the concept developed by Chesbrough (2003) more than twenty years ago has gradually established itself as a novel approach for analyzing the innovation process.¹ Several scholars consider open innovation to represent a paradigm for improving innovation process performance and advancing academic research in the field of innovation. In a business context, open innovation is perceived as a cost-effective strategy for reducing costs, accelerating time to market, increasing product differentiation, and generating new revenue streams. Open innovation thus offers multiple opportunities for firms to achieve sustainable competitive advantage, implying that firm survival depends on the ability to remain ahead of competitors.

In a globalized environment, open innovation is an essential prerequisite for economic growth and the preservation of competitiveness. It is regarded as a creative process that requires continuous feedback loops to develop value-added products and build viable business models. Open innovation encourages the adoption of “leading open innovation” practices to ensure stable growth and quality improvement.^2,3 It also renders the traditional innovation process interactive, sequentially linking research to commercialization through testing and market analysis.⁴

The presence of partnership agreements from the early stages of collaboration among actors is crucial. These agreements must clarify the management of intellectual property related to open innovation, facilitate innovative contracting, and enable managers to strategically leverage their resources to stimulate open innovation. The development of corporate information systems, particularly for financial management in the context of open innovation within small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) also represents an area of relevance.^5,6

A review of the literature on the open innovation model reveals that most studies have been limited to describing these practices in large high-technology firms.^7–9 However, with the evolution of approaches related to open innovation, researchers have increasingly focused on examining issues related to the implementation of the open innovation model within SMEs. Nevertheless, research in this area remains relatively limited.^10–12 In fact, only in recent years, studies have addressed the challenges of this model in the SME context.¹³ Moreover, research on SMEs’ capacity to integrate open innovation practices remained marginal until the work of van de Vrande et al. (2009), which was the first study to examine the implementation of the open innovation model by SMEs.¹⁴ Furthermore, experts in this field argue that SMEs differ significantly from large firms and should be able to use open innovation activities to achieve innovative outcomes.^15,16 In addition, Spithoven et al. (2013) contend that SMEs rely more heavily on open innovation than large enterprises.¹⁷

Recent literature on open innovation in SMEs has focused on several dimensions, including the adoption of practices,^11,13,18 challenges encountered,^13,19 the role of networks,²⁰ and the importance of human capital and commitment to learning particularly risk-taking and strategic formalization.²¹ These studies confirm the importance of open innovation for SMEs. Some research examined the main drivers and contingency factors (such as culture, organizational technology, and economic changes) that promote open innovation practices,¹¹ while others focused on potential drawbacks, including associated risks and costs.^13,21

By contrast, a limited number of studies have focused on the financial determinants of open innovation performance in SMEs.^13,15 Moreover, the open innovation literature lacks consensus regarding the financial determinants that affect SME performance. Most firms do not have sufficient financial resources to invest in research and innovation, as limited financial resources constitute a major barrier to the adoption of open innovation. Indeed, innovation is a risky activity, particularly for SMEs, because it is resource-intensive. It is in this context that the open innovation paradigm emerges as an interactive innovation model that provides firms with extreme agility.^18,21 Furthermore, open innovation may enable organizations to accelerate their innovation processes and exploit new business opportunities. Limited access to financial resources represents a major obstacle to the adoption of open innovation, especially in SMEs where innovation remains a risky and resource-intensive activity. This study seeks to address this research gap.

Given the lack of financial resources in most SMEs, this study aims to address how SMEs can overcome challenges affecting their long-term success as well as survival and ensure open innovation performance. This, in turn, facilitates the process through which SMEs can enhance their awareness of the direct and indirect effects of international transactions, including direct effects such as immediate revenues, cost savings, or access to modern technologies, and indirect effects such as gaining knowledge, improving reputation, and enhancing organizational agility. By understanding and leveraging these impacts, SMEs can strategically engage in international collaborations to support innovation and foster sustainable growth. Additionally, SMEs can engage in transactions with firms from other countries through collaboration with new key actors that were not previously involved through other working relationships, namely venture capitalists and business angels.

This study analyzes how SMEs can overcome financial constraints affecting their long-term performance and ensure the success of their open innovation practices. Collaboration with external investors, such as venture capitalists and business angels, facilitates access to financial resources and promotes the internationalization of open innovation practices. Bank support is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, and the support of a business angel is often considered a life-saving solution.²² Furthermore, this study examines how limited financial resources can be effectively utilized to achieve sustainable, major, or incremental innovation while strengthening international business networks. The objective is to clarify the role of key external actors, namely venture capitalists and business angels in financing dynamics and open innovation performance.^21,23

In addition, the strategic role of external investors in fostering innovation within manufacturing SMEs is studied. Specifically, it investigates how the involvement of venture capitalists and business angels affects the adoption and performance of open innovation practices. This leads to the central research question:

“To what extent does the involvement of venture capitalists and business angels influence open innovation performance in manufacturing SMEs?”

To address the research objectives, a mixed-methods methodological approach was adopted. Qualitative interviews with managers of innovative firms in Tunisia allowed for an in-depth exploration of the role of investors in developing international networks and stimulating innovation. In parallel, quantitative analysis using linear regression empirically assessed the relationships proposed in the theoretical model. This combination of research methods provided robust evidence on the mechanisms through which external investor support enhances open innovation performance and international competitiveness among SMEs, while offering a practical framework for decision-makers and actors within the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

This research contributes to filling existing research gaps by providing empirical evidence on the financial and collaborative factors influencing open innovation in SMEs, while proposing a model applicable to Tunisian manufacturing firms and potentially transferable to other international contexts.

This article is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the literature review, offering a critical synthesis of prior studies and identifying research gaps. The research hypotheses are presented in Section 3. The research methodology is described in Section 4. The research model is documented in Section 5. The results and the discussion of the results are presented in Sections 6 and 7. The managerial implications and conclusion with proposed solutions for policymakers are presented in Section 8. Finally, Section 9 addresses the study's limitations and outlines directions for future research.

2. Literature review

The literature on open innovation in SMEs has experienced significant growth over the past decade. Previous studies highlight a gradual shift from a closed innovation logic to a more open approach, allowing SMEs to compensate for some of their structural limitations, particularly in terms of resources and internal capabilities such as technical expertise, marketing knowledge, and knowledge management systems.²⁴ Unlike large companies, SMEs created value through specific open innovation practices, adapted to their size and organizational context which resulted in product improvements, market expansion, and stronger collaborative relationships.¹⁴ From this perspective, Oltra et al. (2018) showed that adopting open innovation improved the performance of medium- and low-technology firms, notably through the combination of inbound and outbound practices (such as collaboration with universities, knowledge acquisition from suppliers, licensing technologies, and sharing knowledge with external partners).²⁵

Among the different dimensions of open innovation, recent literature has focused on inbound practices such as scouting for external ideas, technology acquisition, joint R&D projects, and partnerships with universities or research centers, which rely on the internalization of external resources such as patents, software, prototypes, and market intelligence and knowledge which encompasses technical know-how, customer insights, and process innovations.^12,26,27 This approach assumes that firms structure their innovation activities around mechanisms that allow them to access external knowledge sources such as technology licensing, participation in innovation networks, and open collaboration platforms. Within the scope of this study, the specific focus was on the inbound dimension of open innovation, which refers to the deliberate process by which firms acquire and integrate external knowledge, ideas, or technologies into their internal innovation activities to enhance products, services, or processes.²⁸ Authors generally distinguish three main categories of inbound practices: (1) use of external information sources, (2) collaboration, and (3) acquisition of knowledge or technologies. These practices contribute to accelerating innovation processes, promoting idea sharing, and increasing the value of products or services offered to end customers. A more in-depth analysis emphasizes that collaboration constitutes a central mechanism through which firms access external knowledge and/or technologies while leveraging internal resources that would otherwise remain unused.²⁹ Collaboration has been defined as a focused involvement actors in the design, production, and/or commercialization of a product or process.³⁰

Several empirical studies show that the innovation performance of SMEs is strengthened by open innovation practices based on collaboration and knowledge exchange with external partners.^15,28,31 This effect is even more pronounced when partners belong to different technological sectors or are geographically distant.³² However, the nature and intensity of collaborations depend on the objectives pursued by SMEs. Indeed, companies engaged in an open innovation approach primarily collaborate to develop new products, whereas those adopting a more closed approach favor collaborations oriented toward incremental improvements.³³

Furthermore, Oltra et al. (2018) and Battistela et al. (2017) emphasized implementing innovative activities in collaboration with external partners involved organizational trade-offs regarding the timing of collaboration, partner selection, modes of cooperation, and targeted objectives.^25,34 Oltra et al. (2018) specifically showed that R&D-oriented collaborative practices had a significant positive impact on firm performance.²⁵ However, Bogers et al. (2017) noted that the effectiveness of open innovation strategies strongly depended on the people responsible for their implementation, with employees and the management team playing a central role in innovative initiatives.³⁵

Recent research further enriches this theoretical framework by identifying additional factors that moderate the adoption and effectiveness of open innovation in SMEs. For example, Almeida (2024) pointed out that the main causes of failure in open innovation practices in SMEs were strongly related to resource constraints and management processes, revealing specific obstacles different from those encountered by large firms and highlighting the importance of tailored strategies to mitigate them.¹³ Additionally, studies on the internationalization of open innovation show that SMEs implement inbound and coupled practices differently when operating internationally, and that the internationalization process itself influences how knowledge and external networks are accessed.^23,36,37

Other empirical work deepens the understanding of open innovation practices in regional and other specific contexts. Research on Moroccan SMEs illustrated how vulnerability and concerns related to resource sharing influence the way open innovation was adopted, emphasizing the importance of strategic management of external collaborations to improve innovation.¹² Moreover, analyses of organizational and strategic dynamics revealed that managerial culture and internal practices, such as agility and entrepreneurial orientation, played a crucial role in facilitating or limiting open innovation, particularly in high-technology contexts.³⁸ These findings highlighted the multifaceted nature of open innovation adoption and performance in SMEs, suggesting that organizational capabilities such as dynamic capabilities and strategic orientation and contextual factors such as international networks and resource constraints are key determinants of innovation outcomes.

Finally, several studies emphasized that the level of innovation capability was a determining factor in the adoption of open innovation. Xiaobao et al. (2013) showed that SMEs with high innovation potential exhibited a higher degree of openness.³⁹ These companies were thus more inclined to cooperate with their environment^38,40,41 and capable of fully leveraging collaborations with external partners, which improved not only innovation performance but also the financial performance of SMEs.^33,42

Some recent empirical studies that address collaborative practices with various partners and their associated inbound open innovation practices are summarized in Table 1. These studies highlight that SMEs engage with a variety of external actors to acquire knowledge and enhance their innovation performance.

Table 1.

Empirical studies on collaborative internalization practices in the open innovation literature.

Empirical studies	Sources of opening	Inbound practices
Stefan et al. (2021)⁴³	Business customers, users, and external partners	Customer involvement in innovation processes; External networking
Leckel et al. (2020)⁴⁴	Suppliers, competitors, and partner firms	Vertical and horizontal collaboration
Mingxing et al. (2020)⁴⁵	Suppliers, competitors, and partner firms	Vertical and horizontal collaboration
Stefan et al. (2021)⁴³	SMEs, large firms, and entrepreneurial networks	Inter-firm collaboration for innovation
Almeida (2024)¹³	SMEs, large firms, and entrepreneurial networks	Inter-firm collaboration for innovation
Stanislavski and Lisowsk (2015)⁴⁰	Universities, public and private research institutes	Collaboration with universities and research institutions
Park et al. (2025)⁴⁶	Universities, public and private research institutes	Collaboration with universities and research institutions
Almeida (2024)¹³	Academic institutions, innovation intermediaries	Knowledge acquisition and absorptive capacity development
Madrid-Guijarro et al. (2021)⁴⁷	Academic institutions, innovation intermediaries	Knowledge acquisition and absorptive capacity development
Hadi and Ali (2025)²¹	International networks, partners	Inbound knowledge, collaboration in international projects
Oliveira and Rua (2025)⁴⁸	Local and regional ecosystem actors	Inbound practices via ecosystem collaboration

Sources of Opening: The external channels or entities that an organization relies on to obtain new knowledge, ideas, and/or technologies.

3. Research hypotheses

The existing literature widely highlights the role of open innovation as a performance lever for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), particularly in contexts which are characterized by constraints in human, financial, and technological resources.^49,50 Previous studies notably emphasized the importance of external collaborations, absorptive capacity, and partner complementarity in the implementation of open innovation strategies.^51–53 However, this research mainly focuses on the general mechanisms of open innovation or on the internal capabilities of firms, giving limited attention to the specific role of external financial actors in open innovation performance, particularly in the context of manufacturing SMEs.

Furthermore, although venture capitalists and business angels are recognized as key actors in innovation financing and entrepreneurial growth, the existing literature primarily addresses their contribution from the perspective of financing, value creation, or overall firm performance.²² The direct influence of these investors on the dynamics and outcomes of open innovation remains unexplored, highlighting a significant theoretical and empirical gap.

In response to this research gap, the main objective of this study was to analyze the impact of external financial investors, particularly venture capitalists and business angels, on the open innovation performance of manufacturing SMEs. In doing so, this research aims to enrich the literature on open innovation by incorporating a financial and partnership perspective that has not yet been explored.

In this study, the central research question as stated earlier is to what extent does the involvement of venture capitalists and business angels influence open innovation performance in manufacturing SMEs? Based on the theoretical elements and the identified gaps, the following hypotheses can be formulated:

H1: The involvement of venture capitalists has a positive effect on the open innovation performance in manufacturing SMEs.

H2: The involvement of business angels has a positive effect on the open innovation performance in manufacturing SMEs.

4. Methodology

The approach used in this research consists of two stages, qualitative study, and quantitative study. As an integral part of this work, the objective of the qualitative exploratory study was to collect the data that preceded the performance of SMEs in terms of open innovation. The semi-structured interviews were conducted with the managers of Tunisian SMEs, to focus directly on their assertions to determine the factors that precede the performance of open innovation. The main purpose of the qualitative study was to gather as much information as possible to be able to better realize the next step of quantitative analysis. In fact, qualitative study can be used as a means which will facilitate building a more comprehensible questionnaire for the participants of the study.

4.1. Qualitative study

As part of the qualitative study on determining the factors influencing the performance of open innovation, 29 semi-structured interviews with managers lasting approximately 60 minutes were conducted within the company. The semi-structured interview or semi-directed interview is a data collection technique that contributes to the development of knowledge that favors qualitative and interpretative approaches, particularly those based on constructivist paradigms.⁵⁴ The qualitative data collection technique enabled us to focus on the discourse of the interviewees around previously defined themes. All managers were contacted through a letter of introduction (which included a brief presentation of the research objectives and the reasons for the interview) which was followed by a telephone call to make an appointment a week later. The interviews took place in the offices of the managers and lasted on average about one hour. The interviews were conducted in a semi-directive manner. Hence, to control the interview process, an interview guide was developed based on the literature and issues of the study (see Appendix 1) in accordance with the required protocol.⁵⁵ This guide served as a steering mechanism during the interviews as it offered several advantages and was intended to provide similar conditions from one interview to the next and governed the framework and direction of the discussion. More precisely, it consisted of recording the basic themes discussed. As Evrard et al. (1993) pointed out that the themes can develop based on the interviewee’s flow rather that the pre-established sequential order.⁵⁶ In other words, even if the introduction was identical for each interview, the meetings did not all take place according to the same order of the selected points to allow certain freedom and spontaneity during the interviewing process based on the questionnaire. In addition, the questionnaire was quite focused, which enabled us to quickly bring the interviewee to the point under discussion. These interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. The interviewing process took approximately two months.

The interviewer resorted to semantic saturation as the stopping criterion which, according to Glaser and Strauss (1999),⁵⁷ consists in stopping interviews as soon as the information collected is no longer new. Also, it was ensured during the interviewing process that neutrality and objectivity were respected in the analysis of executives’ statements. The latter were then the subject of a thematic content analysis after having been fully transcribed and recorded.

4.2. Results of the qualitative study

Understanding the key drivers of innovation in SMEs is essential for both researchers and practitioners seeking to enhance firm performance. In particular, identifying the external actors that support innovation processes helps clarify how resources and knowledge flow into firms.

The qualitative study identified two main thematic factors: venture capital investors and business angels. Excerpts from the executives’ statements are presented in Appendix 2. Analysis of their testimonies highlighted the importance of these two variables for the performance of open innovation. These two factors were mentioned by all of the respondents, who also emphasized the importance of the link between open innovation and external financing. Consequently, venture capital investors and business angels appear essential for achieving and sustaining market success, gaining a competitive advantage, and reaching superior performance.

According to the respondents, it has become crucial to engage with the external environment and collaborate with other innovation actors, such as venture capital investors and business angels. This openness allows companies to break away from traditional innovation methods and approach the market with a novel and disruptive product. Engaging in any fruitful collaboration that can enhance innovation efficiency and create an innovative product meeting customer needs is therefore more cost-effective in terms of both time and money. The analysis of managers’ narratives highlights the importance of these two variables for open innovation performance. These two thematic factors will thus serve as the variables in the conceptual model.

The interviewees strongly emphasized the relationship between open innovation and external financing for SMEs. Accordingly, venture capitalists and business angels are essential for achieving and sustaining market success, gaining competitive advantage, and enhancing overall performance. According to the respondents, openness to the external environment and interaction with other innovation actors particularly venture capitalists and business angels has become indispensable. This openness enables firms to move beyond traditional innovation methods and to approach the market with new and disruptive products. Consequently, it is more profitable, in terms of both time and cost, to engage in value-creating collaborations that can improve innovation efficiency and lead to the development of innovative products that meet customer needs. Therefore, these two thematic factors will serve as the variables of the conceptual model.

4.3. Quantitative study

The simultaneous effect of the explanatory variables on the performance of open innovation was assessed by using multiple regression. The general purpose of multiple regression was to find more about the relationship between independent variables and a dependent variable. The regression was performed using SPSS software (version 23.0).

A questionnaire-based survey approach as an information gathering tool was used to empirically measure the effect of collaborative internalization practices on the performance of open innovation and evaluate the conceptual model presented above. A face-to-face survey conducted using a questionnaire is a project involving clear objectives, using appropriate methodology, and proper planning which is a time-consuming and an expensive endeavor.

The questionnaire contained questions that were understandable and complete to gather reliable information. As an example, during the last three years, has your company cooperated with other companies or organizations for the development or the improvement of its products or production processes?

In this research, the questionnaire was constructed according to the content ascertained through the interviews conducted with the SME managers. Then, after having identified the information to be collected for the study, it was necessary to develop the questions, or into appropriate statements, to codify the items for the purpose of the research analysis. The questionnaire contained close-end questions.

The results obtained are based on interviewing leaders of manufacturing SMEs in the Tunisian context. The leaders were interviewed over a two-month period and in fact, after two months of interaction with 600 Tunisian SMEs, it was found that the concept of open innovation is far from being a well-known idea among these companies. Only 250 companies had already embarked on an open innovation project with the support of venture capitalists and business angels.

5. Research model

The conceptual research model to be assessed is shown in Figure 1 (inbound open innovation).

Figure 1.

The conceptual research model.

Table 2 provides the details associated with the variables of the empirical framework. The data on the model variables was collected on a 5-point Likert scale with “1 = Not at all important” to “5 = Very important”. The items derived from the results of the qualitative study were used to the operationalization of venture capitalists and business angels and relied on empirical studies for the operationalization of the performance of open innovation.

Table 2.

Description of variables.

Variable	Role of variable	Variables measurement
The performance of open innovation	Dependent (as derived from literature review)	The percentage of innovative sales over total sales.
		The percentage of innovative products over the total range of products.⁵⁸
		The value of shares at the end of each year.^59,60
		The degree of effort invested in innovative activities, the degree of novelty of products, processes, and markets.^61,62
Venture capitalists	Independent (as derived from the qualitative study)	Generates patents.
		Allows for more profound product innovations.
		Increases the likelihood of obtaining financing from banks.
		Increases innovative capacity.
		Finances the project and creates an environment conducive to innovation.
		Removes the constraints that hinder development abroad.
		Increases the number of foreign settlements.
		Increases the equity of a young innovative company at an early stage of development.
		Supports young innovative companies.
		Identifies innovative companies with good growth opportunities.
		Boosts rapid development.
		Supports economically and strategically companies (especially start-ups) not yet listed on the stock exchange.
Business angels	Independent (as derived from the qualitative study)	Provides the company’s manager with all his/her skills and experience in the entrepreneurial field.
		Gives the entrepreneur his/her relational networks and a part of his/her time.
		Effective communication with the entrepreneur to help in his/her strategic decisions by advising him/her and putting him/her in contact with others.
		Establish business relationships with foreign partners.
		Provides sound advice to promote the development of the company and lead it to success.
		Generates a substantial capital gain through its investment.
		Provides financing solutions for innovative projects (technological or other innovations) with high added value and exponential growth potential.
		Seeks to establish contact with the various parties interested in a business creation project.
		Invests its own money in an innovative start-up with a strong medium and long-term growth potential.
Firm’s age	Control variable	Binary variable equals 1 if the age of the company is more than 15 years, or 0 otherwise.
Firm’s size	Control variable	Binary variable equals 1 if the company’s workforce is less than 250 employees, 0 otherwise.

6. Results

In this section the results of the study are presented.

6.1. Descriptive statistics

The initial results of this research are based on a descriptive approach aimed at identifying the constituent elements and their relationships.⁶³ Gender was coded in a binary manner (1 = female, 2 = male), and education level according to a categorical scale (1 = bachelor’s, 3 = master’s). These anchoring, purely methodological, facilitate statistical processing, highlight the categorical nature of the variables, and allow clear comparisons between groups while accurately representing the characteristics of the sample. The sample includes 250 participants. For gender, the mean was 1.48 (standard deviation: 0.501), indicating a slight overrepresentation of males. For education level, the mean was 1.67 (standard deviation: 0.544), showing a predominance of males with a master’s degree. These characteristics are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics.

N =250	Minimum	Maximum	Standard deviation	Mean
Sex	1	2	0.501	1.48
Education level	1	3	0.544	1.67

6.2. Univariate analysis

Venture capital and business angels were measured using univariate analysis. The purpose of univariate analysis is to describe and measure the distribution of values that a variable can assume. Univariate analysis makes it possible to describe variables and examine how a variable is distributed. It also allows for specifying the relationship between variables. According to the results of the univariate analysis presented in Table 4, venture capital has a positive effect on open innovation performance. The coefficient associated with the relationship between venture capital and open innovation performance is positive (0.625) and statistically significant (t-value = 4.877, p = 0.000). The results of the univariate statistical analysis indicate that there is a strong positive relationship between venture capital and the performance of open innovation.

Table 4.

Results of univariate analysis between venture capitalists and performance.

	Non standardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	t	Significance
	β	Standardized error	Bèta	t	Significance
(Constant) Venture Capitalists	0.214	0.085		3.985	0.000
(Constant) Venture Capitalists	0.289	0.099	0.625	4.877	0.000

From Table 5, it can be observed that business angels have a positive and significant impact on the performance of open innovation. Accordingly, business angels positively affect the performance of open innovation. Besides, the coefficient associated with the relationship between business angels and open innovation performance was positive (0.666) and statistically significant (t-value of 4.999 with a p = 0.000). The results of the univariate statistical analysis indicated that there is a strong positive relationship between business angels and the performance of open innovation. So, the performance of open innovation is strongly associated with business angels.

Table 5.

Results of univariate analysis between Business Angels and performance.

	Non standardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	t	Significance
	β	Standardized error	Bèta	t	Significance
(Constant) Business Angels	0.199	0.068		3.255	0.000
(Constant) Business Angels	0.485	0.099	0.666	4.999	0.000

Table 6 depicts the correlations between the different variables in the model. It can be observed that the coefficients associated with the variables in the model are positively correlated among themselves. This representation is to simplify the discussion of the multicollinearity problem between these variables. Multicollinearity becomes a problem when the correlation coefficient between two variables is in the range [0.8 - 0.9].⁶⁴ In this study, the correlation coefficients between the variables do not belong to this interval, which implies that there was no multicollinearity.

Table 6.

Correlation analysis.

Dimensions	1. (VC)	2. (BA)	3. (FS)	4. (FA)	5. (OIP)
1. Venture capitalists (VC)	1.000
2. Business angels (BA)	0.702**	1.000
3. Firm’s size (FS)	0.541**	0.732**	1.000
4. Firm’s age (FA)	0.755**	0.677**	0.622**	1.000
5. Open Innovation Performance (OIP)	0.162	0.112	0.294	0.174	1.000

**Significant at the 0.01 level.

Number of observations, n=250.

Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of the internal consistency of a test or, in other words, a measure of the reliability of the scale. Table 7 indicates the reliability measure where the values are all above 0.7, which indicated a good reliability of the constructs and also that all the variables were reliable and therefore, the scale had a good internal consistency.^65,66 The extracted AVE value was always greater than 0.5, so convergent validity was also confirmed. Therefore, in this study, all the constructs were deemed reliable.

Table 7.

Convergence reliability and validity of research model variables.

Variable	Cronbach’s alpha	Compound reliability (CR)	AVE
Venture capitalists	0.755	0.837	0.656
Business angels	0.722	0.825	0.613
Firm’s size	0799	0.899	0.701
Firm’s age	0.801	0.812	0.785
Open Innovation Performance	0.742	0.799	0.699

6.3. Multivariate analysis

The verification of the conditions for applying multiple linear regression was conducted utilizing the SPSS software (version 23.0). The analysis focused on the conditions associated with linearity of the model, the normality of the residuals, homoscedasticity, and the absence of bivariate and multivariate multicollinearity.

Empirical results revealed that 51.2% of the variation in the level of performance of open innovation was explained by venture capitalists, business angels, and public support funds. The Fisher statistic (F) confirmed the proposed relational model (F = 50.125 and sig = 0.000). The study results conclude that the model was statistically significant and provided explanatory evidence of the phenomenon studied with all independent variables depicting statistical significance.

Table 8 presents the explanatory power of the model, the beta coefficients, the t-student statistics, the F-statistics, and significance levels, as well as a description of the results of the multiple regression for all the explanatory variables of the model. To assess the quality of linear adjustment, the coefficient of determination (R-squared) was used and more precisely, a derivative of the R² known as the adjusted coefficient of determination (Adjusted R-Square). The significance of the β, in turn, gives a good idea of the statistical significance of the factor.⁶⁵

Table 8.

Results of multiple linear regressions model.

Model	Sum of the squares	Degrees of freedom	Mean square	D	Significance
Regression	32.666	2	32.666	57.835	0.00
Residual	66.648		0.565
Total	99.313	198

Variables	Coefficients b	t-student	Significance	VIF
C		3.451	0.000^***
Venture capitalists	0.210	4.985	0.000^***	1.084
Business angels	0.198	3.695	0.000^***	1.065
Age	0.178	3.421	0.000^***	1.014
Size	0.180	2.621	0.000^***	1.045
Model statistics:	F= 56.145 (p = 0.000)
Model statistics:	R² = 0.545, R² adj = 0.653, DW=0.799

***: Significance level 1%; **: Significance level 5%; *: Significance level 10%.

The examination of the statistical tests in Table 8 showed that venture capitalists had a positive and significant impact on the variation of open innovation performance. Indeed, the examination of causal relationships showed that the coefficient of 0.210 associated with the link between venture capitalists and the performance of open innovation was positive and statistically significant (t-value of 4.985 with p = 0.000). The outcomes indicated that there is a strong and positive relationship between venture capitalists and the performance of open innovation. Thus, the performance of open innovation was strongly associated with venture capitalists. Consequently, the first hypothesis (H1) was validated in the study.

The examination of the statistical tests showed that business angels had a positive and significant impact on the variation of the performance of open innovation. Indeed, the examination of causal relationships showed that the coefficient of 0.198 associated with the link between business angels and open innovation performance was positive and statistically significant (t-value of 3.695 with p = 0.000). The results revealed that there was a strong and positive relationship between business angels and the performance of open innovation. Therefore, the performance of open innovation was strongly associated with business angels. Accordingly, the second hypothesis (H2) was validated in the study.

Finally, statistical tests showed that the control variables retained in this study, such as the company’s size and age, had an impact on the performance of open innovation. It therefore follows that the performance of open innovation was dependent on these two control variables.

7. Discussion of results

The analyses conducted throughout this empirical investigation aided in the analysis of the posited research objective, which consisted of determining the impact of venture capital and business angels on open innovation performance, through the mediating effect of the firm leader’s age and level of education. Based on the results of this study, the first hypothesis, postulating the existence of a significant relationship between venture capital investors and open innovation performance, was validated.

The first observation concerns the innovation capacity of SMEs in which venture capitalists function as partners in the emergence and financing of innovative projects. These firms recorded a higher number of patents than those whose ownership structure does not include venture capitalists, indicating a higher level of innovative capacity. It is particularly interesting to note that these firms also tend to file more patents related to novel innovations than other firms. This presence has thus generated deeper innovative products within the firm. Firms supported by venture capital adopt more innovative strategies than those that do not benefit from such support. Moreover, due to the availability of venture capital, the time-to-market for new products is significantly reduced.^67,68 The role of venture capital indeed induces this strategic orientation, which accelerates innovation dynamics and productivity gains in the economy. This study showed that venture capital constitutes a multiplier factor of SMEs’ innovation capacity, while fostering the emergence of new products that break with those previously consumed. The presence of this factor can be considered one of the elements that has contributed to the development and commercialization of technological innovations.⁶⁹ It also provides continuous support for the financing of many disruptive innovations.⁷⁰

The second hypothesis, aimed at verifying the existence of a positive effect of business angels on open innovation performance, was not rejected. Indeed, the main findings of the study highlight the important and positive role of business angels in open innovation performance. For many SMEs, financing constitutes a crucial challenge. Bank support is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, and the support of a business angel is often considered a life-saving solution.²² By providing financial resources, advice, and relational networks, business angels enable firms to accelerate open innovation. The ultimate objective is to support the firm by facilitating contacts with suppliers, potential partners, and/or customers. This represents a genuine collaboration, conditioned by the behavior of the project leader. The essential qualities sought by business angels include open-mindedness, team spirit, and motivation. This variable can thus constitute a lever for the internationalization of SMEs. Beyond financial support, business angels help entrepreneurs by offering them the opportunity to freely benefit from their skills, experience, relational networks, and time. Also, business angels establish and develop prominent positions for firms in foreign markets. In addition, business angels can create organizational relationships, build personal relationships, and gradually expand their scope of action across multiple markets.

In this approach, internationalization is perceived as a process of establishing business relationships with foreign partners. These relationships are continuously created, developed, maintained, and dissolved in order to achieve the firm’s objectives. Interactions between openness and the internationalization of firms’ innovation processes have led to the development of open innovation networks such as venture capitalists and business angels. On the one hand, these two dynamics respond to the pressures exerted on firms’ innovation processes and, on the other hand, internationalization constitutes an aspect of openness. The internationalization of open innovation networks further strengthens firms’ ability to access diversified knowledge and environments. Venture capitalists and business angels can thus be powerful vectors of knowledge hybridization or innovation cost reduction. In order to improve firms’ productivity and competitiveness in the market, firms increasingly outsource their sources of information through interactions with various partners. Venture capitalists and business angels also constitute key actors in the open innovation sphere. This study proposes a model identifying new key factors playing a decisive role in the open innovation performance of manufacturing SMEs, in the context of a developing country, namely Tunisia.

8. Managerial implications and conclusion

It should be recalled that the main objective of this research was to better understand the financial determinants of open innovation performance in manufacturing SMEs in Tunisia. The results revealed that it is possible to develop an open innovation research model for the manufacturing SMEs as analyzed in this research. It is a combination of external partners favoring innovation performance and enabling the updating of innovation capacities, which therefore requires the search for opportunities in other markets.

A qualitative study from 29 semi-structured interviews of SMEs established two new factors related to the inbound dimension of open innovation, which were then evaluated using multiple regression. The key role of new internationalization practices in the performance of innovative manufacturing SMEs in terms of open innovation was observed based on the proposed model of the research.

The results of this research are important for public policy makers as well as for researchers and all stakeholders in the research and innovation environment. Furthermore, the results of the research contribute to the advancement of existing theoretical foundations in the literature on internationalization of business, international entrepreneurship, and open innovation.

Another theoretical contribution is the development of a new conceptual model of the performance of open innovation. In fact, the proposed theoretical model using qualitative study has resulted in two new external factors related to the inbound practice of open innovation.

In the identified literature, no research on this subject has been studied where venture capitalists and business angels imply that the source of openness is related to practices of internalization through collaboration. This research opens this path for additional studies.

On the theoretical level, the contribution of this study adds originality to the understanding of the process of open innovation through new practices of internationalization by collaboration. Thus, it is proposed that a new vision of the internationalization of SMEs, through a process of increasing commitment of companies in open innovation that offers the possibility for companies to sell internationally. It can be stated that international entrepreneurship is the interaction between the leader and the facilitator(s) to ensure performance in open innovation and develop an international business strategy.

A major managerial implication lies in the vital role that venture capitalists and business angels play in supporting and stimulating entrepreneurs in international expansion. Their influence goes beyond mere financial support, encompassing their behaviors, approach to risk and creativity, international entrepreneurial skills, and extensive relational networks. These investors provide both strategic guidance and operational advice that can significantly impact the internationalization process of SMEs.

Beyond direct support, their involvement contributes to strengthening internal capabilities within SMEs in areas such as international project management, innovation, and business strategy. It also enhances the credibility of firms with partners and financial institutions, facilitating access to resources and global markets. Furthermore, investors encourage experimentation and calculated risk-taking, thereby stimulating innovation and differentiation in foreign markets. The investors strategic support and access to global networks allow SMEs to identify opportunities more quickly and accelerate international growth. Finally, the guidance and experience provided by these actors promote an initiative-taking approach to monitoring international trends and anticipating market needs.

Furthermore, this research highlights how entrepreneurs in an emerging country can internationalize their businesses by developing innovations and harnessing specific capabilities to compete with regional and global competitors. Again, this study illustrates how international entrepreneurial capabilities, national and international networks are built over time and how they are mobilized to identify opportunities in international markets.

The model of open innovation through its inbound dimension, explains a new trajectory of the internationalization of the company via the practices of the collaboration. This research explains why and how venture capitalists and business angels are important for innovative SMEs. This could bridge the gap in open innovation and show the way forward to improving internationalization and innovation strategies and enhance performance and growth.

Another managerial contribution is to expose the political decision-makers and the individuals in charge of innovation, about the importance of these new factors that were proposed for the performance of open innovation which can be the source of economic growth. Also, the owner-manager is called to take into consideration the dynamic and complex nature of open innovation, far from an isolated logic and traditionally based purely on the use of internal resources. Thus, in order to successfully implement an environment of an efficient and effective method of open innovation with different external actors, namely venture capitalists and business angels, to achieve a competitive advantage and development of networks of business relations outside the country of origin.

9. Future research and limitations

The results based on this research have some limitations that must be highlighted. One of the limitations of this research concerns the sample of companies studied are the SMEs in the industrial sector. It would be interesting to conduct studies on other SMEs belonging to different sectors to observe the robustness of the results.

A second limitation of this study is the relatively small sample size, which influences the external validity of the research. It would be beneficial to strengthen this external validity by increasing the sample size and thereby determine whether this would enhance the results or lead to alternative models and solution methodologies.

In addition to the sample size increase, it would be beneficial to broaden the scope of the investigation for comparison reasons. This research study was based on the Greater Tunis and Sahel regions. This is another limitation related to sample selection. To achieve a rapprochement, it would be interesting to extend future research to a wider geographic scope. In other words, working with SMEs that are either in other Tunisian regions or expanding to other countries in the world to obtain a database richer in terms of information.

Another extension for this study would be to supplement the model with concepts that were not examined in the analysis, such as the insertion of other moderating variables like size, geographical location, age of the manufacturing SME, or the psycho-sociological profile of the owner-manager. These variables may also prove to be interesting for a better understanding of the performance of open innovation. In addition, further empirical research may be envisaged concerning the risks related to the performance of open innovation.

Finally, this area of research could benefit from empirical studies which will address the impact of these new collaborative internationalization practices on the degree of internationalization of SMEs and again on the international performance of SMEs.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Sohail S. Chaudhry

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Appendix

References

Chesbrough

. Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. : Harvard Business School Press, 2006. https://store.hbr.org/product/open-innovation-the-new-imperative-for-creating-and-profiting-from-technology/8377?srsltid=AfmBOoowBC70cCUKFQYJsAZdJXpT0DBAqDYLDO4rKZx-g8RcadCaBMgg

Rabie

Moustafa

Al Ghaithi

. Organizational practices’ role in managing open innovation and business performance. Administrative Sciences 2024; 14(5): 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14050087

Asad

Asif

Sulaiman

MABA

, et al. Open innovation: the missing nexus between entrepreneurial orientation, total quality management, and performance of SMEs. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 2023; 12: 79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00335-7

Cooper

. Accelerating innovation: Some lessons from agile–stage-gate. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2021; 38(1): 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12565

Roffia

Dabić

The role of management control and integrated information systems for the resilience of SMEs. Review of Managerial Science 2024; 18(5): 1353–1375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00657-6

Duréndez–Soto

Dieguez–Soto

Madrid–Guijarro

. The influence of CEO’s financial literacy on SMEs technological innovation: the mediating effects of MCS and risk-taking. Financial Innovation 2023; 9: 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-022-00414-w

Bigliardi

Ferraro

Filippelli

, et al. The past, present and future of open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 2021; 24(3): 1130–1161. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-10-2019-0296

da Silva Meireles

Azevedo

Boaventura

JMG

. Open innovation and collaboration: A systematic literature review. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 2022; 65: 101702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2022.101702

Bejarano

JBP

Sossa

JWZ

Ocampo-López

, et al. University technology transfer from a knowledge-flow approach — systematic literature review. Sustainability 2023; 15(8): 6550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086550

10.

Parida

Westerberg

Frishammar

. Inbound open innovation activities in high‐tech SMEs: the impact on innovation performance. Journal of Small Business Management 2012; 50(2): 283–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2012.00354.x

11.

Rodrigues

Rua

. Open innovation as a model to boost the business success of SMEs in the automotive sector: A multiple case study. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 2025; 11(3): 100577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100577

12.

Rhaiem

Doloreux

. Inbound open innovation in SMEs: A microfoundations perspective of dynamic capabilities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2024; 199: 123048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123048

13.

Almeida

Causes of Failure of Open Innovation Practices in Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Administrative Sciences 2024; 14(3): 50, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14030050

14.

van de Vrande

De Jong

Vanhaverbeke

, et al. Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation 2009; 29(6): 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.001

15.

Al Nuaimi

FMS

Singh

Ahmad

. Open innovation in SMEs: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management 2024; 28(2): 484–504. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2022-0906

16.

Annamalah

Aravindan

Raman

, et al. SME engagement with open innovation: Commitments and challenges towards collaborative innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 2022; 8(3): 146, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030146

17.

Spithoven

Vanhaverbeke

Roijakkers

. Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises. Small Business Economics 2013; 41(3): 537–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9453-9

18.

Marullo

Shapira

Di Minin

. Enhancing SME innovation across European regions: Success factors in EU-funded open innovation networks. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 2024; 201: 123207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123207

19.

Chung

Kim

Kang

. Influence of alliance portfolio diversity on innovation performance: the role of internal capabilities of value creation. Review of Managerial Science 2019; 13(5): 1093–1120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0281-4

20.

Annamalah

Aravindan

Ahmed

. Driving open innovation in SMEs: The role of organizational and strategic dynamics. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 2025; 14: 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-025-00588-4

21.

Hadi

Ali

. Exploring the unknowns of international open innovation and international dynamic capabilities on the speed of innovation and firm international performance: A strategic view. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 2025; 10(2): 100683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100683

22.

Mirza

Mahmood

Waqar

. The interplay of open innovation and strategic innovation: unpacking the role of organizational learning ability and absorptive capacity. International Journal of Engineering Business Management 2022; 14: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790211069745

23.

Tchouwo

Poulin

Veilleux

. Implementation of international open innovation within SMEs: The role of the internationalization process. Management International 2025; 29(1): 42–57. https://doi.org/10.59876/a-frps-jbzc

24.

Verbano

Crema

Venturini

. The identification and characterization of open innovation profiles in Italian SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management 2015; 53(4): 1052–1075. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12091

25.

Oltra

Flor

Alfaro

. Open innovation and firm performance: the role of organizational mechanisms. Business Process Management 2018; 24(3): 814–836. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2016-0098

26.

Lago

Marcon

Ribeiro

JLD

, et al. Quantifying the impact of inbound open innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2024; 209: 123817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123817

27.

El Maalouf

Bahemia

. The implementation of inbound open innovation at the firm level: A dynamic capability perspective. Technovation 2023; 122: 102659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102659

28.

Scuotto

Del Giudice

Carayannis

, The effect of social networking sites and absorptive capacity on SMEs’ innovation performance. Journal of Technology Transfer 2017; 42: 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9517-0

29.

Costa

Crupi

De Marco

, et al. SMEs and open innovation: Challenges and costs of engagement. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2023; 194: 122731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122731

30.

Polenske

. Competition, collaboration and cooperation: an uneasy triangle in networks of firms and regions. Regional Studies 2004; 38(9): 1029–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340042000292629

31.

Pustovrh

Jaklič

Martin

, et al. Antecedents and determinants of high-tech SMEs’ commercialisation enablers: opening the black box of open innovation practices. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja 2017; 30(1): 1033–1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2017.1305795

32.

Bjerke

Johansson

Patterns of innovation and collaboration in small and large firms. The Annals of Regional Science 2015; 55(1): 221–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-015-0712-y

33.

Dubouloz

Balzli

Gardet

, and. , et al., SMEs’ Open Innovation: Applying a Barrier Approach. California Management Review 2021; 64: 113–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256211052679

34.

Battistella

De Toni

Pessot

. Open accelerators for start-ups success: a case study. European Journal of Innovation Management 2017; 20(1): 80–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-10-2015-0113

35.

Bogers

Zobel

A-K

Afuah

, et al. The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation 2017; 24(1): 8–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1240068

36.

Lee

. How are knowledge dissemination and innovation performance created in manufacturing firms? The case of the Korea innovation survey (KIS). International Journal of Engineering Business Management 2025; 17: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790251323085

37.

Luo

Bai

. Business model innovation of technical start-ups in emerging markets. Journal of Industrial Integration and Management 2021; 6(3): 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424862221500202

38.

Suparwadi

Musadieq

Riza

, et al. Leveraging intellectual capital and knowledge management to drive innovation and organizational performance. International Journal of Engineering Business Management 2024; 16: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790241304563

39.

Xiaobao

Wei

Yuzhen

. Framework of open innovation in SMEs in an emerging economy: firm characteristics, network openness, and network information. International Journal of Technology Management 2013; 62(2): 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2013.055142

40.

Stanisławski

Lisowsk

. The relations between innovation openness (open innovation) and the innovation potential of SMEs. Procedia Economics and Finance 2015; 23: 1521–1526. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00330-5

41.

Žižlavský

. Past, present and future of the innovation process. International Journal of Engineering Business Management 2013; 5: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5772/56920

42.

Ahn

Minshall

Mortara

Open innovation: a new classification and its impact on firm performance in innovative SMEs. Journal of Innovation Management 2015; 3(2): 33–54. https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_003.002_0006

43.

Stefan

Nikolina

Maja

, et al. Business-to-business open innovation: COVID-19 lessons for small and medium-sized enterprises from emerging markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2021; 170(C): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120883

44.

Leckel

Veilleux

Dana

. Local Open Innovation: A means for public policy to increase collaboration for innovation in SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2020; 153: 119891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119891

45.

Mingxing

Asunka

Jialu

, et al. Sustaining corporate innovation through university–industry collaborative research: evidence from the Jiangsu university of China. Journal of Industrial Integration and Management 2020; 5(2): 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424862220500025

46.

Park

Cho

. The Impact of Technological Capabilities on Venture Capital Inflows: Evidence from Patent Applications and R&D Expenditure in Korean Industries. Systems 2025; 13(11): 933. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13110933

47.

Madrid-Guijarro

Martin

García-Pérez-de-Lema

. Capacity of open innovation activities in fostering product and process innovation in manufacturing SMEs. Review of Managerial Science 2021; 15(7): 2137–2164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00419-8

48.

Oliveira

Rua

. Innovation ecosystems and open innovation on micro enterprises. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 2025; 11(1): 100443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2024.100443

49.

Bigliardi

Galati

. An Open Innovation model for SMEs. In: Vanhaverbeke

Roijakkers

Usman

(eds). Researching Open Innovation in SMEs 2018. World Scientific Publishing Company Private Limited, pp. 71–113. Chapter 3. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813230972_0003

50.

Presenza

Abbate

Meleddu

, et al. Small- and medium-scale Italian winemaking companies facing the open innovation challenge. International Small Business Journal 2016; 35(3): 237–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616664

51.

Ramirez-Portilla

Cagno

Brown

. Open innovation in specialized SMEs: the case of supercars. Business Process Management Journal 2017; 23(6): 1167–1195. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2016-0211

52.

Mina

Bascavusoglu-Moreau

Hughes

. Open service innovation and the firm’s search for external knowledge. Research Policy 2014; 43(5): 853–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.004

53.

Pillon

. Explain the adoption of open innovation practices by SMEs through strategic, organizational, and environmental characteristics. Management. Normandy University, 2020. https://theses.hal.science/tel-03125826/document

54.

Etzkowitz

Zhou

. The triple Helix: University-industry-government innovation and entrepreneurship. 2nd ed. : Routledge, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315620183

55.

Giannelloni

J-L

Vernette

. Market research. 5th ed. Vuibert, 2019. https://www.vuibert.fr/livre/9782311405255-etudes-de-marche

56.

Evrard

Pras

Roux

. Market. Marketing studies and research. 3rd ed. Decitre, 1993. https://www.decitre.fr/livres/market-9782100055562.html

57.

Glaser

Strauss

. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. 1st ed. Routledge, 1999. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206

58.

Gkypali

Arvanitis

Tsekouras

. Absorptive capacity, exporting activities, innovation openness and innovation performance: a SEM approach towards a unifying framework. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 2018; 132: 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.025

59.

Moretti

Biancardi

. Inbound open innovation and firm performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 2020; 5(1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2018.03.001

60.

Wolf

Dobrucka

Przekop

, et al. PANDA as a startup-orientated cooperative innovation strategy for the chemical and pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Industrial Integration and Management 2022; 7(1): 17–45. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424862221500214

61.

Bengtsson

Lakemond

Lazzarotti

, et al. Open to a select few? Matching partners and knowledge content for open innovation performance. Creativity and Innovation Management 2015; 24(1): 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12098

62.

Qiu

Chang

The impact of digital transformation on open innovation performance: The intermediary role of digital innovation dynamic capability. PLoS ONE 2025; 20(3): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317785

63.

Måren

Karki

Prajapati

, et al.

Facing north or south: Does slope aspect impact forest stand characteristics and soil properties in a semiarid trans-Himalayan valley?

Journal of Arid Environments 2015; 121: 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.06.004

64.

Kennedy

. Guide to econometrics. 6th ed. : Wiley-Blackwell, 2008. https://www-wiley-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/en-us/A+Guide+to+Econometrics%2C+6th+Edition-p-9781405182577

65.

Sidrat

Boujelbene

. Towards an Entrepreneurial University: Case of Tunisia. Journal of Enterprising Culture 2020; 28(1): 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495820500028

66.

Hou

. Review of classical intention-based entrepreneurial models and construction of framework from combined perspectives of entrepreneurial motivation and cognition. Journal of Industrial Integration and Management 2018; 3(3): 1850012. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424862218500124

67.

Wang

Lyu

, et al. Does venture capital help to promote open innovation practice? Evidence from China. European Journal of Innovation Management 2023; 26(1): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2021-0161

68.

Zan

Leong

Ismail

, et al. Knowledge sharing and innovation performance: The mediating role of open innovation. Global Business and Organizational Excellence 2024; 43(3): 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22235

69.

Key

. How LifeScan invents and develops new products using open innovation Forbes, 8 June 2022. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenkey/2022/06/08/how-lifescan-invents-and-develops-new-products-using-open-innovation/?sh=2cbc5a819edb

70.

Bigliardi

Ferraro

Filippelli

, et al. The influence of open innovation on firm performance. International Journal of Engineering Business Management 2020; 12(1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1847979020969545