It has been suggested that it is simpler to quantitatively measure innovative climate, rather than culture (Gershon et al., 2004).
We measure innovative potential by considering the extent to which knowledge can be codified, and the available technological opportunities.
The related criticism provoked focuses mainly on the fact that measuring innovative ability as the monetary input to a process (e.g., R&D spending) or as the immediate output or results (e.g., number of new products developed, speed to market, new products as percentage of sales, number of patents generated, etc).
Entrepreneurial orientation measures the innovative, proactive and risk seeking attributes of the firm.
Concerning the mitigation of consequences, two studies were conducted and the results of the both measures were innovative.
The empirical results confirm the conventional wisdom that input and output measures of innovative activity are only marginally different between on- and off-incubator firms.
As part of a closure plan for an old unlined landfill without any gas management measures, an innovative biocover system was established.
Overall, the program values firms on the basis of criteria, such as R&D investment and patent spending, consistent with empirically tested measures of innovative activity.
In the literature on non-financial innovations in manufacturing, researchers observe mostly R&D figures, patents, R&D expenditures, or the share of research staff as measures of innovative activity (e.g., Cohen and Klepper, 1996 and Helpman, 1992).
These channels variously feed through to determinants of firm-level performance (productivity, patenting and other measures of innovative activity), entrepreneurship and industry structure (firm entry and competition), openness (trade and FDI flows) and worker/consumer welfare (wages, employment and prices, as well as product/service mix).
