Report No: ACS22413 . Republic of Ecuador Improving firms' innovation to foster productivity and diversification Innovation for productivity growth in Ecuador: Unlocking constraints through horizontal and cluster development policies . June 13, 2017 Luis Rubalcaba, Stefka Slavova, Maria Kim, Fernando Merino, Ernesto Franco Temple and Jessica Victor GTC04 LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN . 1 . Standard Disclaimer: . This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. . Copyright Statement: . The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, http://www.copyright.com/. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org. 2 Table of Contents List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Selected Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 6 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Chapter 1. Analyzing the innovation gap in Ecuador against international comparators ..................... 12 Chapter 2. Innovation profiles and barriers in 59 Ecuadorian sectors .................................................. 23 Chapter 3. Shaping innovation in sectors related to priority value chains: some preliminary results .. 32 Chapter 4. The impact of innovation on firm productivity: A CDM approach .................................... 45 Chapter 5. Supporting innovation through Cluster Development Programs ........................................ 57 Chapter 6. Economy-wide regulatory policy and innovation ............................................................... 64 Chapter 7. Concluding remarks and policy implications ...................................................................... 70 References ............................................................................................................................................. 79 Appendix I. The national innovation survey in Ecuador: some characteristics .................................... 82 Appendix II. List of institutions and firms interviewed during NLTA Mission ................................... 83 Appendix III. Some comparative results Chile vs Ecuador .................................................................. 84 Appendix IV. Econometric results: full set of tables with detailed results ........................................... 91 Appendix V. Innovation profile of 59 economic sectors (1 summary page per sector) 104............ 104 Appendix VI. Barriers to innovation: statistical information by type of barrier ................................. 105 3 List of Figures Figure 1.1. Ecuador and comparators in the GII ................................................................................... 12 Figure 1.2. Ecuador and comparators in the GII ................................................................................... 13 Figure 1.3. Ecuador in the composite international innovation indexes ............................................... 14 Figure 1.4. Spending on R&D as % of GDP (2003 and 2013) ............................................................. 15 Figure 1.5. Total (FTE) Researchers per 000’ Labor Force .................................................................. 16 Figure 1.6. GERD—financed by business Enterprise % ...................................................................... 17 Figure 1.7. Countries’ no. of publications per researcher vs annual growth of publications ................ 18 Figure 1.8. International trade in related services: Royalties and license fees, annual 2003-2012 ....... 19 Figure 1.9. Medium-high tech manufactured export share vs MVA share ........................................... 20 Figure 2.1. Importance of barriers for Ecuadorian companies, NIS 2013 ............................................ 23 Figure 2.2. Sectorial concentration index for barriers to Innovation .................................................... 24 Figure 2.3. Lack of relation between relative intensity of barriers and innovation output ................... 26 Figure 2.4. Relation between barriers intensity (X) and innovation impacts (Y) ................................. 29 Figure 3.1. Firms that introduced a completely new product ............................................................... 33 Figure 3.2. Firms that introduced a completely new product (accumulated percentage) ..................... 33 Figure 3.3. Firms that introduced a significantly improved product ..................................................... 34 Figure 3.4. Motivations leading firms to innovate ................................................................................ 36 Figure 3.5. Innovation obstacles experienced by firms......................................................................... 41 Figure 3.6. Innovation obstacles experienced by firms......................................................................... 41 Figure 3.7. Innovation obstacles experienced by firms......................................................................... 42 Figure 3.8. Comparing innovation obstacles and product innovation .................................................. 43 Figure 3.9. Indexes of innovation obstacles for some agroindustry priority sectors ............................ 44 Figure 5.1. Effects of Cluster Development Programs (CDPs) ............................................................ 58 Figure 5.2. Strategic Segmentation of the global coffee industry ......................................................... 62 Figure 6.1. A Comprehensive Competition Policy Framework ............................................................ 67 4 List of Tables Table 1.1. Force (2004 and 2013). Total count by applicant's origin (equivalent count) ..................... 19 Table 1.2. Some key data on product and process innovation in Chile and Ecuador ........................... 21 Table 2.1. Barriers to innovation in Ecuador 2013: correlation matrix ................................................ 25 Table 2.2. Clustering of sectors by relative barriers intensity and relative innovation activity ............ 27 Table 2.3. Innovation impacts correlated to barriers intensity* ............................................................ 30 Table 2.4. Relation between barrier intensity and innovation impacts on domestic & foreign sales ... 31 Table 2.5. Clustering of Ecuadorian sectors ......................................................................................... 31 Table 3.1. Expenses and investments for innovation ............................................................................ 37 Table 3.2. Forms of collaboration for innovation development ............................................................ 38 Table 3.3. Use of public funding for innovation ................................................................................... 39 Table 3.4. Barriers affecting innovation in selected Ecuadorian sectors ....................................... 40 Table 4.1. Innovation expenditure by type of firm ............................................................................... 46 Table 4.2. Investment in innovation decision and intensity of investment (R&D, ICT and non-ICT) . 49 Table 4.3. Investment in Innovation Decision and Intensity of Investment (R&D and ICT) ............... 50 Table 4.4. Probability of Technological Innovation ............................................................................. 52 Table 4.5. Probability of Technological Innovation ............................................................................. 52 Table 4.6. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity ....................................................................... 53 Table 4.7. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity ....................................................................... 54 Table 5.1. Upgrading strategies in agricultural GVCs .......................................................................... 59 Table 7.1. Matrix of policy recommendations ...................................................................................... 72 Table IV.1. Innovation expenditures by type of firm............................................................................ 91 Table IV.2. Investment in Innovation Decision and Intensity of Investment (R&D, ICT and non-ICT) .............................................................................................................................................................. 92 Table IV.3. Investment in Innovation Decision and Intensity of Investment (R&D and ICT) ............. 93 Table IV.4. Probability of Technological Innovation (R&D): Complete Sample ................................ 94 Table IV.5. Probability of Technological Innovation (ICT): Complete Sample .................................. 94 Table IV.6. Probability of Technological Innovation (R&D): Manufacturing ..................................... 95 Table IV.7. Probability of Technological Innovation (ICT): Manufacturing ....................................... 95 Table IV.8. Probability of Technological Innovation (R&D): Services ............................................... 96 Table IV.9. Probability of Technological Innovation (ICT): Services ................................................. 96 Table IV.10. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity (R&D): Complete Sample ........................ 97 Table IV.11. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity (ICT): Complete Sample .......................... 98 Table IV.12. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity (R&D): Manufacturing ............................. 99 Table IV.13. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity: (ICT): Manufacturing ............................ 100 Table IV.14. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity (R&D): Services ..................................... 101 Table IV.15. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity (ICT): Services ....................................... 102 Table IV.16. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity (Non-ICT): Services ............................... 103 5 Selected Abbreviations CDP Cluster Development Program CDM The Crepon, Duguet and Mairesse model ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean EU European Union FDI Foreign Direct Investment FTE Full-time equivalents GERD Gross Expenditure on Research and Development GCR Global Competitiveness Report GDP Gross Domestic Product GII Global Innovation Index GVCs Global Value Chains ICT Information and Communication Technologies IDB Inter-American Development Bank KIBS Knowledge-Intensive Business Services LAC Latin American and Caribbean countries MIPRO Ministerio de Industrias y Productividad (Ministry of Industry and Productivity) NIS National Innovation Survey NLTA Non-Lending Technical Assistance NQI National Quality Infrastructure OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PPD Public-Private Dialogue R&D Research and Development SAE Siste de Acreditación Ecuatoriano SENESCYT Secretaria Nacional de Educacion Superior, Ciencia, Tecnologia e Innovación SME Small and Medium Enterprise WBG The World Bank Group 6 Acknowledgements This report was produced by a World Bank team led by Maria D. Kim (Private Sector Specialist, GTC04) including Stefka Slavova (Lead Economist, GTC10), Ernesto Franco Temple (Senior Private Sector Specialist, GTCLA), Luis Rubalcaba, Jessica Victor and Fernando Merino (Consultants); with contributions from Mariana Vijil (Young Professional, GTC04) for the macroeconomic context and from Tanja Goodwin (Economist, GTC03) for competition issues. The authors acknowledge the helpful guidance and comments from Marialisa Motta (Practice Manager, Trade & Competitiveness), Indu John-Abraham (Ecuador Country Representative), Pedro L. Rodriguez (Program Leader, LCCU3), Alberto Rodriguez (Country Director, LCC6C), and Jean-Louis Racine (Senior Private Sector Specialist, GTCID). Katia Lorena Argüello and Maria Caridad Gutierrez helped the team with logistical and administrative support for the missions in Ecuador. Special thanks to Esteban Ferro and Gloria Ferrer Morera (Consultants) for their technical feedback and guidance on the Value Chains Report. The team would like to thank the Ministry of Industry and Productivity (MIPRO), in particular Dennis Zurita and Maria Fernanda Niemes, for the support and fruitful interactions along the process. The authors also thank SENESCYT, INEC, and Ministry of Production, Employment, and Competitiveness (MCPEC) for their support. The World Bank team is grateful for the collaboration from a number of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the Chamber of Industry in Guayaquil in particular, and various professional associations and individual firms who provided inputs through interviews. Other thanks go to and Andres Briones for his support in Guayaquil. Thanks to Oscar Montes and Hector Lagunes for their help with data compilation. 7 Introduction 1. Over the last decade, Ecuador experienced inclusive growth fueled by a favorable external environment that financed a large expansion of the public sector. The country’s economy grew at an average of 4.2 percent over the 2006-14 period, above the Latin America and Caribbean (LCR) regional average. Poverty rates fell from 37.6 percent to 23.3 percent between 2006 and 2015, mostly due to labor income growth. The bottom 40 percent of the population experienced nearly 7 percent of annualized income growth rates, higher than the national average of about 4 percent, reducing inequality. Government spending more than doubled, from 20 percent of GDP in 2004 to 43 percent of GDP in 2014, supported by high oil prices until mid-2014. 2. The country now faces severe external and fiscal challenges due to the major and non- temporary fall in oil prices and the appreciation of the U.S. dollar. Since mid-2014, Ecuador has lost almost half of its merchandise export income due to the fall in oil prices. Yet, oil revenues averaged 13.2 percent of GDP between 2011 and 2014 and one-third of total fiscal revenues. This has opened wide macroeconomic imbalances and exposed Ecuador pre-existing vulnerabilities. As a fully dollarized economy that did not save its windfall during the boom years, Ecuador cannot soften adjustment via a nominal depreciation or a drawdown of macroeconomic buffers. The strengthening of the U.S. dollar and the major currency depreciations in neighboring trading partners also place pressures on external competitiveness. Furthermore, access to external borrowing has become more limited. Consequently, the burden of the adjustment falls squarely on fiscal and income policies. 3. Stagnating private investment, among which structurally low Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), did not follow the public sector expansion. Private investment declined from a peak of 16.6 percent of GDP in 2006 to 14.1 percent in 2015. Inward FDI stock has stagnated since 1995 at 16 percent of GDP. Inward FDI flows have been below 1 percent of GDP almost every year since 2006, among the lowest levels in LCR. Since 2011, more than 40 percent of Ecuador’s FDI flows have gone to oil and mining, capital-intensive sectors with weak links to the rest of the economy, limiting prospects for diversification. The domestic market is relatively too small to attract market-seeking FDI; and low productivity gains relative to increase in wages, trade costs and investment climate factors hamper Ecuador’s capacity to attract and retain efficiency-seeking FDI relative to competitors. 4. Increasing productivity through innovation and diversification is urgent and critical for economic growth in Ecuador. This recent context has created the need for improvements in private sector competitiveness to foster private investment, which will require productivity gains. Total Factor Productivity in Ecuador has explained less than one-fifth of the GDP growth since the 1970s, one of the lowest ratios in Latin America. In contrast with other countries in the region, Ecuador’s services contributed less than industry to labor productivity growth between 2001 and 2011. The level and growth of services labor productivity remain below the regional Latin American average. Considering the challenging macroeconomic environment and structural vulnerabilities, this report focuses on achieving productivity improvements through innovation and diversification into higher value-added products and services. 5. Transforming the productive matrix has been a policy priority of the Ecuadorian government over the past 7 years. From 2010 to 2013, the Coordinating Ministry of Production, Employment and Competitiveness (MCPEC) led the preparation of “Productive Territorial Transformation Agendas”, which aimed, among other things, to improve productivity, the quality of national production, and to diversify products and services with increased value-added, in particular for export. Then, in 2014, the Vice President’s Office published the flagship report called the “National Strategy for the Change of the Productive Matrix,” which is the seminal policy statement and vision for economic diversification during the second term of President Correa. In 2015, Bain & Company produced the “Ecuador Productivo 2025” document, which analyzed productive chains in agricultural, agro-forestry, fishing industries and intermediate industries and presented investment strategies for their growth. In 2014, the Economic Commission for Latin America and Caribbean (ECLAC) undertook studies on the tourism, software, cocoa, shrimp, capital goods, medicine for human consumption and solid waste value chains 8 for the Vice President’s Office. Finally, in 2016, the Government of Ecuador adopted an industrial policy prepared by the Ministry of Industry and Productivity (MIPRO). 6. In this context, innovation is a key imperative for Ecuador, as the current situation of certain sectors reveals. The Ecuadorian economy is famous worldwide for its oil production, tourism to Galapagos islands, and some agricultural or agroindustry products like bananas, shrimps, flowers, cocoa beans, roasted coffee or canned tuna. The most successful products are heavily based on natural resources, which are not considered the most innovative nor the most value-added ones—which are critical attributes when industrial sectors face competitiveness problems. The coffee agroindustry sector provides an example. In 1994, Ecuador exported 1 million of roasted coffee bags (compared to only 250 thousand now), and most of the coffee exported today uses green coffee beans imported from Vietnam. Despite recent on-going research experimenting with 11 types of coffee beans to assess new varieties that may lead to higher value-added exports, Ecuador is lagging behind other competing economies and productivity is its main handicap: coffee productivity can be up to ten times higher in Brazil and seven times higher in Colombia. Still, not that much innovation goes toward specialty coffee or the so-called café de altura (high-land coffee). Another example is in the textile sector: the oil crisis started the annual decrease of employment reported in about 10% – out of 160 thousand-, and imports from Asia are increasing due to their competitive prices. A few companies have managed to successfully export new designer clothes to niche markets, but most are severely declining in their businesses and will likely die out over the coming years. In some sectors and subsectors, innovation is needed to improve productivity and increase exports, in others it is necessary to avoid dying out. In all cases, there is need to go into more productive companies and into new business where Ecuador may have a comparative advantages. 7. The innovation gap is not a problem exclusive to Ecuador; other LAC countries also face similar problems, but in Ecuador, the innovation imperative is more urgent. Some innovation does exist in Ecuador, leading to higher exports in competitive markets, like in the case of the companies producing tuna-based products, new packaging methods for dairy products, or software companies exporting financial software for banks-- but these are exceptions. Lack of innovation is a general problem in LAC (Lederman et al, 2013). However, it is a greater problem in Ecuador than in many other countries. Because of its dollarized economy, Ecuador cannot compete through currency devaluations, so quality and productivity are the smart way to compete. Because Ecuador’s economy depends on few products with high price volatility and very little absorption of technology and knowledge, so innovation is needed to move into more value-added products. 8. This report identifies challenges and solutions for innovation in Ecuadorian companies at the sectorial level. The focus is on the barriers to innovation and the relationship between barriers and innovation impacts, with the ultimate goal of helping to formulate policy initiative in the area of innovation. This report complements previous reports done at the aggregated level, this one being the first at sectorial level, offering detailed information for selected sectors. 9. This innovation report builds on previous World Bank Group technical assistance studies that have identified significant gaps in productivity, knowledge-intensive business services, and regulation. Previous WBG studies have demonstrated the productivity struggle in Ecuador. Ferro, Iacovone et al (2013) 1 compared how productivity performance can be up to 300 times higher in Chile than in Ecuador in some sectors. They identified that the highest rates of firm entry are in low value- added sectors (e.g. retail), and showed that the majority of firms grow slowly and remain small with limited innovation (only 35 percent survive 5 years). Poor firm performance and competitiveness are also evidenced by the impact of the 2009 global trade collapse on Ecuadorian exports and the decrease in the number of products exported since the mid-2000s (Rekas, 2015).2 Previous WBG work on 1 Rekas, M. (2015). Republic of Ecuador Fostering Productivity for Export and Growth. Technical Note. November 2015 Report No: ACS16906. The World Bank Group. 2 Ferro, E., Iacovone, L., Kapil, N and Fernandez, C. (2013) “Economic Diversification and Economic Opportunities through Enterprise Growth”, World Bank, April 2013. 9 services (Rubalcaba et al, 2015, 20163) has proved how knowledge and technology can contribute to the growth of Ecuadorian companies through the use of knowledge-intensive services, which are powerful innovation drivers in the country but face constraints both in the demand (e.g., too little use) and in the supply side (e.g., little amount and poor quality). The Investment Climate Reform Memorandum for Ecuador (Franco-Temple and Victor, 2015) documents key obstacles and regulations affecting investment climate. 10. Previous reports also show that improving innovation is an effective way to affect productivity and growth in Ecuador. The WBG Country Economic Memorandum (CEM) (2016) identified that while factor accumulation supported growth, productivity gains have remained low and declining. 4 Reasons cited include low private investment, limited FDI, slow and limited trade diversification, cumbersome business environment, job creation in low-skilled activities and lack of innovation (e.g., Slavova et al., 2016). However, the CEM concluded that when effective innovation is obtained, the results on productive and growth are positive. Various WBG reports, as well as others (Guaipatín and Schwartz, 2014), point to problems in the Ecuadorian innovation system. This report emphasizes the need to increase understanding of major constraints to diversification and productivity, echoing the conclusion of the Ecuador Country Engagement Note (CEN) FY16-FY17. In that sense, this report focuses on innovation at the sectorial level as major driver to diversification and productivity. 11. The report is organized to provide insights on Ecuadorian innovation, from the aggregated perspective to the sectorial one. The following table shows the methodological framework for the different sections of the report. The first chapter begins by analyzing international rankings for innovation to place Ecuador in the current global picture. Then, it updates some of the previous studies showing the main aggregate data for the Ecuadorian innovation system (World Bank, 2016; Guaipatín and Schwartz, 2014) to focus on the role of private sector for R&D and innovation. Chapter 1 ends with a sectorial approach comparing some Ecuadorian sectors with the Chilean ones, since Chile is the regional benchmarking and allows some comparable results. The second chapter focuses on barriers to innovation for 59 Ecuadorian sectors using date from the national innovation survey. The third chapter provides an outlook on innovation issues for seven selected sectors, in order to approach priority value chains identified under component 1 of this NLTA. The fourth chapter provides an econometric analysis to test the impact of barriers on innovation results. Finally, some concluding remarks and policy recommendation are provided. The main statistical resource of the report is the national innovation survey 20135, which will be presented at the beginning of chapter 2. The selection of sectors has been determined by the data availability (chapter 2) and the value chains under the prioritization exercise in component 1 of this NLTA (chapter 3). Besides the statistical sources, the field work in Ecuador, based on meetings with firms, chambers of commerce, associations and policy makers provided all essential inputs for this work. The table below presents the main country focus, sectorial focus, analytical target and data sources for each section of the report. 3 Rubalcaba, L, Gago, D., Ariano, M, Tripathi, A. (2016) Services and innovation for the competitiveness of the Ecuadorian economy, Policy Research Working Paper 7767, The World Bank Group. Rubalcaba, L., Gago, D., Montes, O., Pérez, L. M., and Briones, A. (2015) Supply of and Demand for Industrial Services in Ecuador: Diagnosis and Action Plan for Knowledge-Intensive Business Services. Mipro and the World Bank Group. 4 The World Bank Group (2016) Ecuador: Country Economic Memorandum. Productivity Growth under Adverse Global Conditions Report No. 102745-EC. 5 The 2015 survey data was not yet available at the time of the work on this report. 10 Methodological framework for the report Chapter/ Section Country focus Sectorial focus Analytical target Data Sources 1.a Global Innovation Index and Position in international Ecuador against Global Competitiveness rankings main international Aggregated (no sectorial Report 1.b comparators focus) Key data on R&D and RICYT, UNCTAD and innovation OECD statistics 1.c Ecuador against 7 Selected sectors for Chile, the regional which data are Identifying gaps at sector level National Innovation Surveys leader comparable 2 59 sectors: all industrial Role of barriers to innovation: Ecuador National Innovation Survey and services with data cross-sector comparator 3. National Innovation Survey 5 selected sectors related Shaping innovation and key and qualitative information Ecuador to priority value chains issues from the December 2016 plus two services sectors mission 4. Total, manufacturing and Impacts on innovation barriers, Ecuador National Innovation Survey services by econometrics 5. Cluster development and key Ecuador Priority value chains Field work issues 6. Economy-wide and main Ecuador sectors related to priority Regulatory issues Field work vale chains 11 Chapter 1. Analyzing the innovation gap in Ecuador against international comparators 12. This first chapter provides an overview of key innovation issues in Ecuador at the aggregated level to identify major strengths and gaps in innovation performance compared to international benchmarking. International benchmarking will be presented by comparing Ecuador to neighboring countries in the Andean region (Colombia, Peru, Bolivia), countries that are key references for innovation in the region (Chile and Costa Rica), other important countries in the same region (Brazil Argentina, and Mexico), and three key international comparators representing leading innovation countries in three continents (USA, Finland and Korea). The analysis will keep these comparators homogeneous, except when data was not available for any of them. Dynamics will be analyzed for the period 2003 to 2013 (or to 2014/2015/2016, when data is available). This chapter identifies the place of Ecuador in the global innovation performance according to the main international composite indicators (section 1.1) and analyzes innovation inputs and outputs performances in selected indicators (section 1.2). A third section of the chapter presents some results at the sectorial level, comparing Ecuador and Chile. 1.1. Ecuadorian innovation in international rankings 13. According to the Global Innovation Index (GII) in 2016 Ecuador ranks 100 out of 128 countries, among the lowest countries in LAC and considerably behind the regional leaders – Chile and Costa Rica— and also behind Andean neighbors Colombia and Peru. Figure 1.1 shows the place of Ecuador among selected comparator countries. Only Bolivia ranks lower than Ecuador, while Peru and Colombia rank higher (the trend 2011-2016 increasing the gap). These two neighbors have surpassed the LAC average, while other large LAC countries like Argentina, Mexico, and Brazil are also in a better position compared to Ecuador, yet still quite far from leading innovative countries. Figure 1.1. Ecuador and comparators in the GII Global Innovation Index 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ECU COL PER BOL CHL CRI LAC ARG MEX BRA KOR FIN USA GII 2011 GII 2016 Source: 2011 and 2016 reports of the GII, https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/ 14. Ecuador’s poor ranking in the GII is explained by the medium or low relative performance in three main business innovation pillars included in the index: Market Sophistication (82 of 128 in ranking), Business Sophistication (103) and Knowledge & Technology Outputs (118). In all three, Ecuador performs below the LAC average in 2016, and below Peru and Colombia (who are still very far from the regional or global leaders). In comparing 2011-2016 indexes, the best movements of Ecuador are in Market Sophistication, where some catching up with comparator countries has been registered. On Business Sophistication and Knowledge & Technology Outputs, Ecuador has worsened its position. For example, in the period 2011-2016, Ecuador dropped 15 places (from 76 to 91) in the rank of Percentage of Knowledge-intensive Employment, an indexed subcategory of the Business sophistication brand. At the same time, it dropped 38 places (from 46 to 84) in the subcategory of Knowledge and Intensive Outputs that measures profits from patent applications. 12 Figure 1.2. Ecuador and comparators in the GII Market sophistication 100 80 60 40 20 0 ECU COL PER BOL CHL CRI LAC ARG MEX BRA KOR FIN USA Market sophistication 2011 Market sophistication 2016 Business sophistication 80 60 40 20 0 ECU COL PER BOL CHL CRI LAC ARG MEX BRA KOR FIN USA Business sophistication 2011 Business sophistication 2016 Knowledge & technology outputs 80 60 40 20 0 ECU COL PER BOL CHL CRI LAC ARG MEX BRA KOR FIN USA Knowledge & technology outputs 2011 Knowledge & technology outputs 2016 Source: 2011 and 2016 reports of the GII, https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/ Note: Market sophistication includes indicators related to credit, investment, trade, and competition. Business sophistication relates to knowledge workers, knowledge absorption and innovation linkages. Knowledge & technology output relates to knowledge creation, impact and diffusion. 15. The innovation performance of Ecuador differs when measured by the Global Competitiveness Report (innovation subsection), which reports a relatively better performance of the Ecuadorian innovation system. Ecuador scores very low in innovation on the GII, ranking 100 out of 128, but performs much better on the Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) at 86 out of 140. In the GCR, there are three categories that lead to Ecuador’s higher score and rank: government procurement of advanced technology products (74), capacity for innovation (69), and university- industry collaboration in R&D (47). Two indicators that bring down the GCR score are company spending on R&D (rank 104) and the availability of scientists and engineers (111). Differences with respect to the GII can be explained by two reasons. On the one hand, they use different metrics and indicators. The CGR innovation pillar comprises about seven indicators drawn from a national survey. The GII offers more than 70 indicators combining survey data with real data sources. In fact, when GCR and GII concepts are the same, results are similar (e.g., in ‘PCT - patent application’ GCR and 13 GII rankings are nearly equivalent at 81 and 82, respectively). On the other hand, the weight of the R&D approach to innovation in GCR vs GII is different. GCR is more an R&D-based index while GII is more an innovation based-index, which explains the better performance of Ecuador in the GCR vs GII. A regression made on both composite indexes using their corresponding R&D sub-indexes show that R&D explains a higher variance of the GCR innovation score6. This suggest that Ecuador performs better in R&D than in innovation. Figure 1.3. Ecuador in the composite international innovation indexes 4 3.8 Costa Rica 3.6 Panama GCR - Innovation Pillar Score Chile 3.4 Honduras Mexico Jamaica 3.2 Colombia Uruguay Ecuador Guatemala Brazil Argentina El Salvador 3 Bolivia 2.8 Peru Dominican Republic 2.6 Paraguay 2.4 Venezuela Nicaragua 2.2 2 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Global Innovation Index Source: 2016 reports of the GII and the Global Competitiveness Report 1.2. International benchmarking on R&D and innovation: the Ecuadorian paradox 16. Based on previous section, there is a need to understand why innovation in Ecuador does not correspond with a relatively good position in R&D, referred to here as the “Ecuadorian paradox.” To approach this, this section shows a more detailed analysis on gaps regarding innovation inputs. Four indicators with available statistics have been selected: R&D / GDP, percentage of business R&D, number of researchers, and number of greenfield investments in R&D projects. Data availability is another good reason to focus on R&D indicators, because other innovation inputs do not tend to produce high-quality and comparable data. However, more importantly, R&D is selected as the key indicator because of its importance in boosting economic growth in the long run. For Ecuador, the social return rate for R&D is estimated about 47% (vs 12% for physical capital), so investment in R&D can be up to four times more profitable than investment in infrastructure (Guaipatín and Schwartz, 2014). However, the move from R&D to innovation can only be effective if the private sector is engaged, which may be behind the innovation struggles in Ecuador. 1.2.1. Recent R&D dynamics 17. In 2003, Ecuador was one of the LAC countries with the lowest rate of R&D investment (0.07% of GDP); however, between 2003-2013, Ecuador has increased its spending on R&D up 6 A 0.876 regression coefficient in explaining the GCR Innovation index against a 0.358 coefficient in explaining the GII index. Both coefficients are statistically significant at a confidence level of 99%. 14 to 0.35% of its GDP (Figure 1.4). In absolute levels, Ecuador increased more than PPP US$ 465 million, moving from US$ 47 million to US$ 512 million. Compared to the Ecuador increase of 0.27% points in 2003-2013, Latin American Region increased its spending on R&D by 0.21% points of the regional GDP, moving on average from 0.56% to 0.77%. In terms of annual growth rates, Ecuador and Peru have more than multiplied by five their GERD share in the last decade, showing annual average growth rates higher than 15% in 2003-2013. Figure 1.4. Spending Spending on R&D R&D on as % of(2003 as GDP % of GDP (2003 and 2013) and 2013) 4,5% 4,50% 4,15% 4,0% 4,00% 3,5% 3,29% 3,50% GERD as % of GDP in 2003 GERD as % of GDP in 2013 3,0% 2,73% 3,00% 2,5% 2,50% 2,0% 2,00% 1,5% 1,24% 1,50% 1,0% 0,77% 1,00% 0,62% 0,56% 0,52% 0,50% 0,39% 0,35% 0,5% 0,26% 0,50% 0,16% 2,35% 3,30% 2,55% 1,01% 0,56% 0,41% 0,36% 0,11% 0,39% 0,31% 0,07% 0,18% 0,0% 0,26% 0,00% KOR FIN USA BRA LCN ARG CRI PER MEX CHL ECU COL BOL GERD in 2003 GERD in 2013 Source: RICYT, UIS UNESCO and MSTI OECD. Note: Data for Chile (2007-2013), Ecuador (2003-2011) and Bolivia (2002-2010) refer to different periods of time. 18. The fact that public spending on R&D has risen fivefold over the period 2003-2013, with no relative improvement in Ecuador’s standing vis-à-vis other countries, suggests that government investment in R&D is less effective at generating innovation and productivity gains than private investment in R&D. (Similar studies in ECA countries, for example, corroborate this fact.) In other words, government investment in R&D does lead to more publications and patents, but due to less collaboration between research institutes, universities, and industry, may not necessarily lead to more firm-level innovation and gains in productivity. Similar studies for ECA countries have shown that, while both government and business investment in R&D increase patent registrations, only private sector R&D raises the innovation intensity of exports. Later on, Chapter 4 will report more detail on impacts-related results. 19. Despite the high growth of R&D in Ecuador, the percentage in GDP is still behind most of the comparator economies. Argentina, Brazil and Costa Rica are among those with the highest GERD share in terms of GDP (0.62%, 1.24%, 0.56% respectively) (UNESCO, 2015). Moreover, LAC countries’ R&D investment continues to be much lower than that of industrialized countries (Korea outpaces Latin America with about 4%, while Finland and the US move around 3%). The rest of these LAC countries invested less than 0.7% of its GDP in R&D. An optimal R&D level for Ecuador has been estimated in 0.96% of GDP (Guaipatín and Schwartz, 2014), which is about 2.5 times the current level. The Chile case is interesting, since it is considered to be the leader innovation country in the region (according to the GII, together to Costa Rica) but this is not due to a high R&D share. In fact, Chile's share (0.39%) is only slightly higher than Ecuador’s (0.35%). This suggests that innovation is not always narrowly linked to R&D and vice-versa. 20. The high R&D growth rate in Ecuador was associated with the consolidation of scientific institutions and institutionalization in recent years, the creation of the Yachai “city of knowledge,” and more public resources devoted to R&D. Ecuador has a national secretary for science and technology and a National Council for Science and Technology. This institutionalization is 15 different than that observed in other LAC countries (Peru has given policy planning attributes to the Science and Technology Council; as for Argentina, Brazil and Costa Rica, they all have Ministries of Science, Technology and Innovation), but goes in the same reinforcement direction. What is very specific to Ecuador is the overall high government spending on R&D and the creation of Yachai – the city of knowledge, which concentrates a large part of the public R&D efforts in recent years. 21. A major part of the R&D growth in Ecuador is due to public investment in researchers. The number of full-time equivalent (FTE) researchers per 1000 persons of the labor force in Ecuador has grown strongly between 2003 and 2011, increasing the ratio from 0.12 to 0.42. In absolute terms, this means an increase of 1,800 (FTE) researchers, moving from 645 to 2,544 (4 times more; many researchers from other countries and paid with relatively high salaries), showing an annual growth rate of 17%. FTE researchers represent 55% of the total personnel dedicated to STI activities. Comparatively, considering the period 2003-2013, there has been an increase in the number of researchers in most Latin American countries (average regional ratio rose from 0.86 to 0.88); however, together with Ecuador, Costa Rica has been the country with the most important leap of researchers. In turn, Chile and Peru have reduced the FTE researcher ratio. The increase of researchers in Ecuador is related to national programs for young researchers and PhD studies, including the US $578 investment in grants for PhD studies in highly ranked universities overseas between 2007 and 2013 (vs US$11.2 in 1993-2006) and the high number of grantees (13,961 vs 237 in 1993-2006), according to Senescyt data. Total Figure (FTE) 1.5. Researchers Total per 000' (FTE) Researchers 000’ Labor per Labour Force Force 17 17 15 14,37 12,41 No. Researchers in 2003 No. Researchers in 2013 13 11 12 9 7,92 7 7 5 2,95 3 1,48 0,89 0,88 0,74 0,71 0,42 2 0,35 0,30 0,21 1 15,88 6,57 7,5 1,80 -1 1,02 0,81 0,78 0,19 0,86 0,32 0,12 0,30 0,36 -3 -3 FIN KOR USA ARG BRA MEX LCN CRI CHL ECU BOL COL PER Researchers in 2003 Researchers in 2013 Source: RICYT and MSTI OECD NOTE: Data for Brazil (2003-2010), Uruguay (2002-2013), Chile (2007-2013), Ecuador, Mexico (2003-2011), Venezuela (2003- 2012), Paraguay (2003-2012), Bolivia (2000-2010), Nicaragua (2002-2012), Panama (2003-2012), Honduras (2000-2003), Peru (2004-2013) and Guatemala (2005-2012), refers to different years. 22. Despite an important growth in number of researchers in Ecuador, the overall rate of researchers per 1000 labor force (0.42) remains far below from regional LAC average (0.88) and even more from developed countries. In 2013, Argentina was the LAC country with the largest number of researchers (2.95), followed by Brazil (1.48), Mexico (0.89), Costa Rica (0.74) and Chile (0.71). Ecuador FTE researchers accounted for 0.42, half of the Latin American average (0.88) and way below the US (7.92), Korea (12.4) or Finland (14.4). 23. The growth of R&D in Ecuador has to be explained by the role of the public sector providing more resources for it, with private companies playing a very minor role, which in contrast with the main role played by private companies doing R&D in OECD countries. Business sector in Ecuador contributed with 0.99% to R&D funding in 2011, (at the best maximum up to 9% in 2008 according to the data compiled by Guaipatín and Schwartz, 2014, pp.60) while the LAC average accounted around 40%. Therefore, the government remains the main source of funding (68%), followed by higher education (19%) and sources abroad (11%). The business sector shows a very marginal 16 contribution (0.99%) in contrast to LAC regional average (41%) and more developed economies (74% in Korea, 70% in Finland and 63% in the US). In Peru and Colombia, the contribution of private sector in R&D is about 30%, which shows that the poor performance of private sector is not just a regional issue: Ecuador suffers particular heavier problems in this regard. Figure 1.6. GERD—financed by business Enterprise % GERD - financed by Business enterprise % 75,7% % of GERD financed in 2013 80% 80% % of GERD financed in 2003 70% 60,9% 70% 60,8% 60% 60% 50% 40,4% 50% 36,6% 34,5% 40% 31,7% 31,7% 29,2% 40% 30% 21,3% 30% 20% 20% 10% 7,7% 6,0% 10% 74,0% 63,3% 70,0% 46,7% 39,9% 38,9% 25,7% 31,1% 10,0% 26,1% 1,0% 0% 0% 37,3% 16,0% 18,2% -10% -10% KOR USA FIN BRA LCN CHL COL MEX PER ARG CRI BOL ECU % of Business financed GERD 2003 % of Business financed GERD 2013 Source: RICYT, UIS UNESCO and MSTI OECD. Note: Data for Ecuador (2006-2011), Chile (2007-2013), Costa Rica (2008-2013) Argentina (2003-2012) and Bolivia (2002-2009) refers to different periods. Values for Peru (2003-2005) are those referred to the % of GERD performed by business, which has been taken as a proxy. 24. Ecuadorian business contribution to GERD has fallen drastically in both magnitude and scope in the period 2003-2013, from 18% to 1%, due to the lack of collaborative public-private R&D policies and the lack of firm size, capabilities, and investment conditions for private R&D. The fall in this indicator has been the general trend in most Latin American countries, but more in Ecuador than in other countries. Regional average business contribution to GERD value felt 3.28 percentage points of regional GDP during the 2003-2013 decade, from 39.9% to 36.6%. The country that experienced the highest drop of the business share was Costa Rica, with a fall of almost 30 percent points (passing from 37.3% to 7.7%). Bolivia also showed an important decline, with a fall of 10% (from 16% to 6%). In contrast, the case of Colombia experienced a positive growth in the period, with a slight increase of 6%, reaching a share of almost 32%. International studies (OECD, UN and CAF, 2014; Guaipatín and Schwartz, 2014) argue that this situation is due to conditions that limit innovation to become profitable investments for companies, including (among others) the market structure they face, less competitive and more segmented markets, their positioning along the GVCs, the ability of enterprises to appropriate the benefits of investing in innovation (including a suitable tax regime), the shortage of skilled human resources and the long-term disability of companies to build internal innovation capabilities. For the Ecuadorian case, the limited-investment environment for promoting R&D in private sector is another cause in the lack of public-private collaborative R&D policies; the public boost has not brought innovation to the private sector. 1.2.2. Key innovation output indicators 25. The increase of public R&D and researchers in Ecuador has produced a substantial increase in number of publications in scientific journals (SCI and SSCI) during the 2003-2013 decade: 2.5 times (from 96 to 256 publications), allowing Ecuador to reach the LAC average in this indicator. The general trend in Ecuador in this decade has been significant (9.8% annual average growth), highlighting the years 2004-2005, 2008-2009 and especially 2011-2012, where the annual growth of the number of publications was of 35%, 34% and an outstanding 86%, respectively. Comparing with the LAC region and selected countries, the average annual growth in Ecuador has been slightly higher than the LAC region (9.6%). Regarding the most relevant neighbors, its growth has been rather poor in contrast to Colombia (with an average annual growth rate of almost 20%), Peru (with a 12,4% annual growth) and to a lesser extent to Brazil (with an average annual rate of 11%), since both countries managed to increase by 6.8 and 3.06 times the number of publications in the reference period, respectively. With respect to more developed countries, the United States (the world leader in scientific 17 production based on the SCI and SSCI indicators) and Finland both showed lower but stable and sustained development over time, with average annual growth rates of 3.2% and 3.4%, respectively. As for Korea, the annual growth rate was slightly higher (10%) compared to Ecuador. Figure 1.7. Countries’ no. of publications per researcher vs annual growth of publications 1.0 Published docs /Total researchers Chile 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Colombia (2013) 0.5 Mexico Peru 0.4 0.3 USA Finland 0.2 Brazil Argentina Costa Rica 0.1 Bolivia Ecuador Korea 0.0 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Publications' annual average growth 2003-2013 Source: WDI 2016, OECD Stats, RICYT, Scimago Journal Rank 1 Note: Data on published documents and number of researchers is from 2011 for Ecuador and from 2010 for Bolivia and Brazil. 2 Note: Article counts of scientific and technical journals refer to those classified by the Institute for Scientific Information's Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). 26. In terms of the number of publications per researcher, Ecuador has made an important effort toward catching up with more developed economies. This productivity measure puts Ecuador researching system among the less productive in the Latin American region in 20137 (0.12 publications per researcher), while Peru and Colombia show much better numbers (0.43 and 0.63, respectively). Chile continues to be the region leader, with 0.94 publications per researcher in 2013. This measure gives some indication of catching up with developed economies, for which researcher productivity rates are generally lower (the world leaders USA, Finland and Korea have rates of 0.32, 0.27 and 0.09, respectively). One challenge in terms of publications is moving from some areas where Ecuador is well positioned, such agriculture, and environmental publications, to others with potential like computer science, materials sciences and molecular biology (Guaipatín and Schwartz, 2014). 27. Regarding the number of patents in force, Ecuador had an average annual growth rate of 10% for the period 2004-2013 (Table 1.1), at the same level as Costa Rica (10%) and Bolivia (10.2%), but far behind Colombia (22%) and Chile (27.3%). An opportunity for improvement exists, especially in patenting in developed markets. Of the total patent applications, non-residents have been the main actors of experienced growth, with an average annual rate of 6.36% (increasing from 415 to 690 applications). The contribution of the residents has been rather marginal. There have been 56 applications in the reference period, showing a negative 7% average annual rate, where applications dropped from 7 to 4. Patents remain a pending issue in most LAC countries, especially compared to developed economies. In the case of Ecuador, lack of intellectual property rights does not explain the gap in patents, but the legal and environmental aspects related to IPR (Guaipatín and Schwartz, 2014). 7 Ecuador’s data on number of publications and country researchers is actually from 2011, due to latest data availability. 18 Table 1.1. Force (2004 and 2013). Total count by applicant's origin (equivalent count) Origin Origin (Code) Office 2004 2013 % avg annual growth United States of America US Total 1,197,462 1,827,040 4.7 Republic of Korea KR Total 254,203 756,779 12.1 Finland FI Total 17,394 45,232 10.6 Mexico MX Total 1,832 4,688 10.4 Brazil BR Total 1,612 4,596 11.6 Chile CL Total 141 1,642 27.3 Argentina AR Total 664 1,119 5.8 Colombia CO Total 79 574 22.0 Peru PE Total 90 122 3.4 Costa Rica CR Total 44 108 10.0 Ecuador EC Total 22 56 10.4 Bolivia BO Total 4 10 10.2 Source: WIPO statistics database 28. Ecuador has little and deficit trade on intellectual property. In 2012 (UNCTAD data), Ecuador's trade in royalties and licenses fees as percentage of the total trade in service (balance, exports minus imports) is negative (-2.78%), and recent trends do not show a positive evolution (Figure 1.8). This means Ecuador is net importer of technology and knowledge. Compared to regional countries, Colombia, Brazil and Argentina have positive exports, with average shares over total trade in services of 1.35%. The most innovative countries have a higher role of royalties and licenses fees both on the exports and imports side (more percentages of royalties and licenses exports and imports in total exports and total imports). International trade in related services: Royalties and license Figure 1.8. International trade in related services: Royalties and license fees, annual 2003-2012 fees: annual 2003-2012 % of total trade in services (IMPORTS) 14 ARG 12 10 8 CHL 6 BRA COL CRI 4 PER ECU 2 MEX BOL 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 % of total trade in services (EXPORTS) Source: UNCTAD Stats Note: Figures for Mexico (2004) and Bolivia and Peru (2011) refer to different years. 29. Business innovation in Ecuador is concentrated toward exports, not toward domestic markets. Percentage of mid-high technological manufacturing in total manufacturing exports is higher than in countries like Chile and Peru, but Ecuador’s share in total manufacturing value-added (mostly domestic) in 2013 remains among the lowest of the region (8.1%). As for the med-high-tech manufactured export share in total manufacturing exports, Ecuador (15.8%) earns better numbers than Chile (11.1%), Peru (6.1%) and Bolivia (4.1%); however, it is still far away from Mexico (78.3%) and 19 Costa Rica (62.5%). This situation could be due to Mexico and (to a lesser extent) Central America achieving a radical transformation from commodities to medium- and high-tech manufactured products, thanks to special import regimes and export-oriented manufacturing. In turn, the technological content of South American exports has not changed, given their specialization in primary production (UNESCO, 2015). This suggests that existing innovations in Ecuador are linked to the export markets, while the domestic markets largely remain in traditional sectors with little or no innovation. In terms of policy implications, this evidence suggests that innovation policies may be more effective when oriented to foreign markets, going in hand with export promotion and international trade agreements policies. Figure 1.9. Medium-high Medium-High tech manufactured export Tech manufactured export share vs MVA share share vs MVA in total manufacturing (2013), % share in total manufacturing (2013) Mid-High Tech MVA share in total 70% KOR 60% manufacturing USA 50% MEX 40% BRA FIN 30% ARG COL 20% CHL CRI PER ECU 10% BOL 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Med-high tech manufactured export share in total manufact exports Source: UNIDO Database CIP 2015 figures 1.3. Comparing innovation in Ecuador and Chile for selected industrial sectors 30. This section compares key innovation profiles of seven economic sectors in Ecuador against the same sectors in Chile. The seven sectors have been chosen due to their importance for the Ecuadorian economy and the existence of similar categories in the Chilean survey: agroindustry, textiles, plastics, wood industry, metal-mechanics, software and business services. Chile was selected because it represents the regional frontier in innovation (together with Costa Rica, but Chile is more similar to Ecuador than Costa Rica). In this section, we compare national innovation surveys. Chile also provides microdata that can be compared to Ecuadorian microdata to some extent. Both countries have a similar innovation survey following a similar methodology (Annex I presents some details on the Ecuadorian survey). However, because innovation surveys are self-reporting, bias does exist when innovation perceptions are different between the two countries. Comparison will be based on two innovation indicators: i) % of innovative companies’ and ii) % of companies affected by barriers to innovation (11 types of barriers). 31. According to the national surveys on innovation, Ecuador has many innovative companies. According to the National Innovation Survey (NIS) 2013 (by Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Censos (INEC)), Ecuadorian innovative companies are about 58% of the total (higher than the EU average of about 50%) and also higher that Chile in most economic sectors: for most selected sectors, for each Chilean company doing product innovation there are about two Ecuadorian companies (percentages are similar in process innovation). These results are opposed to the older ones from the 2010 World Bank Enterprise Survey8, where Ecuador was behind Chile both in product innovation (20% versus 33%) and in process innovation (30% versus 47%). The different results between the two surveys can be partly explained by methodological differences and samples in the both surveys, and partly by a real increase of Ecuadorian companies considering themselves as innovators. Either way, the relatively high numbers of innovators in the country contrasts with the fact Ecuador is performing very modestly in innovation 8 Most recent available 20 according to the GII and other indicators such as patents. This suggests that there is quantitative innovation in the country but not that much quality, since the innovation impacts are not very visible. Table 1.2. Some key data on product and process innovation in Chile and Ecuador Chile Ecuador Product innovators (%) (A) 9.31 18.33 Of which, Innovation for their markets (%) (B) 25.62 6.71 Product innovators in their markets (A X B) 2.38 1.22 Process innovators (%) (C) 14.67 16.02 Of which, process innovators for their markets (%) (D) 15.51 3.97 Process innovators in their markets (C X D) 2.27 0.63 Source: based on national innovation surveys in Chile and in Ecuador for the sectors selected in this chapter. 32. The same national surveys show that there are more innovative companies in Ecuador than in Chile, indicating that the relevance of innovation to the market is much higher in Chile than in Ecuador. From the set of innovative companies, there are more declaring to innovate for the market in Chile than in Ecuador: about 26% against 7% in product innovation, 4% against 16% in process innovations (Table 1.2). In other words, there are two times more product innovators and almost four times more process innovators in Chile than in Ecuador. Therefore, even if Ecuador could be considered to have more innovative companies in terms of the self-reporting national surveys, the quality of that innovation, measured by relevance of their market innovation, is much higher in Chile. 33. Regarding the seven selected sectors, in all of them the main aforementioned results are repeated (see Annex III): despite that there are more self-reported innovators in Ecuador than in Chile, the relevance for the market is much higher in Chile. For example, in agroindustry, surveys report more than 50% of technological innovations in Ecuador, while only less than 35% in Chile. But almost 35% of Chilean innovators perform innovation for their markets, while only 10% in Ecuador. The same pattern is similar in sectors such as textiles and wood industries. The market innovation gap is much higher for sectors such as business services, metal-mechanics and plastics. The gap is not very important in software and IT services. In the case of services, this heterogeneity reflects the well-known competitive advantages of some Ecuadorian software services (like those specialized in financial software), the lack of innovativeness in professional business services such as consultancy (very dependent to public administration under a non-pro-innovative environment due to public procurement rules), and the lack of openness of those markets to international competition. 34. Regarding barriers to innovation, the most striking result is that barriers are perceived as more important to Chilean companies than to Ecuadorian ones (see Appendix III). In all sectors, for almost all barriers, the percentage of companies considering serious obstacles to innovation are 20 to 40 percent points higher in Chile than in Ecuador. This can be to two possible reasons: 1) the barriers to innovation are higher in Chile than in Ecuador, what is very unlikely because Chile is the regional frontier and Ecuador is lagging way behind; or 2) perception of barriers is more mature in Chile than in Ecuador, so Chilean companies are more aware and are more conscious about what hampers innovation. The second hypothesis is more realistic since previous studies (The World Bank, 2015) have also reported a lack of innovation culture in Ecuadorian companies, so their concept of innovation is wider and they perceive barriers in a less harmful way (e.g., obstacles are less important for replacing an old machinery than for creating a new product). The few cases where innovation barriers are perceived to be higher in Ecuador than in Chile could be particularly serious barriers affecting those sectors. This is the case of lack of information on technologies for the textile sectors, for example. 35. Among the different types of barriers to innovation, the most important ones are those related to cost of innovation and access to financing sources. This is particularly true in agroindustry, textiles, 21 wood and furniture industries, software and business services. In plastics or metal-mechanics, the lack of information on technologies may have a higher importance in relative terms. In all sectors, the lack of information on markets or the difficulties to meet new partners are not very important. The lack of qualified personnel for innovation as a major barrier offers surprising results: in agroindustry this is a major obstacle for 30% of Chilean companies, and only for 7% of companies in Ecuador. Similar evidence is found in other sectors like plastics, metal-mechanics, wood industries and business services, while the difference between Ecuador and Chile is small in textiles and software. Again, the explanation could rely on the hypothesis that Ecuador has better qualified workers for innovation, better qualified workers in relative terms (minimum qualifications can be enough to innovate in Ecuador), or, alternatively, on conceptual and statistical problems when responding surveys, given that previous studies have reported the problem of “all-purposing” (“todólogos”) in the Ecuadorian companies (i.e., lack of specialization for innovation goes with a somewhat popular belief that specialized workers are not necessary for innovation). 22 Chapter 2. Innovation profiles and barriers in 59 Ecuadorian sectors 36. This chapter provides evidence on innovation at sectorial level, obtained from the National Survey of Innovation Activities 2013. The output of this section is mainly provided in the appendices to this report (Appendix V and VI are provided in separate files):  Appendix I: Details about the Ecuador national innovation survey  Appendix V: Innovation profile of each of 59 industrial sectors (1 summary page per sector)  Appendix VI: Barriers to innovation: statistical information by type of barrier 37. The main text summarizes the results related to barriers in the 59 sectors. 2.1. Importance of barriers to innovation in Ecuadorian industrial sectors. 38. The main innovation barriers in Ecuadorian sectors relate to the cost of innovation and access to finance. The sectors most affected by each one of the barriers are very different. No common pattern can be established. However, most sectors complain about the cost of innovation and access to finance (Figure 2.1). About 24% of firms declare that cost of innovation (adding all kind of internal and external resources) is highly important, thus being the main obstacle, while access to external finance is reported as highly important by 13% only. That means a significant number of firms consider the cost of innovation to be important, regardless the availability of funding. Among other type of barriers, lack of information about technology is reported by 10% of firms on average, while difficulties to find an innovation partner are reported by just 9% of firms. Competition issues (markets dominated by other companies) are reported by 13% of companies, while uncertainty in markets is reported by 11%. The less relevant barriers are the low demand for innovation products (7%) and the lack of qualified workers (less than 9%). Problems with IPR issues are only reported by 2% of companies in the sample. Figure 2.1. Importance of barriers for Ecuadorian companies, NIS 2013 High cost Lack of internal funding Competition issues on dominants Lack of external funding Demand uncertainty Past innovations, no need for more Lack of info on technology Difficulties to reach partners Lack of info on markets Lack of qualified workers in country Low demand of innovative products IPR issues 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 Source: Based on the national innovation survey, 2013 39. All barriers have similar importance across sectors overall, but in particular cases, there are some interesting differences. Figure 2.2 represents the main six types of innovation barriers included in the survey. A sectorial concentration index has been built based on the number of sectors whose importance is above 25% and 50% more than the average. For example, the ‘high cost’ barrier has the 23 lowest rate in the graph because out of 50 sectors reporting comparable data on this barrier, only 11 are above 25% of the overall average of affected companies: high cost is reported more or less equally in all sectors. Therefore, some problems are more equally distributed among the sectors while some other affect to a more limited number of sectors (e.g., lack on information on markets). Figure 2.2. Sectorial concentration index for barriers to Innovation Lack of info on markets Lack of info on technology Lack of qualified workers in country High cost Lack of external funding Lack of internal funding 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 Source: Based on the national innovation survey, 2013 Note: The index is built based on the percentage of sectors for which the importance of barriers is higher than the average in a 25% and 50% (outliers sectors). 40. Many barriers fall into categories, given that there is a high correlation between them. Financial barriers are the most serious ones and they all are very interrelated. Table 2.1 shows the correlation matrix for the barriers in the survey. There are some interesting results:  The correlation between ‘lack of funds in the company’, ‘access to external funds’ to finance innovation and ‘high cost of innovation’ is high, so all financial concerns are connected and represent a major impediment to innovation suggested by previous studies for Ecuador (The World Bank 2015) and other countries (Álvarez and Crespi, 2015).  The correlation between the barriers that refer to ‘lack of qualified personnel in the country’, ‘lack of information on technology’ and ‘lack of information on the markets’ is equally high. Although information on technology and the market does not come only from qualified personnel, qualified staff is needed to get information and knowledge on technology and markets.  The correlation between large blocks (linked to financing, linked to information / skilled personnel, linked previous innovations and the rest) is relatively small, which indicates that there is a different casuistry between sectors, as can be seen in which sectors are most affected by each of the barriers to innovation. 24 Table 2.1. Barriers to innovation in Ecuador 2013: correlation matrix barrfond barrfin barrcos barrpers barrinft barrinfm barrsoc barrmdo barrince barrinpr barrdem barrfin 0.6885 1.0000 barrcos 0.7840 0.6120 1.0000 barrpers 0.4587 0.2740 0.4036 1.0000 barrinft 0.4202 0.3273 0.3972 0.7113 1.0000 barrinfm 0.3596 0.1879 0.4228 0.4668 0.6878 1.0000 barrsoc 0.4338 0.2161 0.3382 0.6063 0.5399 0.4743 1.0000 barrmdo 0.4183 0.2111 0.5245 0.3226 0.3882 0.5232 0.2760 1.0000 barrince 0.3312 0.2610 0.3793 0.3867 0.3152 0.4170 0.2282 0.6114 1.0000 barrinpr -0.1360 -0.2180 -0.2265 -0.3377 -0.4602 -0.3504 -0.4480 -0.1669 -0.1989 1.0000 barrdem -0.2455 -0.3125 -0.1874 -0.2420 -0.2218 -0.1166 -0.2383 0.0130 -0.3519 0.3778 1.0000 Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities Labels: barrfond: Lack of funds in the company; barrfin: Lack of external funding sources; barrcos: High innovation costs; barrpers: Lack of qualified personnel inside the country; barrinft: Lack of information on technology; barrinfm: Lack of information on markets; barrsoc: Difficult to find innovation partners; barrmdo: Markets dominated by established firms; barrince: Uncertainty of innovative products’ demand; barrinpr: Innovation is not necessary due to previously introduced innovations; barrdem: Innovation is not necessary due to lack of demand of innovative products 41. Given the array of barriers reported, this section proposes a Sectoral Synthetic Index of the Barriers to Innovation in order to analyze the importance of innovation barriers to each activity. This index is calculated for each sector by the number of barriers above the average percentage of companies that indicated barriers are of ‘high importance’. Thus, a sector will take the value X if for X of the 11 barriers that specific sector is among the ten most affected (in terms of the percentage of companies saying that barrier has a "high" importance) for each barrier. Results are shown in Annex III. From this index, two interesting results can be reported. 42. First, significant differences at the sectorial level do exist, according to the companies’ views reported in the survey. While sectors of activity such as manufacture of leather and related products or manufacture of automotives are among the ten most affected by nine of the 11 barriers, according to the own respondents on the survey, many other sectors do not appear among the most affected by any of the barriers. These sectors are quite numerous and include sectors generally very active in innovation and affected by barriers, such as such as metal-mechanics, pharmaceuticals, agroindustry, activities of architecture and engineering, technical assays and analysis, and civil engineering works. The same question arises as the previously reported comparison of Ecuador and Chile: are there not significant barriers in these sectors or are the perceptions of barriers affecting the responses, due to a lack of innovation culture? 43. Second, the role of barriers in innovation output is not clear: there is no correlation between innovation outputs and innovation barriers. This result is obtained after analyzing those sectors most affected by barriers and their innovation activity. Figure 2.3 shows the total lack of correlation, suggesting there is much to explain between barriers and innovation outputs. Some sectors can be more successful in producing innovation, despite having more barriers to innovate than others with less barriers. This unexpected result is coherent with the relevance of other success factors beyond barriers. Since barriers are only reported as high problems for about 15-25% of companies, it is believed other factors (not reported as barriers in the survey) like investment, human capital or technology absorption and adoption could be much more relevant than the classical barriers listed in the survey (finance, information). Policy implications can be advanced here: policies toward reduction of barriers such as access to finance and information on technology and markets may be necessary, but not sufficient to get better innovation outputs. 25 Figure 2.3. Lack of relation between relative intensity of barriers and innovation output Innovative activities and barriers (sectorial) 70% 60% 50% % of firms that innovate 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Relative intensity on teh innovation barriers Non technological innovation Technological innovation Linear (Non technological innovation) Linear (Technological innovation) Fuente: Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación 44. Despite the lack of correlation between barriers and innovation outputs, the sectors can be classified in clusters of high-poor innovation outputs vs high-low impact of barriers. Results are shown in Table 2.22. This typology of sectors is useful to identify which sectors are relative innovation winners despite relative high obstacles to innovation (e.g., furniture industries on technological innovation), which are low performance sectors (in terms of innovation outputs) despite low barriers (e.g, paper industries related to non-technological innovation) and which sectors suffers a lot of obstacles and perform the worst (e.g., the water sector in technological innovation). 26 Table 2.2. Clustering of sectors9 by relative barriers intensity and relative innovation activity Barriers Low High Technological High Q86 N82 N79 M73 M70 K66 K65 K64 J62 J61 J60 J59 J58 H53 C32 C31 C29 C18 C15 innovation I56 G47 G45 F41 E38 D35 C28 C27 C25 C24 C23 C22 C21 C14 B09 C20 C17 C13 C11 C10 B07 Low N77 M74 M71 M69 L68 I55 H52 H51 H50 H49 G46 F43 M72 E36 F42 C33 C16 B08 B06 Non-technological High Q86 N82 M74 M73 M71 M70 K65 K64 J62 J61 J60 J59 J58 H53 E36 C32 C31 C29 C15 innovation H51 G47 G45 F43 F42 F41 E38 D35 C27 C24 C21 C20 C14 B09 C17 C16 C13 C10 B07 B06 Low N79 N77 M69 L68 K66 I56 I55 H52 H50 H49 G46 C33 M72 C18 C28 C25 C23 C22 C17 C11 B08 Product High M71 M70 K66 K64 J62 J58 H51 C27 C24 C23 C20 C17 H53 C32 C29 innovation for the C13 C10 market Low Q86 N82 N79 N77 M74 M73 M69 L68 K65 J61 J60 J59 I56 M72 E36 C31 C18 C15 C14 I55 H52 H50 H49 G47 G46 G45 F43 F42 F41 E38 D35 C33 B09 C28 C25 C22 C21 C16 C11 B08 B07 B06 Process High N79 M70 K66 H51 C27 C24 C21 H53 B09 innovation for the markets Low Q86 N82 N77 M74 M73 M71 M69 L68 K65 K64 J62 J61 M72 E36 C32 C31 C29 C18 J60 J59 J58 I56 I55 H52 H50 H49 G47 G46 G45 F43 F42 C15 C14 F41 E38 D35 C33 C28 C25 C23 C22 C20 C17 C16 C13 C11 C10 B08 B07 B06 Source: Clustering based on the innovation national survey Note: for equivalences of sectoral codes and titles see footnote 2.2. Role of barriers to innovation and innovation impacts 45. Innovation impacts measured by domestic sales and foreign sales are not correlated in Ecuadorian industries, suggesting that the two markets are not connected via innovation. Among the data available in the National Survey of Innovation Activities 2013, there are two variables that allow for approximating innovation impacts: the ‘percentage of sales that companies attribute to innovation’ and ‘the percentage of exports that companies attribute to innovation’. These two indicators 9 Code labels: original in Spanish.B05+b06: extracción de carbón, petróleo crudo y gas natural; B07: extracción de minerales metalíferos; B08: explotación de otras minas y canteras; B09: actividades de servicios de apoyo para la explotación de minas y canteras; C10: elaboración de productos alimenticios; C11: elaboración de bebidas; C13: fabricación de productos textiles; C14: fabricación de prendas de vestir; C15: fabricación de cueros y productos conexos; C16: producción de madera y fabricación de productos de madera y corcho, excepto muebles; fabricación de artículos de paja; C17: fabricación de papel y de productos de papel C18: impresión y reproducción de grabaciones; C19+c20: fabricación de coque y de prod. De la refinación del petróleo y prod. Quimicos; C21: fabricación de productos farmacéuticos, sustancias químicas medicinales y productos botánicos de uso farmacéutico; C22: fabricación de productos de caucho y plástico; C23: fabricación de otros productos minerales no metálicos; C24: fabricación de metales comunes; C25: fabricación de productos elaborados de metal, excepto maquinaria y equipo; C26+c27: fabricación de eq. Informático, óptico y eléctrico; C28: fabricación de maquinaria y equipo ncp; C29+c30: fabricación de vehículos automotores, remolques y semirremolques; C31: fabricación de muebles; C32: otras industrias manufactureras; C33: reparación e instalación de maquinaria y equipo; D35: suministro de electricidad, gas, vapor y aire acondicionado; E36: captación, tratamiento y distribución de agua; E38+e39: recolección, tratamiento, descontaminación y eliminación de desechos, recuperación de materiales; F41: construcción de edificios; F42: obras de ingeniería civil; F43: actividades especializadas de la construcción; G45: comercio y reparación de vehículos automotores y motocicletas; G46: comercio al por mayor, excepto el de vehículos automotores y motocicletas; G47: comercio al por menor, excepto el de vehículos automotores y motocicletas; H49: transporte por vía terrestre y por tuberías; H50: transporte por vía acuática. H51: transporte por vía aérea; H52: almacenamiento y actividades de apoyo al transporte; H53: actividades postales y de mensajería; I55: actividades de alojamiento; I56: servicio de alimento y bebida; J58: actividades de publicación; J59: actividades de producción de películas cinematográficas, vídeos y programas de televisión, grabación de sonido y edición. J60: actividades de programación y transmisión; J61: telecomunicaciones; J62+j63: programación informática, consultoría de informática y actividades conexas; K64: actividades de servicios financieros, excepto las de seguros y fondos de pensiones; K65: seguros, reaseguros y fondos de pensiones, excepto los planes de seguridad social de afiliación obligatoria; K66: actividades auxiliares de las actividades de servicios financieros; L68: actividades inmobiliarias; M69: actividades jurídicas y de contabilidad; M70: actividades de oficinas principales; actividades de consultoría de gestión; M71: actividades de arquitectura e ingeniería; ensayos y análisis técnicos; M72: investigación científica y desarrollo; M73: publicidad y estudios de mercado; M74: otras actividades profesionales, científicas y técnicas; N77: actividades de alquiler y arrendamiento; N79+n80+n81: ag. De viajes y conexas, seg. E investigación; N80: actividades de seguridad e investigación, serv. A edificios; Q86+q87: actividades de atenc. Salud humana y atenc. En instituciones 27 are not correlated (r<0.1), which suggests domestic and foreign markets are not very integrated and innovation is not necessarily a mechanism to move from national markets to international ones. 46. Despite barriers not being directly correlated with the innovation outputs (as discussed in the previous section), they may be associated with innovation performance (measured by impacts on sales or exports). However, the data show no correlation again. Although the existence of barriers may not be decisive for the innovative process to obtain innovations, they may influence other characteristics that are linked to innovation performance; that is, barriers may affect the innovation capacity to transform business. However, as shown in Figure 2.3, there is no correlation. The “quality” of innovation, measured by its impact, is not significantly explained by the presence of barriers. Again, other factors not included in the list of barriers in the survey, like technology absorption and adoption capacity, innovation culture, or market intelligence, may play a much bigger role in getting better impacts. 28 Figure 2.4. Relation between barriers intensity (X) and innovation impacts (Y) Impacts on Sales and barriers Impacts on Exports and barriers 47. Beyond correlations, econometric results show non-significant relationship between most barriers and impacts on domestic and foreign sales. However, there are some exceptions: access to financial markets does affect domestic sales and access to information on foreign makers does affect exports. Two econometric models were estimated relating the average value of sales and exports that companies attribute to innovations and the average intensity of each of the innovation barriers identified by the companies in each sector. The results of these estimates, shown in Table 2.3, highlight that most barriers are not statistically and significantly associated to the two innovation impact indicators considered. A more detailed analysis of each of the barriers shows that in the case of sales in 29 the domestic market, the most important factor is financial barriers, while in the case of exports, it is information on markets. Table 2.3. Innovation impacts correlated to barriers intensity* Linear regression Number of obs = 53 F( 11, 41) = 2.39 % domestic sales due to innovation Prob > F = 0.0215 R-squared = 0.2958 Root MSE = .09911 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robust vtapinnov | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| icació [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- barrfondos | .233902 .2868831 0.82 0.420 -.3454701 .8132741 barrfin | -.673012 .246116 -2.73 0.009 -1.170053 -.1759706 barrcos | .4224638 .2455301 1.72 0.093 -.0733944 .9183219 barrpers | .0631682 .3627256 0.17 0.863 -.669371 .7957075 barrinft | -.1457931 .3627574 -0.40 0.690 -.8783966 .5868104 barrinfm | .1115364 .3362251 0.33 0.742 -.5674839 .7905568 barrsoc | .2177175 .3702499 0.59 0.560 -.5300174 .9654523 barrmdo | .064261 .1992552 0.32 0.749 -.3381431 .4666651 barrincert | .1689487 .3965465 0.43 0.672 -.6318931 .9697905 barrinpr | .2773831 .3468672 0.80 0.429 -.4231294 .9778956 barrdemin | .2213165 .2234229 0.99 0.328 -.2298951 .6725281 _cons | .2012426 .0808407 2.49 0.017 .0379815 .3645036 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Linear regression Number of obs = 53 F( 11, 41) = 0.93 % exports due to Innovation Prob > F = 0.5188 R-squared = 0.3155 Root MSE = .06613 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robust exppinnov | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- barrfondos | -.4364554 .2706428 -1.61 0.114 -.9830297 .1101189 barrfin | -.0789356 .195784 -0.40 0.689 -.4743294 .3164582 barrcos | .0823812 .2026259 0.41 0.686 -.32683 .4915924 barrpers | -.047035 .2861485 -0.16 0.870 -.6249235 .5308535 barrinft | .5869958 .278563 2.11 0.041 .0244264 1.149565 barrinfm | -.5478218 .2872989 -1.91 0.064 -1.128034 .0323901 barrsoc | .2674681 .218493 1.22 0.228 -.1737874 .7087235 barrmdo | .1563533 .2193238 0.71 0.480 -.28658 .5992867 barrincert | .3020971 .2940991 1.03 0.310 -.291848 .8960422 barrinpr | .5201915 .2930795 1.77 0.083 -.0716945 1.112078 barrdemin | -.1812577 .2658029 -0.68 0.499 -.7180575 .3555421 _cons | -.0283902 .043472 -0.65 0.517 -.1161837 .0594033 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities Labels: vtapinnov: % of domestic sales due to innovation; exppinnov: % of exports due to innovation; barrfond: Lack of funds in the company; barrfin: Lack of external funding sources; barrcos: High innovation costs; barrpers: Lack of qualified personnel inside the country; barrinft: Lack of information on technology; barrinfm: Lack of information on markets; barrsoc: Difficult to find innovation partners; barrmdo: Markets dominated by established firms; barrince: Uncertainty of innovative products’ demand; barrinp r: Innovation is not necessary due to previously introduced innovations; barrdem: Innovation is not necessary due to lack of demand of innovative products (*) Regression in this table should be taken as correlation because the causality effect cannot be proven, in particular as other firm characteristics are not part of the regression and multicollinearity might also be an issue. 48. Despite the lack of correlation between barriers and innovation performance (i.e., sales and exports), sectors can be classified in clusters of high-poor innovation performance vs high-low impacts of barriers. Results are shown in Table 2.4. This typology of sectors can be useful to determine which sectors are relative winners in innovation performance despite relative high obstacles to innovation (e.g., furniture industries, mining services, postal services), which are low innovation performance sectors despite relative they face to low barriers (e.g., agroindustry, metal-mechanics, pharmaceuticals, financial services, utilities) and there are sectors suffering a lot of obstacles and performing badly (e.g., other manufacturing and clothing related to impacts on exports). 30 Table 2.4. Relation between barrier intensity and innovation impacts on domestic & foreign sales N82 N79 M74 M73 M71 M69 L68 K64 J62 J61 J60 I56 I55 H53 E36 C31 C29 C18 C15 C14 B09 High Impacts on H52 H51 H49 G47 G46 G45 F43 F42 F41 C33 C27 C23 C20 sales in C17 C13 national Q86 N77 M70 K66 K65 J59 J58 H50 E38 D35 C28 C25 C24 M72 C32 Low markets C22 C21 C16 C11 C10 B08 B07 B06 Low barriers High barriers gh M69 J62 G46 C27 C24 C20 C17 C16 C13 C11 C10 H53 C32 C31 C18 B09 Hi Impacts Q86 N82 N79 N77 M74 M73 M71 M70 L68 K66 K65 K64 J61 M72 E36 C29 C15 C14 Low on exports J60 J59 J58 I56 I55 H52 H51 H50 H49 G47 G45 F43 F42 F41 E38 D35 C33 C28 C25 C23 C22 C21 B08 B07 B06 Low barriers High barriers Source: Clustering based on the innovation national survey Note: for equivalences of sectoral codes and titles see footnote in previous table 49. The agroindustry and furniture industries are two examples of relatively innovative sectors with different importance of barriers and different innovation outcomes. Table 2.5shows the number of sectors included in previous tables (Table 2.2 and Table 2.4) and places agroindustry and furniture in it. Agroindustry represents a sector not heavily affected by barriers that is relatively innovative and oriented to exports. Furniture is another relatively innovative sector but suffering a higher importance of barriers, which is not an obstacle for the transmission of positive impacts from innovation into local sales and international exports. Table 2.5. Clustering of Ecuadorian sectors affected by barriers, innovation outcomes and impact outcomes Number of sectors in each cluster and the place of agroindustry and furniture (examples) (total sectors = 59; NIS, 2103) Outcome Low importance of High importance of degree barriers barriers High 32 (incl. Agroindustry) 8 (incl. furniture) Technological innovation Low 17 2 High 31 (incl. Agroindustry) 8 (incl. furniture) Non-technological innovation Low 19 2 Product innovation for the High 14 (incl. Agroindustry) 3 market Low 35 7 (incl. furniture) Process innovation for the High 7 2 market Low 42 (incl. Agroindustry) 8 (incl. furniture) Impacts on sales in national High 28 8 (incl. furniture) markets Low 20 (incl. Agroindustry) 2 Impacts on exports in national High 11 (incl. Agroindustry) 5 (incl. furniture) markets Low 37 5 Source: National innovation survey, 2013 31 Chapter 3. Shaping innovation in sectors related to priority value chains: some preliminary results 50. This chapter tackles sectors related to priority value chains (defined as priorities by the Ministry of Industry and Productivity - MIPRO; these will be hereby referred to as “priority sectors”).10 These are eight agroindustry sectors and two from manufacturing industry; for this chapter, two services sectors have been added. Agroindustry priority sectors are meat products, fishing products, milk products, coffee, cocoa, palm, fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, conserved fruits and vegetables and bananas and plantains. Manufacturing priority sectors are wood furniture and textiles. Sectors from the service industry are software development and professional services. Businesses have been gathered together according to the code (CPC) of their main product (either a good or a service). In showing results, agroindustry priority sectors will be presented altogether, given that the number of businesses in every sector is too small to be considered statistically representative. Nonetheless, results on individual agroindustry sectors can be seen in Annex IV; though, some results are to be presented at the end of the chapter. 51. This chapter complements chapter 2 about innovation in the main sectors of Ecuador by offering more details on some innovation issues related to these selected priority value chains. The chapter serves as a link between component 1 of World Bank’s Technical Assistance on priority value chains, and component 2 about the state of innovation in the main country’s industry sectors. Nonetheless, it must be noted that this chapter (and the previous one as well) focuses on sectors and not individual value chains, even if sectors are defined by businesses’ main products (e.g. all businesses making wooden furniture will be considered ‘wood and furniture’, it does not matter if their activity belongs to another sector). 52. The analysis in this chapter is limited due to an important lack of significance in statistical representability. The sample of observed sectors in the national innovation survey 2013 is limited and considered to be non-representative of the whole group, from a statistical perspective. This caveat regards INEC criteria on statistical representation, which considers data only to be representative if made public through their web portal, and not at the detailed level presented in this chapter. Thus, results should be seen as limited to the answers provided by surveyed businesses and do not necessarily reflect the sector as a whole (or group of sectors). Qualitative interactions with a selected group of stakeholders in Ecuador confirm that results are sound in general terms, despite the representation issues, affecting all priority sectors in this chapter and software companies in particular (only 20 firms in the sample vs 83 in agroindustry and 2000 in textiles). 53. These results should still be considered preliminary, because a more in-depth analysis on innovation is needed to identify problems and solutions for each value chain, an approach beyond the scope and resources of this chapter. Analysis in this chapter combines only statistical results from the national innovation survey with qualitative information obtained through interviews undertaken in a December 2016 mission by the World Bank. 3.1. Product innovation 54. Among the observed sectors, some are more innovative than the average – measured by number of products that are completely new. This is confirmed in software, agroindustry and wooden furniture. Textile products and professional services are less innovative than the average. Agroindustry priority sectors consist of a total of 79 surveyed firms. Among them, 25% introduced at least one product that is completely new (Figure 3.1). Meat product firms, fishing product firms and milk product firms stand out because of their size and innovative capacity (see Table IV.1). The textile sector consists of 194 firms, wooden furniture consists of 66 firms, professional services of 105 and software development of 20. The biggest proportion of firms introducing a new product belongs to software development: 50% of firms. After these, 26% of wooden furniture firms introduced a new product and 25% of 10 This process is described in the “Competitive reinforcement of value chains in Ecuador” report (Kim, 2017). 32 agroindustry firms did so. In turn, a shorter 14% of professional service firms introduced a new product and only 12% of textile firms did so. Differences of innovation levels in priority sectors suggest that innovation policy should take into account individual aspects regarding each sector. Figure 3.1. Firms that introduced a completely new product Agroindustry Textiles Wooden Furniture Professional Services Software Total Survey 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities 55. Innovation for international markets does not seem to be a priority, except for software development firms. The same firms that introduced a new product were also asked to which ‘space limit’ the products are to be considered new: either only within the enterprise environment, within the national market or within the international market. Professional services firms and software development firms are the ones that reached a bigger proportion of innovation within national and international markets. Following them are firms from agroindustry sectors, which reached a level of national and international innovation slightly higher than the national average (Figure 3.2). Professional service firms and software development firms (the most intensive ones in use of knowledge) are the ones with a higher proportion of innovations in international markets. The low relevance of international market innovations suggests a need for promoting innovations with higher impact, especially in manufacturing industry sectors. Figure 3.2. Firms that introduced a completely new product (accumulated percentage) Agroindustry Textiles Wooden Furniture Professional Services Software Total Survey 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Firm National market International market Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities 56. Regarding product improvement, priority sectors reach better results compared to the national average. At least 30% of firms introduced a significant improvement in almost every sector (Figure 3.3). When asking firms about their significant improvements, numbers become somewhat 33 different to those shown before about new products. Academic literature on innovation11 gives particular attention to products that are completely new (especially when products are new for international markets). However, significantly improved products are more frequent and it is thanks to these that innovation more easily reaches improvement through change. In software development, we find the higher proportion of firms that introduced significant product improvements; the lowest one corresponds to professional services, where 60% of software firms introduced at least one significant improvement, 44% of wooden furniture firms introduced improvements, while only 39% of textile confection firms and 33% of agroindustry firms did so. The lowest incidence of this kind of innovation is among professional services firms, with 19%. This is the only sector represented in the graph that is under the national average. Results are consistent with the academic literature on innovation, which anticipates lower innovation rates among service firms than industry firms 12. At the same time, when focusing on service firms, most improved products are concentrated in firms which require a more intensive use of knowledge; this is also often mentioned in innovation literature (e.g. Tether, 2005). Among the agroindustry sectors, meat products, milk products, coffee and cocoa are the ones that introduced product improvements (see Table IV.2). Product improvement, as opposed to new product generation, could be a more appropriate strategy for industry growth. Figure 3.3. Firms that introduced a significantly improved product Agroindustry Textiles Wooden Furniture Professional Services Software Total Survey 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities 57. Interviews with firms from the observed sectors provided useful information about some products and innovative processes in sectors oriented to exports. Agroindustry sectors offer some examples, such as,  Canned tuna firms, which in later years created 20 product varieties (and some new products apart from the canning process, like tuna hamburger or soup with fish ingredients). Such innovative behavior is noticeably different from artisanal fishing, which is not integrated into the exporting cluster and is devoted to fisheries other than tuna. Some fisheries may have an important potential for development, like in the case of fresh tuna, which has a high added value but demands better coordination along the chain, starting with the fishermen, and an important incorporation of technology and innovation for the cold chain process, currently not available within the country.  In the coffee sector, the National Association of Coffee Exporters (ANECAFE) is pursuing innovation through its “Taza dorado” competitions and through a private experimental farm where they are testing 11 varieties of coffee to identify the best one. The province of Manabí, where ANECAFE is located, is relatively low altitude and as such not well suited to specialty coffee. This coffee would come from high altitude areas such as Loja, Pichincha, Imbabura, etc… 11 The literature often distinguishes two types of product innovation: products that are completely new and products that were improved to some significant extent (see González, 2000; OCDE 2005). 12 See Miles, 1993, Miles and Tether, 2003, and Rubalcaba et al, , 2010 for a wider discussion about differences between service innovation and manufacturing industry innovation 34  In the wood sector, there are also some innovations worth considering, like balsa tree plywood for windmills, yachts and other uses. There is considerable scope for adding value to wood planks, for example, many of which are currently exported to China for further value addition.  In process innovation, Grupo Vilaseca (producers of fruits, vegetables, milk products, organic food, bottling and packaging, etc.) has introduced knowledge and technology in every process, including packaging plants (among the most advanced in the world) and a computing center in Switzerland. Grupo Vilaseca exemplifies a modern and innovative firm, open to international markets and ready to compete through quality and productivity, overcoming rising costs and regulatory barriers at the national level. 58. There are also good examples of product and process innovation in non-agroindustry sectors: in typically less innovative manufacturing sectors – like textiles– and in typically more innovative service sectors – like software development. The textiles sector is experiencing a major economic crisis and the only firms capable of emerging are those who have innovated and entered into specialized niche markets, such as activewear. Firms like Fibran, assembling soccer shirts for selection soccer teams, or Ingesa, producing the Tess brand for women activewear (after traditionally being a socks brand), are good examples of innovative firms oriented to exportations. Currently they export to countries like Colombia, Peru, USA, among others. In the services sectors, software is the one with a higher number of innovative products. After the rise of financial software – around 30 years ago – the sector has been developing new products for assisting farming activities with GPS systems, and software for towns and cities wanting to become ‘smart cities’. 3.2. Motivations for innovation 59. Motivations for innovation are generally a consequence of seeking opportunities or facing competing businesses, rather than norms or mandates: around 40% of all firms are motivated by detected, non-satisfied demands. In general, frequency of response of software firms in the survey questionnaire is higher than the rest. That may indicate that this sector is particularly aware of how to generate innovation. Likewise, frequency of response of the sectors here represented is generally higher than the national average. Among the reasons why firms are motivated to innovate are highly frequent detection of a non-satisfied demand within the market, ideas generated from inside firms, threat from competing firms and scientific and technological novelties (Figure 3.4). Meanwhile, regulations and changes in intellectual property law are seldom mentioned. This is perfectly aligned with previous studies on innovation motivation (e.g. Dosi, 1988). For that reason, we should keep in mind that any attempt to implement a policy for promoting innovation should put in first place aspects such as capacity of employees for idea generation and benefiting from new technology developments. Regulatory changes are necessary, but they are not much determinant by themselves in most cases. Environmental reasons may also play a role in motivation for innovation, although no data exist on this. 35 Figure 3.4. Motivations leading firms to innovate Opportunities Detection non-satisfied demand within market Benefiting from a new idea or novel scientific- technological improvements Benefiting from a new idea from within the own firm 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Agroindustry Textiles Wooden Furniture Professional Services Software Total Survey Norms, laws and regulation Regulations (national, international, public, private) Changes in intelectual property law Certification processes 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Agroindustry Textiles Wooden Furniture Professional Services Software Total Survey Problem solving Threaten from competing firms Technical problems 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Agroindustry Textiles Wooden Furniture Professional Services Software Total Survey Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities 60. The World Bank’s mission to Ecuador in December 2016 found innovation was a firm’s response to cost factors, often related to loss of competitiveness. Contributing factors include the crisis in domestic demand derived from the reduction of oil prices in 2014 and structural deficiencies of the economy of Ecuador, exacerbated by strong international competition and improvements in competitiveness of Colombia and Peru. Firms that innovated within the textile sector tried to face the sector crisis and competition from Asian imports in niches where they could compete with higher value- added market segments. In the case of coffee, current research in collaboration with the Manabí University on 11 different varieties seeks to compensate the productivity deficit against Colombia and 36 Brazil by finding coffee varieties that may have competitive advantage in Ecuador’s weather. In the processed coffee and canned tuna businesses, the deficit of local raw materials led to some sort of process innovation by importing raw materials (green coffee and tuna fish) from cheaper countries (Vietnam and neighbor countries, respectively). The goal was to compensate for the loss of relative competitiveness and profit and leverage big investments previously made in coffee processing plants and tuna canning facilities. Nonetheless, this strategy has some risks, and other kinds of innovations (product, process and organization) will be necessary to maintain sustainable competitiveness, which will require new investments. Finally, firms from the coffee and tuna sectors also highlighted the importance of making innovation for reaching quality standards established by big market operators, frequently higher than those established by governments. An illustrative example is in audits carried out on canned tuna firms exporting for the Subway trade-mark. They demand high standards for products, social responsibility, and labor health. This allows Latin American firms – particularly from Ecuador – to incorporate into GVCs, facing competitors from Asiawith lower costs and lower capacity to meet social and product standards. 3.3. Expenses and investments for innovation 61. Among the priority sectors plus the two services ones, firms from agroindustry and software development sectors are the ones with higher expenditures on innovation activity. They invest almost twice the national average on R&D, measured by the number of firms making investments. R&D contributes the most to product innovation development, which is needed to be competitive within international markets. However, it is an expensive activity, which keeps most firms from developing it. Nonetheless, 50% of software development firms declared they do have internal R&D, while 35% of firms in priority agroindustry sectors did. The rest of firms also have internal R&D, but in lower proportions (Table 3.1). External R&D is an alternative that allows for reduction in costs and taking less from the firm’s own resources. In this regard, 12% of firms in agroindustry sectors declared they use external R&D. Firms in the rest of sectors use it in rates lower than (or equal to) 5%. Table 3.1. Expenses and investments for innovation Software Wooden Textile Professional Total Agroindustry development furniture confectioning services survey No. of firms 83 20 68 200 169 2815 Did internal R&D 31% 50% 10% 17% 18% 19 Did external R&D 12 5 4 5 5 6 Invested in equipment 48 15 47 45 26 35 acquisition Invested in hardware acquisition 17 35 13 12 20 18 Invested in software acquisition 17 35 7 12 15 17 Invested in acquisition of un- 2 10 3 5 4 4 incorporated technology Invested in consultancy and 23 75 13 15 18 15 technical assistance Invested in engineering and 12 5 3 3 5 5 industrial design activities Invested in employee training 34 45 18 18 28 23 Invested in market research 8 20 7 4 6 8 Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities 62. Regarding other types of innovation investments, after software firms, firms in agroindustry priority sectors show higher rates than the rest on hiring consultancy and technical assistance, employee training and market research. Almost half of agroindustry firms, wooden furniture, and textile firms acquired new equipment. In turn, hardware and software acquisition is more common among firms in software development and professional services sectors. Software development firms 37 show noticeably higher rates in hiring consultancy and technical assistance, employee training and market research. 3.4. Collaboration and external sources of information in innovation development 63. The percentage of firms declaring that they introduced an innovation as a result of collaboration (or making an adaptation of another one that already exists) is generally low (Table 3.2). The highest rate corresponds to software development firms, from which 20% introduced an innovation by collaboration. Only 7% of firms of the agroindustry priority sectors developed an innovation by collaboration; meanwhile, rates in the rest of sectors are even lower. Nonetheless, when only firms that succeeded in introducing an innovation are considered, rates of collaboration are similar among compared sectors (see Annex III). In general, a higher proportion of firms declared they developed their innovations completely by themselves, more than the national average (noticeably, software development and wooden furniture did so by 65% and 54%, respectively). These results are coherent with a previous study by the World Bank (2015) about knowledge-intensive business services: there is a lack of resources for collaboration, specialization and capacity to absorb external knowledge. Table 3.2. Forms of collaboration for innovation development No. of Main Product By the Collaboration with Adapting an Other firms firm itself another institution extant innovation institution 83 Agroindustry 35% 7% 2% 0% 20 Software development 65 20 5 0 68 Wooden furniture 54 6 3 0 200 Textile confectioning 40 2 5 1 169 Professional services 27 3 3 0 2815 Total survey 20 2 2 0 Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities 64. Firms in software development and agroindustry sectors use, in general, external sources of information more frequently. The use of external sources of information is an important part in the innovation process and it often makes an effective complement and substitute for firms’ internal idea generation capacity (see Chesbrough, 2006). External sources more frequently used by firms in represented sectors are consultancies, internet, exhibitions, conferences, expositions, magazines and catalogues. Although in little proportion, agroindustry firms are the ones who more frequently use databases of scientific publications, patents, and intellectual property. 3.5. Sources of public funding for innovation 65. Contrary to what might be expected, it is not frequent for firms to know about public funding programs, and it is even less common for firms to accede to one of them. In most sectors, awareness of the existence of programs does not even reach 20% (not even 10% in many cases), and access to funding programs generally does not reach 10% of firms. Considering that innovation costs and lack of funding sources are among the main barriers to innovation, public funding should become a useful instrument for promotion of innovation. Furthermore, when risk jeopardizes firms’ resources, having the benefit of counting on public funds will help to eliminate fear of risk and make decisions in favor of innovation. 66. Among the many programs mentioned in the survey questionnaire, the best known is the program for quality systems ISO 9001:2008. Almost 70% of firms in agroindustry and professional services priority sectors declared to know the program, while firms in the rest of sectors declared to know the program in rates ranging from 45% to 60%. However, only a small percentage of firms were able to benefit from the program’s funds (19% in the case of agroindustry sectors and 2% in the case of 38 textile sector, for example). Regarding the rest of programs, for the most part, access rates are not higher than 10%. 67. Access rates to innovation promotion programs are noticeably low. The Assembly Plants Register program and the Innova Ecuador program are especially targeted to promoting innovation. Only 5% of professional services firms declared to know the former one and 3% in the case of textile firms, 2% in the case of agroindustry firms, and 0% in the rest of sectors (Table 3.3). Program access rate was null in every case, according to our sample, which typically has a bias to firms with higher interest on innovation (higher than those which do not take part in the survey). As for the second, 25% of software firms declared to know the Innova Ecuador program, while 14% of agroindustry firms and 9% of wooden furniture firms did as well. 15% of software firms did get funds. Among the rest, only 1% of textile firms and professional services firms were able to accede to the program funds. Table 3.3. Use of public funding for innovation Aiding for innovation programs Assembly Succeed_ Innova Succee_ Other Succee_ No. of plants ed Ecuador ded ded firms Main Product register 84 Agroindustry 2% 0% 14% 0% 1% 0% 20 Software development 0 0 25 15 0 0 66 Wooden furniture 0 0 9 0 2 2 198 Textile confectioning 3 0 14 1 0 0 167 Professional services 5 0 9 1 0 0 2815 Total survey 3 0 12 1 0 0 Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities 3.6. Obstacles to innovation 68. The importance of barriers for firms is not the same depending on sectors: Table 3.4 reports different types of innovation barriers affecting some selected sector and the total of the Ecuadorian economy. Manufacturing sectors such as wooden industry and textiles report more importance of barriers than agroindustry sectors. High innovation costs is the most important barrier in the country, particularly grave in the case of wooden furniture and professional services, less than the national average for the agroindustry sector. Information on technology is a relevant problem for wooden industry and professional services not that much for textiles of software. Among the selected sector in the table, textiles industries are the one with higher problems finding the right qualified employee for innovation. Therefore, different sectors have different profiles on issues to be solved. 39 Table 3.4. Barriers affecting innovation in selected Ecuadorian sectors (in bold, cases where importance is 50% higher than the total national in the survey) Total Agro- Textiles Wooden Professional Software Survey industr Furniture Services y High innovation costs 23.5 22.8 20.0 40.9 34.5 21.9 Lack of financial resources within the firm 15.9 11.4 30.0 33.3 20.1 17.1 Established firms dominating markets 13.0 20.3 15.0 28.8 20.1 10.5 Lack of financial sources from external sources 12.9 19.0 25.0 21.2 18.6 15.2 Uncertainty of demand for innovative products 11.0 12.7 20.0 16.7 21.6 12.4 No need of innovation due to previous innovations introduced by the firm 10.9 6.3 5.0 0.0 9.3 12.4 Lack of information on technology 10.4 10.1 5.0 19.7 23.7 5.7 Difficult to find partners for collaborating 9.3 11.4 25.0 13.6 16.5 8.6 Lack of information on markets 9.1 11.4 20.0 16.7 20.6 7.6 Lack of qualified employees within the country 8.6 3.8 25.0 12.1 19.1 10.5 Lack of qualified employees within firms 8.8 7.6 10.0 16.7 20.6 5.7 No need of innovation due to lack of demand 7.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 7.2 6.7 Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities, 2013 69. The main obstacles to innovation relate to availability of financial resources: between 20% and 40% of firms in every sector mentioned innovation costs as an important obstacle , as shown in survey responses13. High innovation costs, lack of financing from external sources, and lack of internal financial resources are among the most frequent responses in general (Figure 3.5). All sectors being highly sensitive to cost and finance obstacles suggest that it is convenient to adopt horizontal policies for helping firms to obtain innovation credits, along with vertical policies of specific actions for aiding firms from sectors in need of information or struggling with competition. 70. Among cost obstacles, the high cost of innovation activities is the most frequently mentioned (Figure 3.5). Lack of external financing sources is more frequently considered to be an obstacle than lack of internal sources among manufacturing sectors; the opposite can be seen in of agroindustry and service sectors. More than 40% of wooden furniture firms and almost 35% of professional services firms mentioned innovation cost as ‘highly important’. This is noticeably higher than the highest frequencies of knowledge, market and reasons to not innovate obstacles. Lack of internal and external financing is more frequently mentioned as an obstacle by manufacturing sectors: wooden furniture and textile confectioning in particular. In the case of agroindustry priority sectors, fresh fruits and conserved fruits and vegetables give higher importance to cost obstacles. The importance of internal financing is noticeably lower among agroindustry priority sectors than among other sectors, and lower than the national total too. This may be a sign not of the financial strength of agroindustry firms, but of the necessity to reach external funds for financing innovation. 13 Survey questionnaire asks respondents to rank the importance of every obstacle; on ly ‘highly important’ responses were taken into consideration for the purposes of this report. 40 Figure 3.5. Innovation obstacles experienced by firms Cost obstacles Lack of financial resources within own firms Lack of financial sources from outside own firms High innovation costs 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Agroindustry Textiles Wooden Furniture Professional Services Software Total Survey Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities, 2013 71. Among market obstacles, supply problems (market dominance of established firms) and demand problems (uncertainty of demand for new or significantly improved products) are similarly important, although there is higher attention to demand problems among professional services and textile firms, whose frequency almost doubles that of agroindustry and software development sectors. In turn, there is higher attention to supply problems among the wooden furniture sector. Agroindustry sectors seem to be concerned with markets dominated by established firms, especially cocoa and conserved fruits and vegetables sectors. The importance given by each sector to this obstacle is generally higher than national total represented in the survey, similar to what can be seen in the case of markets dominated by established firms. The wooden furniture sector has the highest response frequency here. This kind of response goes in the opposite direction to what could be expected, given that competition within markets is usually seen as a factor pushing firms to innovate, and not that much as an obstacle. It is perhaps the wooden furniture sector that is struggling with more barriers to compete against products that are already in the market. Figure 3.6. Innovation obstacles experienced by firms Market obstacles Established firms dominating markets Uncertainty of demand for innovative products 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Agroindustry Textiles Wooden Furniture Professional Services Software Total Survey Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities, 2013 72. Textile confectioning and professional services sectors typically give higher importance to knowledge obstacles, while agroindustry and software development sectors give the lowest importance to them. However, among agroindustry priority sectors, milk products firms show a special concern toward these kinds of obstacles. There is no clear tendency to believe there is one kind of 41 obstacle more important than the rest for all sector firms. In turn, factors that are typically seen as particularly relevant for innovation activities – like employee capability and available technology – did not receive much attention, while market information and availability of innovation partners were more important. These results call for attention, because it is generally accepted that human resource capability is particularly important for innovation development, especially for innovations with “higher degree” of novelty. There are two possibilities: either there are already enough technology and employees available within the market, or firms are not aware of innovation opportunities that could emerge from having more access to technology and more capable employees. One reason for explaining the lower importance given to lack of employee capability and technology may be that this is not really perceived as a deficiency. Figure 3.7. Innovation obstacles experienced by firms Knowledge obstacles Lack of qualified employees within firms Lack of qualified employees within the country Lack of information on technology Lack of information on markets Difficult to find partners for collaborating innovation 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Agroindustry Textiles Wooden Furniture Professional Services Software Total Survey Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities, 2013 73. There is no clear link between perception of innovation obstacles and the outputs of innovation, although the observable levels of both variables differ across sectors. Figure 3.6 shows three data series comparing percentages of each sector’s new and improved products and the average percentage of cost and market obstacles (the ones more frequently mentioned). Data series of new and improved products are very similar in how they change from one sector to another14. One could expect an opposite relation between the two series of innovation and the one of obstacles. An opposite relation does exist between obstacles and new products (except for agroindustry), while improved products are against obstacles in the cases of service sectors and the total national. From observed obstacles, one could conclude that obstacles represented in the survey may have affected to a higher degree the introduction of new products when compared to improved products, and on to a lesser degree to knowledge-intensive service sectors when compared to agroindustry and manufacturing sectors. 14 Except for the textile confectioning sector. 42 Figure 3.8. Comparing innovation obstacles and product innovation 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Professional Wooden Software Total Survey Agroindustry Textiles Services Furniture Obstacles' average 15% 15% 17% 22% 23% 28% New products 50% 18% 25% 12% 14% 26% Improved products 60% 31% 33% 39% 19% 44% Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities, 2013 74. Agroindustry priority sectors giving higher importance to innovation obstacles include fresh fruits and milk products sectors, while fishing products and coffee sectors are the ones giving lower importance. Obstacles that in general receive more attention are innovation costs and market obstacles. Figure 3.9 shows individual sectors that form the agroindustry category and some indicators based on innovation obstacles. The indicators represent the average percentage of every kind of obstacle in the survey: cost obstacles, market obstacles, knowledge obstacles, reasons to not innovate, and an additional index representing the average of all them together. As shown by the all-together index, sectors giving lower importance to innovation obstacles are fish and coffee products. In turn, fresh fruits and milk products are the sectors giving the highest importance to obstacles. Reasons to not innovate were never that important, as shown in the graphic. Knowledge obstacles did not receive much attention either, except for meat products, fresh fruits and milk products. Market and cost obstacles are the ones receiving the highest importance by all agroindustry sectors and also by the rest of industry sectors. The graphic calls attention to a poor reporting of the fisheries sector regarding importance of innovation obstacles, since this is the sector with the highest number of firms (there is good reason to believe our sample does not capture the impact of the big innovative firms in the sector). 43 Figure 3.9. Indexes of innovation obstacles for some agroindustry priority sectors selected number of companies (no statistical representativeness)a Cost obstacles Market obstacles Knowledge obstacles Reasons to not innovate All-together obstacles index Fishing products 45% 40% Milk products 35% Cofee products 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Fresh fruits 0% Meat products Cocoa products FARM-FOOD Palm products Source: National Survey on Innovation Activities, 2013 a Number of firms in each sector; Fresh fruits: 6, Fishing products: 24, Palm products: 11, Agroindustry: 79, Meat products: 14, Milk products: 11, Cacao products: 5, Coffee products 5. 75. Firms interviews in December 2016 for the most part confirm the results above on innovation obstacles – as in the case of access to credit for new plants -- but they also add new elements, like the lack of openness to external markets and lack of collaboration. Strong dependence on national markets and lack of openness to external markets are among the main non-regulatory innovation obstacles for many sectors of Ecuador’s economy. This is not the case for every of the priority sectors (many of them are considerably open), but it happens in struggling sectors – like the textile one, or the meat products one, which suffer from quality, marketing and processing problems, and is oriented only to the local market. The lack of commercial agreements does not help to create the appropriate incentives to innovate and look to external markets. Lack of openness to external markets also represents a lack of FDI. Sectors like the textile and consultancy ones have a very low FDI, which hinders transfer and absorption of global innovation from multinational companies. An additional problem mentioned by firms is that there is little inter-firm collaboration in working for innovation. While there are associations and chambers making efforts to improve inter-firm collaboration, a culture of working in association to innovate does not exist, whether it may be with competing firms or universities. 44 Chapter 4. The impact of innovation on firm productivity: A CDM approach 76. Innovation is fundamental in transforming firms’ production activities and increasingly viewed as an input, alongside capital and labor, in a general production function. The innovation activities of firms play a major role in determining firm performance. There is a vast body of theoretical and empirical research, which links innovation investment, such as investment in R&D or technology adoption, to the production of innovation at the firm level (measured by the introduction of new products, new processes in production or new organizational tools and marketing techniques), and the effect of such innovations on firm-level productivity. In a sense, innovation is viewed as a knowledge input, which enters the production function alongside physical capital and labor. 77. In this chapter we present an econometric model of Ecuadorian firms’ expenditure on innovation (R&D, ICT and non-ICT investment), innovation outcomes (such as technological and non-technological innovations) and labor productivity. We estimate a variant of the classical Crepon, Duguet and Mairesse (1998) (CDM) model for a sample of 2,815 Ecuadorian firms, covered by the 2013 National Innovation Survey. The objective of this analysis is to determine the potential effects of innovation expenditure and innovation production on firm productivity and to distinguish among manufacturing and services firms as well as different types of innovation expenditure and innovation. This is motivated by recent studies of patterns of innovation in Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) firms and CDM models of innovation in many countries, including several LAC countries, such as Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay and Peru (e.g., Crespi and Zuniga (2012), Crespi, Tascir and Vargas (2016), Álvarez (2016), Aboal and Tascir (2015), Tello (2015), De Fuentes et al. (2015), among others) The chapter is organized as follows: section 4.1 presents the data and summary statistics, section 4.2 outlines the methodology and estimation model, and section 4.3 – the main results of our estimation. We show some robustness checks in section 4.4 and conclude in section 4.5. 4.1. Data and some descriptive statistics on innovation by manufacturing and services firms 78. As in earlier chapters, the data for the analysis comes from Ecuador’s National Survey of Innovation Activity 2013 (Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación 2013), carried out in 2013 and covering the period 2009-2011. The survey was conducted by Ecuador’s National Statistical Institute (INEC) and the Secretariat for Higher Education, Science, Technology and Innovation (Secretaria Nacional de Educacion Superior, Ciencia, Tecnologia e Innovación (SENESCYT)). The survey questionnaire is similar to other firm-level innovation surveys that are run regularly in EU and OECD countries. The methodology follows the so-called Oslo Manual for innovation surveys, and is in line with the methodology applied by other LAC countries. In this chapter, we utilize the survey data covering 2,815 manufacturing and services firms in Ecuador operating during the period 2009-2011.We perform initial cleaning, and exclude observations where we observe outliers and data inconsistencies (firms with less than five employees and expenditures on innovation in excess of 100% of annual sales). This is how we end up with a sample of 2,808 firms, divided into 1,499 manufacturing and 1,309 services firms. 79. To explore the differences in innovation investment and innovation output by sector, we explore differences among firms based on their technological intensity. We employ the industry classification codes at the 3-digit level (ISIC-3) to group firms into high-tech manufacturing, medium- tech manufacturing, and low-tech manufacturing. Services firms are similarly grouped into five categories: high-tech knowledge-intensive services, knowledge-intensive market services, knowledge- intensive financial services, other knowledge-intensive services, and traditional services. The definition of high-tech content of manufacturing sectors and knowledge-intensity of services sectors is taken from OECD and UN publications. Table 4.1 presents some key innovation expenditures by type of firm. It shows that high-tech manufacturing and high-tech knowledge-intensive firms in Ecuador spent the most on R&D, ICT and non-ICT innovation investments, with other knowledge-intensive service firms also 45 following closely behind. The differences are rather large: on average, high-tech service firms spent nearly 20 times what traditional service companies spent per employee on R&D, and six times what knowledge-intensive financial services firms spent on R&D. High-tech manufacturing firms spent four times the amount that medium-tech manufacturing firms spent on R&D and three times what the latter spent on ICT. Financial services firms spent as much as high-tech knowledge-intensive services on ICT – the highest expenditure on ICT registered by any group of firms. Table 4.1. Innovation expenditure by type of firm Average expenditure on R&D Average expenditure on ICT Average non-ICT expenditure per employee (2009-2011), US$ per employee (2009-2011), US$ per employee (2009-2011), US$ High-tech manufacturing 734 226 488 Medium-tech manufacturing 178 70 188 Low-tech manufacturing 295 29 147 High-tech knowledge- intensive services 963 303 801 Knowledge-intensive market services 185 80 281 Knowledge-intensive financial services 156 301 395 Other knowledge- intensive services 506 133 488 Traditional services 53 44 161 Source: National Survey of Innovation Activity 2013 Note: High-tech manufacturing includes pharmaceuticals (C21), computer, electronic and optical products (C26), chemicals and chemical products (C20), electrical equipment (C27), machinery and equipment (C28), motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers (C29), manufacture of medical and dental instruments and supplies (C325), extraction of crude petroleum (B061), electric power generation, transmission and distribution (D351), manufacture of gas and distribution of gaseous fuels through mains (D352), steam and air-conditioning supply (D353) and water collection, treatment and supply (E360). Medium-tech manufacturing includes manufacture of refined petroleum products (C19), rubber and plastics (C22), glass and non-metallic mineral products (C23), basic metals (C24), fabricated metal products except machinery (C25), building of ships and boats (C301) and repair and installation of machinery and equipment (C33). Low-tech manufacturing includes manufacture of food products (C10), beverages (C11), textiles (C13), wearing apparel (C14), leather and related products (C15), wood and wood products, except furniture (C16), paper and pulp (C17), printing and reproduction of recorded media (C18), furniture (C31), other manufacturing, excluding manufacture of medical and dental instruments and supplies (C32). High-tech knowledge-intensive services include motion picture, video and television program production, sound recording and music publishing (J59), programming and broadcasting (J60), telecommunications (J61), computer programming, consultancy and related services (J62), information service activities (J63), scientific research and development (M72) and software publishing (J582). Knowledge-intensive market services (KIMS) include water transport (H50), air transport (H51), legal and accounting services (M69), activities of head offices and management consultancy services (M70), architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis (M71), advertising and market research (M73), other professional, scientific and technical activities (M74). Knowledge-intensive financial services include financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding (K64), insurance, reinsurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security (K65) and activities auxiliary to financial services and insurance activities (K66). Other knowledge-intensive services include publishing activities, except software publishing (J58), human health activities (Q86) , residential care activities (Q87) and call centers (N822). Traditional services include wholesale and retail trade and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles (G45), wholesale trade, except for motor vehicles and motorcycles (G46), retail trade, except for motor vehicles and motorcycles (G47), other land transport (H492), warehousing and support activities for transportation (H52), courier activities (H532), accommodation (I55), food and beverage service activities (I56), real estate activities (L68), rental and leasing activities (N77), travel agency and tour operator activities (N791), services to building and landscape activities (N81), office administrative, office support and other business support activities, except call centers (N82), and private security activities (M801). 80. The distinction between high-tech and low-tech manufacturing, and high-tech knowledge- intensive services and traditional services is important because the technological intensity of different sectors correlates with their investment in R&D and ICT, and their innovation outputs. It also allows us to study separately the effects of R&D, ICT and non-ICT innovation expenditures by Ecuadorian firms for different types of sectors and subsectors. Recent innovation studies have found that ICT investment by Chilean services firms, for example, is more important as an innovation input than R&D investment is. Álvarez (2015) also shows that ICT investment increases firm productivity 46 directly and not only via its effect on innovation – suggesting that there are both direct and indirect effects of ICT on productivity. 4.2. Methodology and estimation strategy 81. We rely on an augmented CDM methodology of estimating the determinants of innovation and, by extension, the effects of firm-level innovation output, on labor productivity. The standard CDM model is augmented by expenditure on ICT and non-ICT, alongside R&D, as determinants of innovation outputs. In addition, we estimate the CDM model for the whole sample of manufacturing and services firms covered by the National Survey of Innovation Activity 2013 as well as for manufacturing and services separately. The inclusion of ICT is motivated on grounds that for services firms R&D is not the main driver of innovation as services firms may find it harder to come up with the funds necessary for R&D or record R&D expenditures properly, as it is understood in manufacturing firms. 82. We employ a three-stage Heckman selection model, in which the first stage estimates the main determinants of a firm’s decision to invest in innovation (R&D, ICT or non-ICT) and the intensity of the firm’s investment in innovation. The first stage corrects for selection bias arising from the fact that not all firms invest in innovation. The second stage of the CDM model is the innovation production function, which estimates the effect of innovation expenditure on technological (product or process) and non-technological (marketing or organizational) innovation. Finally, in the third stage we estimate the effects of innovation on labor productivity. We control in the different stages of the model for a set of firm characteristics that are known to impact firm-level innovation (size, industry, age, exporting status, ownership) and other factors that affect innovation, such as the availability of public funds for innovation, collaboration with other parties on innovation and the presence of information sources (public, market and scientific) that facilitate innovation. Perceived barriers to innovation also enter the first-stage model: these include cost, market, regulatory and knowledge barriers. Box 4.1. Methodology The Heckman model includes the innovation decision equation (1) and the innovation intensity equation (2): (1) IDi = 1 if wi + I > c IDi = 1 if wi + I  c (2) Ii = zi + ei if IDi = 1 Ii = 0 if IDi = 0 The firm decides whether or not to invest in innovation activities (R&D, ICT or non-ICT) first and then decides how much to invest (innovation intensity or effort). IDi is the observed innovation binary variable, which equals one if the firms decides to invest in R&D, ICT or non-ICT, and zero if the firm does not; w is the vector of independent variables that explain the decision to invest,  is the vector of parameters,  is the error term and c is the threshold that determines whether or not the firm decides to invest. In equation (2) models the innovation intensity, measured by the log of the actual innovation expenditure by firms per employee (in R&D, ICT and non-ICT). The same explanatory variables which appear in equation (1) are also present in equation (2), except for firm size (log of number of employees), which implicitly enters equation (2) as we use (log) innovation expenditure per employee. In this case, I is the (log) of innovation expenditure per employee, z is the vector of explanatory variables,  is the vector of parameters and e is the error term. 47 The second stage of the CDM model estimates the probability of innovation taking place, given the predicted investment in innovation from stage 1 (R&D, ICT or non-ICT investment). We control for firm size, ownership, exporting status and industry and estimate Probit models for technological or non-technological innovation taking place. We run the Probit for each of the three types of innovation expenditure (R&D, ICT and non-ICT). (3) Innovation_dummyi = Innovation_exppi + xi + ui, where Innovation_exppi is the predicted value of investment in R&D, ICT or non-ICT in firm I,  is the vector of parameters, xi is the vector of explanatory variables,  is a vector of parameters and u is the error term. Finally, the third stage of the CDM model estimates the effect of innovation on firm productivity by running an OLS estimation of log sales per employee, using predicted probabilities of technological or non- technological innovation from equation (3) (or predicted intensity of innovation from equation (2)) and controlling for firm size and physical capital per worker. The production function is: (4) yi = a + 1ki + 2li + 3INNpi + vi where yi is the log of average sales per employee over the period 2009-2011, ki is the log of investment in fixed capital per employee, li is the log of number of employees, INNpi is the predicted innovation output from equation (3), 1 to 3 are parameters, and vi is the error term. 4.3. Main results 4.3.1. Investment decision and investment intensity 83. The results indicate that in Ecuador a firm’s decision to invest in R&D, ICT or non -ICT activities is less determined by inherent firm characteristics, such as size, age or the presence of foreign ownership, but by the quality of its human capital and being able to avail itself of all available public and private resources (financial and information) and cooperate with others in generating innovation. The main results from stage 1 (Heckman selection model) for the whole sample of Ecuadorian firms are presented in Table 4.2 below. These results indicate that across the entire sample of 2,808 Ecuadorian firms the decision to invest in innovation and the level of this investment are determined not so much by firm characteristics (except for size), but by factors such as human capital (h), whether or not the firm engages in R&D cooperation with other partners, whether the firm has access to market and public sources of information regarding innovation, and whether the firm has applied in the past for patent protection. Notably, neither foreign ownership nor exporter status are significant for the decision whether to invest in innovation and how much to invest. Cost barriers to innovation are found largely significant and with a positive sign (a fact reported by other authors: one interpretation is that firms that invest in innovation become also more attuned to barriers to innovation (found by Mohnen et al. (2006)); only the market barriers variable enters the regressions with a negative sign. 48 Table 4.2. Investment in innovation decision and intensity of investment (R&D, ICT and non-ICT) Heckman selection model Complete Sample (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Variables P(LogRDexp)>0 LogRDexp P(LogICTexp)>0 LogICTexp P(LogNonICTexp)>0 LogNonICTexp Lem (=size) 0.160*** 0.164*** 0.162*** (0.029) (0.026) (0.029) D (exporter) 0.197 0.023 -0.235* -0.015 0.151 0.201 (0.129) (0.264) (0.127) (0.266) (0.130) (0.202) D (foreign- -0.279** -0.089 -0.059 0.406* -0.062 0.091 owned) (0.118) (0.272) (0.113) (0.216) (0.113) (0.188) D (Patent) 0.232* 0.472* 0.127 0.425** 0.299** 0.331* (0.123) (0.244) (0.118) (0.214) (0.136) (0.180) D (Gov -0.005 -0.321 -0.114 -0.358 0.371* 0.154 Financing) (0.188) (0.393) (0.178) (0.325) (0.207) (0.271) D (Coop_RD) 0.996*** 1.188*** 0.166 0.849*** 0.714*** 0.834*** (0.120) (0.274) (0.111) (0.192) (0.141) (0.173) H 1.122*** 2.564*** 0.133 1.581*** 0.764*** 2.087*** (0.231) (0.510) (0.233) (0.450) (0.256) (0.360) D (h=0) -0.784*** -0.994*** -0.297*** -0.321* -0.474*** -0.465*** (0.090) (0.371) (0.078) (0.189) (0.076) (0.176) D (market 0.770*** 0.647** 0.881*** 0.552** 1.017*** 0.476** info) (0.078) (0.283) (0.071) (0.245) (0.069) (0.216) D (Scientific 0.187 0.123 -0.104 -0.350 0.162 0.090 info) (0.136) (0.254) (0.128) (0.226) (0.150) (0.185) D (Public 0.281*** 0.477*** 0.456*** 0.377** 0.584*** 0.320** info) (0.076) (0.178) (0.071) (0.160) (0.073) (0.137) D (Cost 0.216*** 0.234 0.295*** 0.306** 0.294*** 0.030 barriers) (0.079) (0.178) (0.072) (0.142) (0.074) (0.125) D (Market -0.034 -0.047 -0.088 -0.369** 0.038 0.146 barriers) (0.085) (0.185) (0.079) (0.150) (0.081) (0.127) D (knowledge 0.248*** 0.173 0.081 0.242* 0.302*** 0.194 barriers) (0.082) (0.189) (0.077) (0.144) (0.079) (0.130) D (Regulatory 0.131 0.309 0.245** 0.262 0.439*** 0.266* barriers) (0.101) (0.210) (0.096) (0.175) (0.108) (0.156) Constant -2.304*** 2.599*** -1.753*** 3.029*** -2.019*** 4.109*** (0.258) (0.974) (0.202) (0.604) (0.225) (0.599) Athrho 0.631*** 0.616*** 0.246 (0.212) (0.203) (0.160) Lnsigma 0.684*** 0.490*** 0.533*** (0.068) (0.069) (0.029) Observations 2,808 2,808 2,808 2,808 2,808 2,808 Log likelihood -2198 -2198 -2364 -2364 -3109 -3109 Note: Standard errors are in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. All regressions include sector dummies at the ISIC-2 level. 84. We run stage 1 separately for manufacturing and services firms. In the recent innovation literature, there is a strong argument that manufacturing and services firms innovate differently, with R&D less important for services firms, which rely on ICT and non-ICT investment to generate innovation. We estimate the same model to put this theory to the test and find that services firms in Ecuador, except for traditional services, are just as likely as manufacturing firms to invest in R&D (Table 4.3), a fact also demonstrated by the average amounts of investment in R&D in Table 4.1. 49 85. Human capital, access to information and cooperation in R&D, and the quality of IPR protection strongly affect the decision to invest in innovation and the level of this investment. Size is another firm characteristic that consistently affects the decision to invest in innovation: point estimates show that size is more relevant for services firms than manufacturing. As with the whole sample, human capital, access to information and cooperation with external partners in R&D are the most relevant factors for the decision to invest in innovation and for the level of this investment. The quality of firms’ human capital (h) is particularly strongly associated with the intensity of investment in R&D in both manufacturing and services firms. Table 4.3. Investment in Innovation Decision and Intensity of Investment (R&D and ICT) Heckman selection model: by sector Manufacturing Services (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Variables P(LogRDe LogRDexp P(LogICTe LogICTexp P(LogRDe LogRDexp P(LogICTe LogICTexp xp)>0 xp)>0 xp)>0 xp)>0 Lem (=size) 0.079 0.139*** 0.260*** 0.147** (0.059) (0.031) (0.044) (0.043) D (exporter) 0.302* -0.052 -0.192 -0.168 0.127 0.247 -0.385 0.445 (0.163) (0.434) (0.147) (0.325) (0.273) (0.562) (0.254) (0.539) D (foreign- -0.329** 0.206 -0.059 0.419 -0.197 -0.498 0.043 0.378 owned) (0.158) (0.435) (0.157) (0.343) (0.179) (0.429) (0.162) (0.293) D (Patent) 0.251* 0.386 0.193 0.703** 0.179 0.851** 0.037 0.390 (0.151) (0.347) (0.145) (0.303) (0.217) (0.426) (0.202) (0.325) D (Gov -0.110 0.374 0.166 0.641 0.049 -1.942*** -0.565* -1.713*** Financing) (0.214) (0.447) (0.203) (0.416) (0.390) (0.713) (0.340) (0.622) D (Coop_RD) 0.895*** 0.836 0.229 0.785*** 1.159*** 1.743*** 0.081 1.082*** (0.164) (0.673) (0.140) (0.289) (0.196) (0.414) (0.176) (0.273) H 0.842* 2.899*** 0.147 2.312** 1.303*** 2.229*** 0.065 1.383*** (0.436) (1.078) (0.454) (0.962) (0.281) (0.633) (0.278) (0.530) D (h=0) -0.766*** -0.585 -0.216** -0.506** -0.935*** -2.799*** -0.479*** -0.021 (0.120) (0.877) (0.104) (0.239) (0.169) (0.695) (0.120) (0.299) D (market info) 0.656*** 0.460 0.650*** 0.801*** 1.014*** 1.010** 1.124*** 0.406 (0.102) (0.701) (0.096) (0.261) (0.129) (0.439) (0.106) (0.389) D (Scientific 0.111 0.691* -0.059 -0.393 0.164 -0.658 -0.176 -0.362 info) (0.183) (0.354) (0.168) (0.353) (0.210) (0.409) (0.198) (0.316) D (Public info) 0.296*** 0.680** 0.430*** 0.636*** 0.260** 0.454 0.505*** 0.376* (0.100) (0.338) (0.093) (0.216) (0.120) (0.281) (0.107) (0.223) D (Cost 0.216** 0.239 0.272*** 0.320 0.196 0.412 0.303*** 0.409** barriers) (0.104) (0.265) (0.095) (0.209) (0.127) (0.291) (0.111) (0.205) D (Market -0.100 -0.230 -0.134 -0.564** 0.096 0.165 -0.087 -0.265 barriers) (0.108) (0.235) (0.103) (0.223) (0.138) (0.310) (0.122) (0.215) D (knowledge 0.195* 0.297 0.057 0.264 0.291** -0.047 0.196* 0.043 barriers) (0.104) (0.298) (0.101) (0.218) (0.133) (0.299) (0.118) (0.210) D (Regulatory 0.161 0.192 0.269** 0.216 0.118 0.557 0.237 0.496* barriers) (0.124) (0.294) (0.117) (0.248) (0.182) (0.373) (0.167) (0.268) Constant -1.450*** 2.566 -1.807*** 1.538*** -2.790*** 2.405** -1.749*** 3.453*** (0.289) (2.205) (0.229) (0.580) (0.305) (1.112) (0.247) (0.791) Athrho 0.678 1.380*** 0.820*** 0.321 (0.808) (0.208) (0.268) (0.271) Lnsigma 0.663*** 0.682*** 0.722*** 0.459*** (0.248) (0.085) (0.092) (0.061) Observations 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,309 1,309 1,309 1,309 Log likelihood -1322 -1322 -1191 -1191 -850 -850 -1147 -1147 Standard errors are in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. All regressions include sector dummies at the ISIC-2 level. 50 86. Looking at the point estimates in the first-stage regressions, human capital appears more important for the level of investment in R&D than for the level of investment in ICT. Human capital is important for investment decisions in both manufacturing and services firms, but the point estimates are higher for manufacturing firms with respect to investment levels; conversely, the lack of skilled professionals (dummy h=0) works against investment in innovation across all types of firms. 87. Only market (suppliers, clients, competitors, consulting firms and experts) and public sources of information (patents, journals, databases, expositions and business associations) are consistently positively associated with investment in innovation; scientific sources, such as universities, laboratories and public bodies for R&D, are not relevant. Finally, cooperation with other firms and partners in R&D is one of the most consistently positively associated variables with the decision to invest in innovation and the level of the investment. The estimated coefficients are smaller for ICT investment, which indicates that ICT investment can be undertaken fairly independently by firms. 88. These results are broadly in line with those of Crespi and Zuniga (2012) for six LAC countries, according to whom scientific sources of information were insignificant in explaining innovation investment except in Costa Rica, and market sources of information were only significant in Colombia. Public sources of information were complementary to firms’ innovation efforts in Argentina and Colombia, but not in the other four countries. Cooperation in innovation, such as collaborative R&D, was significant in Colombia, Panama and Uruguay, as well as in our Ecuadorian case. It is also consistently found significant in studies of innovation activities of firms in industrialized countries (OECD (2009)). The authors of the LAC study conjecture that the relatively weak results found for both intra-firm cooperation in R&D and the three different sources of information on innovation illustrate the weak development of innovation networks among LAC firms and the limited knowledge exchange among the different actors in the innovation systems of LAC countries. 4.3.2. The impact of investment in R&D and ICT on technological innovation 89. Next we estimate the second stage of the CDM model by looking at the marginal effects of predicted investment in R&D and ICT per employee on the probability of introducing technological innovation (defined as product or process innovation). Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 report the results for R&D innovation intensity and ICT innovation intensity for the whole sample of Ecuadorian firms. We also show results for the composite variable of technological innovation (column 5 of both tables) as well as the breakdown of product and process innovation specific for the firm and for the market. 90. The overall marginal effect on the probability of technological innovation for ICT expenditure (0.78) is nearly double the marginal effect of R&D expenditure (0.41). Non-ICT (and non-R&D) expenditure also has a significant effect on the likelihood of technological innovation with a coefficient of 0.66. These results indicate that a higher investment in innovation-related expenditure, especially ICT expenditure, increases the probability of having technological innovation. Among the control variables, firm size is consistently associated with a higher likelihood of product or process innovation, with marginal effects ranging from 0.02 to 0.06. These are very similar to reported firm size effects on the probability of technological innovation by Crespi and Zuniga (2012) for Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica and Panama. Finally, the effects of exporting status and foreign ownership are less conclusive, with both displaying negative marginal effects in the general specification for technological innovation (column 5 of Table 4.4 and Table 4.5), but not consistently significant results. This, again, is echoed by similar findings by Crespi and Zuniga (2012) for six Latin American countries. The implication is that the export structure and innovation intensity of exports are likely to lead to the negative marginal effect in Ecuador – an economy whose exports are less technology- and innovation-intensive). Likewise, the negative marginal effect of foreign ownership on the probability of technological innovation could be interpreted to mean that multinational firms operating in Ecuador seldom invest in local R&D units or even in ICT-type innovation. The result in the ICT regression reported in Table 4.5 is similar to the one of Colombia, where foreign firms displayed a lower and significant probability of developing technological innovation (44% less likely compared to 36% less likely in Ecuador). 51 Table 4.4. Probability of Technological Innovation (Product or Process Innovation): Complete Sample Product Process Product Process Tech innovation innovation innovation innovation innovation market market Innovation Intensity RD 0.28*** 0.26*** 0.08*** 0.05*** 0.41*** (predicted RD expenditure (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.02) (log) per employee) Size (log employees) 0.02* 0.05*** 0.03*** 0.02*** 0.02** (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) Exporter dummy -0.07 -0.09** 0.01 -0.01 -0.10** (0.05) (0.05) (0.02) (0.02) (0.05) Foreign ownership dummy 0.03 -0.06 0.05** 0.00 -0.02 (0.04) (0.04) (0.02) (0.01) (0.04) Number of observations 2,808 2,808 2,808 2,784 2,808 Wald Chi-squared 762.35*** 724.83*** 449.28*** 279.95*** 830.39*** Log pseudo likelihood -1388.42 -1425.93 -936.75 -664.63 -1203.99 Pseudo R-squared 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.19 0.38 Predicted probability (values 0.39 0.40 0.10 0.05 0.59 at means) Note: Coefficients reported are marginal effects. Standards errors are in parentheses. *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included but not reported. Table 4.5. Probability of Technological Innovation (Product or Process Innovation): Complete Sample Product Process Product Process Tech innovation innovation innovation innovation innovation market market Innovation Intensity ICT 0.48*** 0.45*** 0.13*** 0.07*** 0.78*** (predicted ICT expenditure (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.03) (log) per employee) Size (log employees) 0.03*** 0.06*** 0.03*** 0.02*** 0.04*** (0.01) (0.01) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01) Exporter dummy -0.02 -0.06 0.03 -0.01 -0.04 (0.05) (0.05) (0.02) (0.02) (0.05) Foreign ownership dummy -0.18*** -0.26*** -0.01 -0.03** -0.36*** (0.04) (0.04) (0.02) (0.01) (0.05) Number of observations 2,808 2,808 2,808 2,784 2,808 Wald Chi-squared 721.18*** 707.32*** 497.17*** 297.55*** 659.28*** Log pseudo likelihood -1319.38 -1356.40 -919.77 -662.56 -1035.87 Pseudo R-squared 0.31 0.29 0.22 0.19 0.47 Predicted probability (values 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.05 0..64 at means) Note: Coefficients reported are marginal effects. Standards errors are in parentheses. *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included but not reported. 91. There are some differences in the magnitude of the marginal effects of R&D and ICT expenditure by sector: with the ICT effect on technological innovation dominant and displaying stronger marginal effects in the services industry. We run the previous estimations for the subsets of manufacturing and services firms only. Table IV.6 and Table IV.7 show the results for manufacturing firms, and Table IV.8 and Table IV.9– for services firms. The breakdown by sector allows us to see the different marginal effects of predicted R&D and ICT expenditure on technological innovation. For manufacturing firms, the effects mirror the ones for the complete sample, but for services firms we see that ICT investment has the highest marginal effect on the probability of developing technological innovations at 0.82 (double the effect for R&D investment for services firms). It is also higher than the effect of ICT expenditure for manufacturing firms (0.63). This can be indicative of a higher importance of ICT-type investments for the innovation-related activities of services firms. While R&D expenditure is typically associated with innovation in manufacturing firms, ICT investment might be more relevant 52 for innovation in the service sector and it can even be more relevant for the manufacturing sector in Ecuador than pure R&D innovation expenditure. 4.3.3. The impact of firm innovation on productivity 92. Firm-level technological innovation in Ecuador has a consistently powerful and sizable effect on firm labor productivity. The third stage of the CDM model estimates the effect of predicted probability of technological innovation (and its derivative variables) on firm’s labor productivity. Table 4.6 and Table 4.7 (and Table IV.10 and Table IV.11) confirm that technological innovation has a positive and statistically significant impact on firm productivity for the whole sample of Ecuadorian firms, regardless of the type of innovation measure – R&D or ICT). The results are strong and consistent, even in the presence of controls for size, presence of non-technological innovation (marketing or organizational) and fixed capital investment per employee. The semi-elasticity of output with respect to innovation outcomes ranges from 0.22 for ICT-based innovation outcomes to 0.32 for non-ICT-based innovation to 0.40 for R&D-based innovation outcomes. This is an interesting result, which implies that R&D-based innovation outcomes exert the strongest impact on productivity (when no sectoral distinctions are taken into account). With regards to the rest of the control variables, size and firm capital are associated positively associated with labor productivity, but non-technological innovation has no significant impact. A similar result for non-technological innovation is also reported for the majority of LAC countries studied by Crespi and Zuniga (2012). Table 4.6. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity Complete Sample (R&D-based innovation measures): OLS Estimation with Bootstrapping Labor Productivity (Log of Sales per Employee in 2011) Predicted probability of technological 0.395*** innovation (0.101) Predicted probability of product innovation 0.433*** (0.114) Predicted probability of process innovation 0.397*** (0.116) Predicted probability of product innovation 0.595*** for the market (0.188) Predicted probability of process innovation 0.661** for the market (0.289) Predicted Intensity of Investment in R&D 0.100*** (0.024) Size (log number of employees) 0.184*** 0.185*** 0.178*** 0.169*** 0.177*** 0.190*** (0.021) (0.021) (0.022) (0.023) (0.022) (0.021) Non-Technological Innovation dummy -0.010 -0.007 -0.004 0.008 0.013 -0.010 (0.052) (0.053) (0.053) (0.053) (0.062) (0.053) Log of Fixed Capital Investment per 0.254*** 0.254*** 0.255*** 0.254*** 0.255*** 0.254*** employee (0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.019) (0.020) Number of observations 1,773 1,773 1,773 1,773 1,757 1,773 Wald Chi-Squared test 1202.16*** 1190.17*** 1198.16*** 1993.97*** 1084.00*** 1190.06*** Adjusted R-squared 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34 Note: Coefficients reported are elasticities and semi-elasticities. Bootstrapped standards errors are in parentheses (100 replications). *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included in all regressions, but not reported. Predicted probabilities of innovation are from Probit estimations in stage 2 and predicted intensity of investment in R&D is from the Heckman estimation in Stage 1 of the CDM model. 53 Table 4.7. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity Complete Sample (ICT innovation measures): OLS Estimation with Bootstrapping Labor Productivity (Log of Sales per Employee in 2011) Predicted probability of technological 0.220** innovation (0.092) Predicted probability of product innovation 0.248** (0.105) Predicted probability of process innovation 0.222** (0.107) Predicted probability of product innovation 0.366** for the market (0.170) Predicted probability of process innovation 0.383 for the market (0.280) Predicted Intensity of Investment in ICT 0.141*** (0.038) Size (log number of employees) 0.194*** 0.194*** 0.190*** 0.182*** 0.188*** 0.193*** (0.021) (0.021) (0.022) (0.023) (0.022) (0.021) Non-Technological Innovation dummy 0.007 0.009 0.012 0.018 0.024 -0.003 (0.052) (0.053) (0.053) (0.053) (0.062) (0.053) Log of Fixed Capital Investment per 0.256*** 0.256*** 0.256*** 0.256*** 0.256*** 0.254*** employee (0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.019) (0.020) Number of observations 1,773 1,773 1,773 1,773 1,757 1,773 Wald Chi-Squared test 1164.16*** 1159.54*** 1166.65*** 1180.07*** 1091.12*** 1161.08*** Adjusted R-squared 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34 Note: Coefficients reported are elasticities and semi-elasticities. Bootstrapped standards errors are in parentheses (100 replications). *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included in all regressions, but not reported. Predicted probabilities of innovation are from Probit estimations in stage 2 and predicted intensity of investment in ICT is from the Heckman estimation in Stage 1 of the CDM model. 93. This econometric exercise also attempts to distinguish between the effects of technological innovation on firm productivity separately for manufacturing and services firms, and in each case for R&D and ICT-based innovation outcomes. Table IV.12 and Table IV.13 show that for the subset of manufacturing firms R&D and ICT-derived technological innovation are both associated with higher labor productivity. For services firms, however, ICT-driven technological innovation does not, at least in the case of Ecuadorian services firms, translate into higher labor productivity. Neither is the intensity of investment in ICT associated with higher labor productivity. R&D and, to a lesser degree, other non- ICT-driven technological innovation have a stronger and significant impact on the labor productivity of services firms (Table IV.14 – Table IV.16). This result is similar to the one reported for Uruguay by Aboal and Tacsir (2015), who find that investment in ICT is positively correlated with labor productivity in both manufacturing and services, with a higher correlation for manufacturing firms. 94. These differences on impacts on productivity between manufacturing and services complement a previous study for Ecuadorian services (Rubalcaba et al., 2016) showing that participation in innovation programs by Ecuadorian services firms did not significantly affect their performance (measured by sales and exports), although innovation in manufacturing did improve the performance of manufacturing firms. This suggested that existing innovation-related programs do not equally fit the needs of different economic sectors. Sectorial differences matter and services may need specific approaches beyond the classical orientation to goods-based R&D. 4.4. Robustness checks 95. We conduct various checks on the robustness of our results in all three stages of the CDM model. 54 96. In the labor productivity regressions (3rd stage) we estimate the same model, using not the predicted probability of technological innovation but rather the predicted intensity of investment in innovation (R&D, ICT and non-ICT) from the 1st stage. This is another way to check whether innovation has an impact on productivity. In all the different specifications of the model (complete sample, manufacturing and services) the predicted intensity of investment (in R&D, ICT and non-ICT) is positively and significantly associated with higher labor productivity (see final column of Table IV.12 thru Table IV.16). The estimated coefficients vary from 0.08 to 0.14, in line with the marginal effects reported by Crespi and Zuniga (2012) for Chile (0.20) and Costa Rica (0.09), but somewhat on the low side compared to other LAC countries. 4.5. Concluding remarks 97. This is the first estimation of a CDM model of innovation and productivity for Ecuadorian manufacturing and services firms covered by the National Innovation Survey of 2013. We also extend the model to check for differences in the types of innovation investment (R&D, ICT and non- ICT) that manufacturing and services firms undertake as well the likelihood of this investment generating technological innovations. In a traditional estimation of a three-stage CDM framework, we control for a variety of firm characteristics (size, exporting status, foreign ownership) as well as the quality of the labor force and other factors that affect firms’ investment in innovation and the intensity of this investment. The model is built to do away with the endogeneity between innovation and productivity. 98. We find substantial and robust evidence that firms in Ecuador that pursue innovation activities and invest in R&D and ICT are more innovative and more productive than those that do not engage in innovation. The results are statistically significant and the estimated effects high in nearly all different specifications in each of the three stages of the CDM model. This suggests that even in an economy with less technological sophistication, whose exports are primarily commodities, such as hydrocarbons and agricultural products, investment in innovation pays off and moves firms up the technological ladder. 99. The quality of human capital, cooperation with other firms and innovation partners, and the availability of information about innovation activities and programs – both public and private – boost firm-level innovation expenditure and performance. So do better IPR regulation in the form of patent and other protections as well as more competitive markets in which firms operate. Echoing the results of similar CDM models of innovation and productivity in other LAC economies, we find that Ecuadorian firms that cooperate with other firms in their innovation activities and use available public sources of information on innovation are likely to invest more on innovation and to derive benefits from their investment in the form of technological (and non-technological) innovation. Among the constraints to innovation, only market barriers appear to be holding firms back; other types of perceived barriers to investment in innovation, such as cost, regulatory and knowledge ones, are found largely insignificant in the first-stage Heckman model estimation. The negative effects of market barriers point to the role of competition policy in potentially unleashing firms’ innovation potential. The quality of firms’ human capital, however, measured by the share of professional and technical staff, is consistently significant and positively associated with both a higher likelihood of engaging in innovation and a higher intensity of investment in innovation. 100. Finally, there are some interesting differences among manufacturing and services firms in Ecuador with respect to their investment in R&D, ICT and non-ICT types of innovation and the technological innovation that emanates from such investments. ICT appears more important than R&D for generating technological innovation among services firms – a finding that is also corroborated by other recent studies. In so far as productivity is concerned, however, services firms do not seem to benefit as much from ICT-driven technological innovation as manufacturing firms do. This might also be a reflection of the type of services firms predominant in the Ecuadorian survey sample. That said, R&D and non-ICT-driven technological innovations are associated with higher labor productivity, in both manufacturing and services, with larger effects for both types of investment in services firms. 55 101. Other firm-level controls employed at all stages of the CDM model reveal that only firm size affects the decision to invest in innovation and the intensity of investment. In other words, only size affects our independent variables in all three stages of the model. It is noteworthy that other firm characteristics, such as the presence of foreign capital or the presence of exports in sales, are not robust and significant determinant of either innovation or productivity. As mentioned earlier, human capital, access to information on innovation and being part of a network of innovators are much more significant and robust determinant of R&D, ICT and non-ICT investment, and, hence, technological innovation and productivity. Among obstacles to innovation, cost barriers are found insignificant and so is the availability of public funding for innovation – which is a striking finding deserving more attention, since an earlier chapter, based on descriptive results and qualitative information, reported high perceived cost barriers to innovation. 56 Chapter 5. Supporting innovation through Cluster Development Programs15 5.1. Cluster Development Programs and innovation16 102. The public sector can play a catalytic role in improving firms’ upgrading and integration into GVCs. The key rationale for government intervention in the private sector is solving market failures, and in the case of clusters and value chains, these are coordination and information failures. CDPs are “doomed to choose” sectors, since resources are always scarce and economic agglomerations plenty, at least in terms of where to start in cases where the final goal is to work with all clusters meeting a given definition (Casaburi, 2016). 103. While CDPs take different forms, they typically involve the following activities: A. Mapping and selecting clusters to be supported in the target territory; B. Identifying challenges and needs for policy intervention at the individual cluster level; C. Implementing actions identified in stage 2; and, D. Monitoring and evaluation (Casaburi, 2016). 104. Furthermore, CDPs are “designed to improve firms’ performance through the strengthening of the firms’ network to foster coordination and allow collective actions and the provision of public and club goods” (Alfaro, 2016). In this sense, CDPs first try to fix coordination failures, after which a change in resource allocation and investment is usually expected. Recent evaluations of CDPs reveal that CDPs are not meant to affect firms’ performance directly or immediately, but through a series of intermediate effects that eventually lead to efficiency gains. As such, evaluations of CDPs take into account this essential time dimension and can be evaluated by their spillover and intermediate to long-term effects. Examples of positive spillover effects can include the value of total exports and the likelihood of exporting, as found in the impact evaluation of the Arranjos Productivos Locais (APL) policy in Brazil (Garrone, 2016). Figure 5.1 below illustrates the effects of CDPs over time. Business performance, including productivity, is shown to be affected last, in the medium to long term. 105. Solving coordination failures is a key objective of Cluster Development Programs and can help strengthen inter-firm coordination and linkages, improve firms’ allocation of resources and investment, business practices and technologies and business performance. In particular, at the stage of when firms allocate more resources, changes can be reflected in variables such as the level of investment in innovation, expenditures in services for the exploration of new markets, expenditures in training or consultancy services, and in the search for complementary capabilities and knowledge (Alfaro, 2016). 15 This section uses excerpts from the “Competitive reinforcement of value chains in Ecuador” background paper (Kim , 2017). 16 Innovation in the context of cluster development is a broader definition than the Oslo Manual, including any business improvement. 57 Figure 5.1. Effects of Cluster Development Programs (CDPs) Source: Alfaro, 2016. 5.2. Cluster screening 106. From February to September 2016, the World Bank Group provided technical assistance to MIPRO through three technical workshops held in Quito, Ecuador. The objective of this technical assistance was to present the methodology for prioritizing clusters and assisting MIPRO in selecting the final list of value chains17 with a view to implementing some sort of CDP in the future. Following the screening methodology, MIPRO selected the following 12 industries: Textile and apparel; furniture and wood products; cocoa; coffee; fish; palm; meat products; dairy; fresh fruit; Fresh vegetables; conserved fruit and vegetable; and banana and plantain. KIBS and other services, like logistics were not included in the cluster screening exercise because CDPs tend not to focus on horizontal services that are non-tradable, horizontal services. If for example, a software company is providing services locally to a tourism company, they would in fact be a part of the tourism value chain. Furthermore, an Action Plan for KIBS was developed for MIPRO by the World Bank Group in 2015. The Action Plan provides extensive recommendations which can be developed by MIPRO to support the KIBS sector. The analysis in the value chains background report is differentiated from the Bain report in that it aims to take a more didactic approach in order to demonstrate to MIPRO the use of the strategic analysis tools (strategic segmentation and segment analysis/five forces analysis) based on a selection of the prioritized industries. The intention is that MIPRO would be able to replicate such analysis at the local level with local clusters. 5.3. Upgrading agricultural GVCs and the role of the National Quality Infrastructure 107. The Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) index identifies sectors and products where Ecuador exceeds global export averages. In 2013, the sectors and products with the highest 17 In this paper, at the nation level, we refer to sector and at the local level we refer to cluster and value chain interchangeably. It is more difficult to speak of value chains at the national level because as we will see in Section 4, each sector is comprised of various strategic segments, which each have their own value chain due to different processes and products. 58 competitive advantage for Ecuador were: vegetables, animal products, food products and petroleum18. It comes as no surprise that ten out of the 12 industries prioritized through the value chain screening exercise are in the agroindustry sector given the Latin American region’s natural competitive advantage in agriculture due to its water and land resources. Latin America has approximately 28% of potential new arable land (second only to Sub-Saharan Africa) and also holds the highest share of renewable water resources (World Bank Group, 2013). As a net food exporter, Latin America has an important role to play in meeting the needs for global food security but at the same time needs to make improvements in their trade policy, logistics, production (scaling up output) in order to meet this challenge (Chaherli and Nash, 2013). 108. While Ecuador’s current export basket consists heavily of primary products, in particular agricultural and aquaculture-based industry, there is considerable scope to upgrade into higher value-added products in these same industries. However, entering into higher value-added products requires, inter alia, productivity improvements and technology adoption. These improvements and the types of technology or innovation needed can be directly informed through the CRI process. Ahmed and Hamrick present a typology for upgrading strategies in agricultural GVCs through three types: functional, product or process upgrading (Ahmed and Hamrick, 2016), summarized in Table 5.1. Table 5.1. Upgrading strategies in agricultural GVCs Upgrading Trajectory Description Conditions Increasing value-added by changing the mix  Chain coordination of activities conducted within the firm or  Developing business moving the center of activities to different friendly policies Functional Upgrading links in the value chain. Variables include:  Incentives e.g. taxes type and number of new activities absorbed  Private sector development or outsourced, new marketing or logistics  Access to finance functions or a change in management.  Developing human capital Developing higher value products for  Adopting new technology example by moving from production and and innovation trade in agriculture commodities to  Understanding supply and Product Upgrading production of intermediary products. demand markets Variables include: investment in upgrading  Developing marketing activities (as a percentage of the total costs) strategies and new products developed.  Infrastructure development Developing production processes, reducing  Developing, adopting and waste, and increasing quality and efficiency. enforcing standards and Activities include: improving inputs, certifications production practices, post- harvest Process Upgrading management, improving logistics, and quality standards. Tools include: technology applications, training and sustainability certification. Source: Ahmed and Hamrick, 2016. 109. Ecuador has the necessary elements of a National Quality Infrastructure (NQI) to support the private sector. These include the Servicio Ecuatoriana de Normalizacion (SEN) and the Servicio de Acreditación Ecuatoriano (SAE), which offer some services needed by the private sector to conform to international trading partners’ standards. INEN serves as the national standards body and national metrology institute, while SAE acts as the national accreditation body. These two institutions serve public conformity assessment bodies, including certification bodies, inspection bodies, testing laboratories and inspection laboratories. There are almost 400 nationally accredited conformity assessment bodies in Ecuador, including some industry leaders, such as Bureau Veritas and SGS and 18 WITS (wits.worldbank.org) 59 smaller local players. While Ecuador’s local market for conformity assessment can cover basic needs, many gaps still exist. INEN is a member of the major international standard bodies, ISO and IEC, but with 6600 official national standards, INEN is experiencing challenges to meet the demand from the private sector. Furthermore, both INEN and SAE need to adopt a more market-oriented approach to be able to respond to market demands. The recent industrial policy stated that Ecuador lacks the NQI to support industries: only 1/3 of products are supported by local quality infrastructure to obtain certifications. The rest of these products must be sent outside of Ecuador to obtain certifications to meet international standards, which increases costs for the firms (MCPEC/MIPRO, 2016). NQI institutions report a limited culture of quality in the private sector. So while firms necessarily require certifications to comply with quality certifications demanded in certain markets, international experience shows the adoption of quality and continuous improvement as a business practice benefits productivity revenues and growth.19 110. While competitive forces vary from product to product, in many cases, agricultural GVCs are highly concentrated with large multinational firms in North America and Europe dominating the high value-added markets, such as agrochemicals, processing and marketing (Ahmed and Hamrick, 2016). This makes it more difficult but even more important for smaller firms and smallholder farmers to work as a cluster, understand supply and demand in their industry and find points of aggregation or consolidation to bring costs down. 111. Diversifying within agriculture, from lower value-added to higher value-added products, is one way to view diversification, versus the idea of diversifying away from agriculture into other sectors such as manufacturing or services. In the same way, transformation of a primary good should not be equated with value addition. In some cases, transformation of a product can in fact destroy value by downgrading to a less competitive product (e.g. selling fresh mangoes vs. producing dried mango – the fresh mango has a much higher margin then the dried mango). However, adding value almost always will entail changes in production practices and innovation, which have as much, or more, to do with strategy and change management as it has to do with cost. The implication of this for Ecuador is the need to reframe how value addition is perceived for agricultural products and to emphasize value addition rather than transformation. 5.4. Innovation issues in selected value chains 112. Entering higher value-added GVCs requires upgrading, certification, and standardization, all of which are examples of innovation. The GII ranks Ecuador 100 out of 128 countries, with particularly weak performance in business sophistication and knowledge outputs. If Ecuador seeks to upgrade into higher value-added markets, improving innovation capabilities will need to be a priority.20 Changes in consumer demand, technological innovations and changes in production patterns are some of the factors that make agricultural GVCs complex and call for improved traceability and production standards. Box 5.1. Note on Terminology Clusters are “geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers, firms in related industries, and associated organizations (such as universities, standard agencies, trade associations) in a particular field linked by commonalities and complementarities. There is competition as well as cooperation” (Porter, 1990). In other words, clusters are geographically concentrated firms in the same value chain. The value chain refers to the full range of activities that firms and workers perform to bring a product from its conception to end use and beyond (Gereffi, 2011). Value chains are typically visualized and analyzed through a value-added chain and cross-border network relationships. The concept of GVCs has existed for several decades now and has evolved from a neat sequence of activities into more complex networks of production, in which participating firms are specialists in one activity and external international sourcing arrangements require inter-firm trade (Taglioni and Winkler, 2016). Value-added is 19 NQI findings based on an October 2015 World Bank Group mission in Ecuador. 20 A deeper analysis of innovation in the priority value chains selected by MIPRO through this NLTA is presented in the complementary report on Innovation (Rubalcaba et al., 2017). 60 defined as the total production in a given step of the production process, net of inputs. Typically, GVCs are governed by a lead firm who is the final buyer or producer but can include suppliers throughout the production process. In industry analysis, the Strategic Segmentation of a particular industry seeks to answer the following two questions: a) What are the different “businesses” that exist in the industry? b) What will the industry consist of “tomorrow”? By looking at t he trends and in which direction the industry is heading. Each strategic segment is a function of both the product and/or service and the user or market group that this product/service serves. The strategic segments are distinct from one another because the Porter’s Five Forces are different; therefore, the value chain of each segment is also different. As such within a sector, each strategic segment will have its own value chain Figure: Strategic Segments and their value chains Source: Kim, 2017 113. Below is the example of the coffee industry and innovation required to integrate into the higher value-added segment of specialty coffee. 114. In the 2015 Integral Strategic Plan for Agroforestry, fish and Seafood in Ecuador, published by Bain and Company, the chapter on the “Coffee Chain and its byproducts” focuses primarily on “café soluble”, which is freeze-dried instant coffee, such as the popular Nescafé brand. The strategy posited through the chapter on coffee is to increase production so as to increase instant coffee exports. The Bain report chooses not to look into specialty coffee because it represents such a small proportion of the global coffee market. Although it states that this could be an interesting option for some regions. This section looks more closely at specialty coffee. Specialty coffee is an important market segment for Ecuador to consider given that current coffee production has decreased drastically in Ecuador from 3 million bags per year in 1996 to 300,000 bags in 2015. If the quantity of coffee produced in Ecuador is declining, then the specialty coffee market – where margins are much higher and buyers are seeking quality over quantity – is an important market segment to consider. Ecuador now imports more than 1 million bags of Robusta coffee (2014) for its café soluble, primarily from Vietnam. This inability to produce the primary material is a concern and affects the competitiveness of Ecuadorian café soluble because the competitive factors for café soluble is volume and price. 115. Below, two strategic analysis tools – strategic segmentation and the Five Forces Analysis – are applied to the global coffee industry. Figure 5.2 below presents the strategic segmentation of coffee. 61 Figure 5.2. Strategic Segmentation of the global coffee industry 116. Ecuador competes in the instant coffee market segment (B1 in Figure 5.2 above). A1, B1 and C1 are segments of commercial coffee and A2, B2, and B3 are segments of specialty coffee. In Segment A1 (coffee beans for consumers seeking caffeine), the Barriers to entry are relatively low, with geography – i.e. being positioned in a tropical climate (between the tropic of cancer and the tropic of Capricorn) - being the most important barrier. Commercial coffee can be a mix of both Robusta and Arabica coffee beans. Ideal temperature for Robusta coffee is 15 to 24 degrees Celsius and grown between sea-level and 800 meters. Whereas Arabica coffee is grown ideally between 24 to 30 degrees Celsius and does better in higher altitudes (e.g. above 1300 meters). As such, depending on the type of commercial coffee being produced, altitude can also be an important barrier to entry. Robusta coffee beans contain almost twice the caffeine as Arabica. There are several Substitution products (i.e. substitutes for caffeine) for segment A1 including tea, soda, energy drinks. There are many other coffee regions/countries and producers, as such there is a strong rivalry within this segment. Thus, the profitability of this segment is reduced. 117. On the other hand, if the coffee producers are at the center of the five forces axes, then their buyers are mainly five industry giants, who control approximately 50% of the commercial coffee market. These are: Nestle, Kraft, Procter and Gamble, Sara Lee and Tchibo. These companies are large, multinationals with strong negotiating power. As such, the negotiating power of buyers is strong in front of the coffee producers in the countries / regions where the coffee grow. Therefore, the five industry giants will be the ones who mostly retain the profit of this business. As such, the attractiveness of this segment for the coffee producers is low in this segment. This predominance of the buyers also prevails as the main force shaping competition in segments B1 and C1. Furthermore, the consumer in segments A1, B1 and C1 are all motivated by price only. 118. In segment C2, by comparison, coffee is sold in a coffee shop to consumers seeking flavor and experience. The barriers to entry are relatively high because there are investments in equipment and know-how to open a coffee shop. As such, this is a positive force for the attractiveness of this segment. There are no substitute products either. Given that this is a high-quality product and there are no substitutes, there is a lot of margin in this segment. There are much fewer producers in this segment, so rivalry is weak. Negotiating power of suppliers is weak. The buyers are shrewd consumers ready to pay the high price for the product. As such, the margins are better distributed in this segment. In 62 conclusion, there is more money to be made in this segment and the five forces have a positive effect on the attractiveness of this segment. 119. If we look at the characteristics that advanced independent roasters are looking for, we see a few criteria for purchase, including: direct relationship with the coffee producers to explain his story and say from which farm comes from (similar to the winery in the case of the high-quality wine), quality and a relationship based in trust. It means that the switching cost for the roaster to change the coffee producer, who they buy the coffee beans, is higher than in the commercial coffee. In that one it was a relationship based in price, so if there is a cheaper coffee producer the purchase manager of Nestle for example, will switch to him automatically. Whereas in the specialty coffee segment, the buyer wants to be sure that the coffee beans have enough quality (i.e. a minimum score of 80 points, out of 100)21 to be classified as specialty coffee and control the traceability of the beans. 120. The specialty coffee value chain is regulated by standards and protocols (see Specialty Coffee Association of America, for US standards). The standards for specialty grade coffee for sale in the United States include: green coffee standards (i.e. standard for allowable defects in the green coffee beans) and cupping standards (a cupper requires credentials by the Coffee Quality Institute to score coffee utilizing standards of the Specialty Coffee Association of America). A country intending to sell specialty coffee must meet the standards and protocols of their destination market. This requires professional service providers (e.g. certified cuppers). While altitude and compliance with specialty coffee standards are seen as the essential criteria for selling specialty coffee, other buyers may be seeking other certifications, whether certified organic, Rainforest Alliance, or Fair Trade. 121. As such, the specialty coffee value chain requires process innovation of the producer and the local supply of qualified professionals to offer services such as cupping. Innovation is a key part of value chain upgrading. 21 http://www.scaa.org/?page=resources&d=cupping-protocols 63 Chapter 6. Economy-wide regulatory policy and innovation 122. Key regulatory obstacles linked to the innovation agenda, and especially relevant in the case of Ecuador, include business regulatory issues, trade-related issues, intellectual property regimes, competition policies, labor regulation, access to financial markets and public procurement policies. This section will lay out the relationship between regulatory framework and overall investment climate on innovation, and then briefly discuss each main regulatory obstacle in the context of encouraging innovation through regulatory reform, highlighting the specific context of Ecuador. 6.1. Business regulation 123. Building an enabling environment that is supportive of innovation, open to adaptation of technology, and encourages dissemination of knowledge requires an efficient regulatory framework. Government policies can support innovation by continually updating the regulatory and institutional framework for businesses and removing bureaucratic, legislative, and regulatory obstacles for innovation. The Ecuadorian government has the opportunity to make public policy and regulatory framework more conducive to innovation in a range of policy areas, from the general business environment — especially in the services and manufacturing industries — to particular improvements in international trade and investment, financial markets, intellectual property regimes, labor markets, and competition laws. Regulation is a critical factor in promoting innovation in the private sector, both as it relates to the overall investment climate and to these crosscutting areas affecting innovation. 124. Business is the main driver of innovation, and therefore ensuring an efficient regulatory framework for business entry, exit, and operation is an essential component of supporting the innovation agenda in the country. The quality of regulation and its enforcement are critical determinants of a firm’s capacity to expand and innovate. Restrictions on firm entry, exit, and operations can impede technological progress by propping up inefficient firms and limiting the expansion and creation of innovative ones. This is especially relevant for small firms, which tend to be strongly affected by inadequate regulatory environments. Overly burdensome regulations can stifle innovation and crowd out productive activity, especially given small businesses’ limited revenue base and often lack of necessary in-house resources and expertise.22 125. The ease of doing business in an economy can attract or deter foreign investors, which is another key component of promoting innovation. In addition to fostering economic activity within the country, a strong investment climate also signals a country’s attractiveness for foreign investment and readiness to benefit from technology transfer, disseminate innovations, and maximize technological spillovers.23 Many regulatory issues commonly associated with innovation involve improving connections with international markets, facilitating trade and transfer of information, as well as addressing issues affecting the overall ease of doing business. 126. Ecuador’s framework for doing business is quite weak compared to international benchmarks. According to Doing Business, factors affecting firm entry – such as the ease of starting a business – are well below the regional average, ranking 166th of 190 economies in the 2017 report. Insolvency proceedings take over 5 years (compared to the regional average of just under three and the OECD average of 1.7 years), with recovery of only 17.7 cents on the dollar (half of the regional average and less than four times the OECD average).24 Ecuador scores 46 of 100 points on the Heritage Foundation index of economic freedom, classifying it as a repressed economy; according to Heritage, economic freedom is at grave risk in Ecuador as the restrictive entrepreneurial environment has marginalized the private sector.25 A highly protective regime or a regime with stringent constraints on 22 WB, 2010 23 WB, 2010 24 Doing Business 2017 25 Heritage Foundation index of economic freedom 2016 64 local entry and exit can discourage technological upgrading and isolate the economy from international trends. 26 6.2. International trade and investment 127. International openness is often related to innovation flows into the country, and as such regulations related to trade have a strong effect on innovation patterns. Trade regulation and practices strongly influence a country’s ability to attract FDI, benefit from technology transfer through imports, and stimulate local innovation.27 It is important to consider that many different barriers can affect the ease and costs of trade, such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, other non-tariff barriers such as safeguard measures that affect trading opportunities of developing countries, as well as technical barriers to trade related to standards and norms. 128. In Ecuador, regulations affecting international trade may hinder innovation. Ecuador’s lack of trade agreements with most commercial partners, in particular the United States, increases import costs of inputs for domestic producers due to high tariffs and non-tariff barriers required to enter into the market, therefore reducing profitability and productivity. Additional costs come from the salvaguardia or safeguard tax on imports, on some imports implemented in the aftermath of the fall in oil prices to address balance of payment issues. While this measure should end in June 2017, many of the lines covered by the measure constitute essential inputs required especially by the industrial and manufacturing sectors. Based on interviews within the private sector manufacturers, these safeguards are a major obstacle for firms seeking to innovate in their product or processes. For example, a company in Manta using processed tuna in ready-made meal packages has faced difficulties importing key inputs for their recipes (in this case, wild rice), causing delays in the processing and loss of competitiveness in the international market. These trade-related barriers make it difficult for firms to make creative innovations to their products or processes, to diversify their scope, and to enter into new markets with higher added value, while at the same time complying with international technical and quality standards. However, the recent trade agreement with the European Union brings positive opportunities. 6.3. Intellectual property rights (IPR) regime 129. Intellectual property rights have an important role in stimulating innovation and encouraging technology dissemination. IPR are enforceable legal measures that confer monopoly rights on innovators for a specified period of time, after which they fall into the public domain and can be freely used by others. The underlying assumption and motivation behind IPR is that they foster innovation by ensuring that innovators are sufficiently rewarded for their investments, including both their creative energy and financial capital.28 Opinions about the impact of stronger IPR policies on developing countries vary widely, however. Some supporters argue that developing countries striving to stimulate knowledge generation and benefit from technologically rich investments need to establish strong IPR regimes. Others argue that IPR protection that is too strong can reinforce economic concentration and, by restricting competition, enable owners to maintain high prices and stifle innovation29. Aptly summarized by the OECD report on Innovation Strategy30, the key policy question is therefore how to strike an appropriate balance between providing incentives and rewards to innovators and providing access to new knowledge for users. 130. In Ecuador, new regulation on IPR may discourage innovation. In November 2016, the Government of Ecuador has approved a new intellectual property, El Código Orgánico de la Economía Social de los Conocimientos, la Creatividad y la Innovación (“Código Ingenios”) that, according to stakeholder perceptions, represents a risk to innovation efforts by decriminalizing intellectual property 26 WB, 2010 27 Innovation Policy. A Guide for Developing Countries, WB, 2010. 28 WB, 2010 29 Idem 30 Innovation and Growth: Rationale for an Innovation Strategy. OECD, 2007. 65 violations. According to those stakeholders, the law establishes limitations on the private ownership of the results of the innovation, which ultimately disincentives innovation throughout a variety of different sectors. In terms of impacts, this could negatively affect some initiatives such as those implemented in Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral (ESPOL) in recent years on R&D in Guayaquil; the new IPR law could present some disincentives for this investment in R&D. Moreover, as a result of a recent negotiating process on the EU Trade Agreement with Ecuador, some improvements have been made in this IPR area by the Government, but the law may still have areas to be improved to adequately protect the intellectual property of a wider range of innovations. 6.4. Competition policy31 131. The competition policy framework and implementation influences both the intensity of innovation efforts and the pace at which innovations spread to the market. Low levels of competition and regulations restraining competition in the product market have an adverse effect on productivity growth32, while limited competition among suppliers may increase the cost of inputs, slow the adoption of best-practice production techniques, delay the diffusion technology from abroad through FDI, and make products supplied less innovative. It may discourage innovation, making it too costly to develop it or to defend the associated intellectual property.33 On the other hand, some theoretical models suggest competition could be detrimental to innovation, owing to the reduction of monopoly profits that would reward successful innovators (the idea being that the prospect of high profits may stimulate entry). 132. There is growing empirical evidence of a linear positive relationship between more intense competition and innovation. An early paper by Aghion et al. (2005) suggested an inverted U-shaped relationship between competition and innovation, where in most industries firms innovated to escape competition and in some selected ones, increased competition was associated with decreased innovation. Correa (2012) shows that the introduction of a structural break in the Aghion et al. (2005) dataset dissolves the U-shaped innovation-competition relationship. Studies with data from other countries provide further evidence of a (monotonically) positive relationship between competition and innovation34. When innovation is proxied by firm-reports of new products or production processes (instead of formal patents or R&D expenditures), results suggest that market characteristics consistent with stronger competition (substitutability of the products, entry costs) are associated with more innovation (see Beneito et al. 2015). 133. A comprehensive competition policy framework rests upon three complementary pillars: fostering pro-competition regulations and government interventions; measures to guarantee competitive neutrality in markets and effective economy-wide enforcement of competition law. These pillars, summarized by Figure 6.1 below, allow to identify opportunities for improvement to tackle the public and private barriers to competition that may affect market performance and ultimately, innovation. 31 This is based on inputs from Tanja Goodwin at the World Bank Group, T&C. 32 Kitzmuller, Markus; Martinez Licetti, Martha. 2012. Competition policy : encouraging thriving markets for development. Financial and private sector development; note no. 331. Washington, DC: World Bank. 33 Going for Growth 2007: Economic Policy Reforms. Paris, OECD, 2007. 34 Griffith et al. (2010) find that increased competition through EU integration has had a positive impact on R&D expenditures. Import competition from China has on average led to increases in R&D, patenting, IT as in over half a million firms in 12 European countries as shown in Bloom, Draca and van Reenen (2016). Gorodnichenko, Svejnar, and Terrell (2010) use data from a unified survey of over 11,500 firms in 27 emerging markets and find that greater pressure from foreign competition stimulates innovation 66 Figure 6.1. A Comprehensive Competition Policy Framework FOSTERING COMPETITION IN MARKETS PRO-COMPETITION REGULATIONS AND GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONS: COMPETITIVE NEUTRALITY EFFECTIVE COMPETITION LAW OPENING MARKETS AND REMOVING AND NON- DISTORTIVE AND ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT ANTICOMPETITIVE SECTORAL PUBLIC AID SUPPORT REGULATION Reform policies and regulations that strengthen dominance: restrictions to the number of firms, Control state aid to avoid favoritism Tackle cartel agreements that raise the costs statutory monopolies, bans toward private and minimize distortions on of key inputs and final products and reduce investment, lack of access regulation for competition access to a broader variety of products essential facilities. Eliminate government interventions that are conducive to collusive outcomes or increase Ensure competitive neutrality the costs of competing: controls on prices and Prevent anticompetitive mergers including vis-a vis SOEs other market variables that increase business risk Strengthen the general antitrust and Reform government interventions that discriminate and harm competition on the merits: institutional framework to combat frameworks that distort the level playing field or grant high levels of discretion anticompetitive conduct and abuse of dominance Source: WBG-OECD (2016). Adapted from Kitzmuller M. and M. Licetti, “Competition Policy: Encouraging Thriving Markets for Development” Viewpoint Note Number 331, World Bank Group, August 2012. 134. Competition policy implementation is relatively weak in Ecuador. According to data collected by WBG and OECD, product market regulation is more restrictive to competition than in the majority of other Latin American countries and over 50% more restrictive than in the rest of the world35. Ecuador still holds a significant degree of state control in key sector of the economy and Ecuador’s SOEs—with widespread participation in key markets—can receive financing not available to private companies. Such lack of competitive neutrality can create an uneven playing field and uncertainty with respect to potential prospects of innovation efforts. Price controls are also still present in selected consumer goods (e.g. pharmaceuticals), generating similarly sources of uncertainty for investors and potential innovators. Ecuador has a competition law in place since 2009 which includes all the usual components, except for competition advocacy which is a critical tool for authorities to promote competition principles in broader public policies and remove regulatory barriers to competition in key markets. While Ecuador is the only South American country that includes provisions on anticompetitive actions of state and public bodies as well as state aid control, its competition law also establishes that restrictions to competition can be established by reasoned decisions of the competition authority for the provision of public services. Implementation of these provisions to guarantee a product market regulatory framework that is conducive to competition is critical to foster competitive neutrality in key markets. Finally, Ecuador’s law does not expressly state that hard core cartels should be considered per se illegal despite the evidence on the harm of price-fixing cartels. Preliminary findings from the new WBG Anti- Cartel Enforcement Database suggests that cartel agreements that – based on the global estimates - raise prices by an average of 49% have been detected at least 260 times in LAC, and so far, evidence shows there are likely three times as many undetected. 6.5. Labor regulation 135. Restrictive labor markets may curtail firms’ ability to put in place the changes in the workforce and firm organization necessary to reap benefits from new technology deployed. 36 Moreover, innovative activities yield uncertain results and a risk of failure is always present. Labor 35 The WBG-OECD Product Market Regulation database captures the government’s direct participation in commercial activities and state inf luence in markets through rules that affect market outcomes (state control); rules that limit market entry and reduce the intensity of rivalry among competitors (barriers to entrepreneurship) and barriers to trade and investment 36 Going for Growth 2006, OECD. 67 regulations should encourage a market that is facilitates, and does not constrain, risk-takers and innovators efforts. 136. In Ecuador, labor regulation is restrictive, creating rigidity in the labor market and hindering job growth. Lack of flexibility in hiring and firing of staff creates significant barriers to labor demands, particularly for employing short-term workers (according to the law, short-term workers end or convert their contract after three months in a company). This greatly affects a company’s flexibility in innovating beyond their status quo; many times part-time workers fill a need for firms trying to begin new activities but without commitment beyond the short-term pending the success of the project. In addition to this rigidity of the labor regulations, minimum wage has been increasing over the last decade in Ecuador, and now stands as the second highest in the region (after Argentina). This contributes to the high cost of labor in the country, which represents a major barrier for firms seeking to innovate. 137. Regulations prohibiting outsourcing of workers is also creating constraints for innovative companies. The National Labor Code of Ecuador does not allow for outsourcing workers, which is a useful tool for entrepreneurs who need to respond to seasonal demands, or business start-ups that require workers while exploring the success of the firm in the market. Ecuadorian companies face burdens in hiring international expertise, which creates disincentives for entrepreneurs to bring foreign experts, which would help facilitate the spread of innovations and disseminate knowledge. 6.6. Access to finance 138. Ecuador’s regulations within financial markets may be examined to boost the innovation agenda, particularly by contributing to reducing the financing gaps faced by some innovative small firms. According to Heritage Foundation (2016), the underdeveloped financial sector in Ecuador is often subjected to state-directed allocation of credit and limits access to financing, which adds to business costs. Although the banking sector has grown, the state’s interventionist policy stance constrains overall growth in financial services. There are currently no special lines of credit that promote start-ups or innovation, which means innovators finance through personal savings or loans, many of which have very high interest rates. This makes innovating or taking risks in general much costlier for firms in the short-term, despite the long-term gains that may be discovered through innovation. These high costs often deter marginally-innovative companies from making further investment into R&D. 139. Promoting sources of funding such as high-risk capital and less formal sources of finance may also be considered. The market for high-risk capital, in particular venture capital and less formal sources of finance such as business angels’ funds, can play a key role in the financing of innovation . Investment in innovation in Ecuador would also be encouraged by deeper and more efficient venture capital markets and easier access to external finance. Differences in the availability and/or use of venture capital across countries may to some extent be rooted in different cultural attitudes toward entrepreneurship and risk-taking, but they also reflect policies that discourage risk-taking and the supply of risk capital.37 6.7. Public procurement policies for innovation 140. Governments can also proactively encourage innovation through innovation-supportive procurement policies. Because innovation is traditionally believed to come from the supply side, proactive innovation policies generally aim at supporting product or service providers through targeted grants, fiscal incentives, or equity support.38 141. There is ample room for Ecuador to improve its procurement policies for supporting innovation. In fact, while the national policies do not effectively stimulate innovation in general, they 37 Going for Growth 2006, OECD. 38 WB, 2010 68 often create additional barriers for innovating. For example, in the consulting services and software development sectors firms are being adversely affected by the recent changes in procurement regulation. In the case of the consulting services firms, consultants are not allowed to include in their economic proposals any cost related to overheads or administrative work, but only operational costs related to the individual consultant fees, which affects the financial sustainability of these firms. Software development firms are being affected by regulation requiring the government to use only open source software (instead of purchasing licensed software), eliminating the potential for these firms to contract with the public sector with any hope of recovering their investments in software innovations. Finally, there are no mechanisms in the public procurement legal framework that allow the government to hire innovation services, closing off what may be an area offering high potential for advances in the public sector. 69 Chapter 7. Concluding remarks and policy implications 7.1. Conclusions 142. Innovation is imperative for the growth of the Ecuadorian economy. Some sectors need innovation for improving productivity and performance, others just to survive in a complex context, where the Ecuadorian economic crisis after oil prices downsizing and increasing competition from neighbor countries (Colombia and Peru, in particular) and Asia, require new ways to gain competitive advantages based on quality and differentiation, not just on cost. The issue is not in the number of companies doing innovation (reported in chapter 1) to be higher than those in the Chilean regional innovation frontier, but the quality of that innovation, including the innovation that is new to the market or new to the country and other indicators on technology transfer, absorption and adoption (unfortunately not covered in the national innovation survey). 143. A combination of high public R&D expenditure and low private R&D investment and overall low innovation performance form the Ecuadorian innovation paradox. This report has shown that in Ecuador there are significant gaps in innovation, namely low business innovation and a private sector, not yet engaged in innovation alongside an impressive increase of public R&D in the last 5 years, according to the existing statistics. The R&D spending as percentage of GDP rose from one of the lowest in LAC to reach the average in the same regional context. However, business innovation is still among the lowest in the region vis-à-vis Ecuador’s comparators, based on the GII and other international statistics on innovation. This is reflected by the extremely low percentage of business R&D in total R&D (1% or 9% depending on the statistical source). 144. There are four possible explanations for the innovation paradox in Ecuador: 1) it reflects the economic growth model in Ecuador, based on high public investment and lacking a stronger engagement of the private sector in general; 2) public R&D programs are not designed to lead to stronger public-private collaborative R&D; 3) the private sector is not innovative enough and suffers from a low innovation culture; 4) there is a lack of incentives and a favorable investment climate needed for the private sector to innovate. The four reasons are likely playing a role, more or less depending on each sector, as confirmed by different interactions with the private and public sectors for the purposes of this study. 145. The innovation gaps are not necessarily determined by the innovation barriers—regulatory and non-regulatory—in the national innovation survey. Some innovative sectors may be facing more obstacles than less innovative ones, and vice-versa. Other factors (not included in the survey) such as poor innovation culture or the investment climate may play a higher role. Moreover, the perception of each firm’s barriers may vary depending on the innovation culture. More innovative countries (like Chile) attach a higher importance to innovation barriers than can be seen in Ecuador, and the same perception biases may happen at the sector level. Innovative sectors may perceive barriers as more important than sectors not very engaged in innovation activities, a finding that is supported by the econometric analysis of innovation and productivity in chapter 4. Innovators can give more importance to the barriers they face than non-innovators. The same applies to innovation impacts. 146. Among the priority sectors selected by MIPRO, some perform better than the national average while others lag, with exposure to the international markets and competition being key explanatory elements. Operating in international markets makes firms abler to overcome national innovation constraints and generates an innovation culture with easier access to knowledge and technology adaptation and absorption. 147. On the relationship between innovation and productivity, the report finds robust evidence that firms that invest in all types of innovation derive substantial benefits in terms of higher productivity. This is based on a CDM model, augmented by ICT and non-ICT investment, a rigorous three-stage econometric estimation of Ecuadorian firms’ investment in innovation (R&D, ICT and non- ICT), resulting technological innovation and labor productivity. The results are consistent across 70 different specifications for manufacturing and services and different definitions of technological innovation and robust to the inclusion of various firm-level control variables that capture firm characteristics and other policy environment features (IPR protection, information sources and cooperation in innovation). The results also provide robust evidence that the quality of human capital is highly significant and positively associated with firm decisions to invest in R&D/ICT and innovate. The estimated effects of R&D- and ICT-driven technological innovation are in line with similar studies in other LAC economies, and suggest that ICT plays a role in innovation, that goes beyond R&D and is especially relevant for services. 148. Solving coordination failures is a key objective of CDPs and can help strengthen inter-firm coordination and linkages, improve firms’ allocation of resources and investment, business practices and technologies and business performance. In particular, at the stage of when firms allocate more resources, changes can be reflected in variables such as the level of investment in innovation, expenditures in services for the exploration of new markets, expenditures in training or consultancy services, and in the search for complementary capabilities and knowledge. 149. From February to September 2016, the World Bank Group provided technical assistance to MIPRO to present the methodology for prioritizing clusters and assisting MIPRO in selecting the final list of value chains. Following the screening methodology, MIPRO selected the following 12 industries: textile and apparel; furniture and wood products; cocoa; coffee; fish; palm; meat products; dairy; fresh fruit; fresh vegetables; conserved fruit and vegetable; and banana and plantain. KIBS and other services, like logistics, were not included in the cluster screening exercise because CDPs tend not to focus on horizontal services that are non-tradable. Besides, horizontal services and KIBS were the focus of a specific technical assistance in 2015, for which an Action Plan was produced. There is considerable scope to upgrade into higher value-added products in these same industries. However, entering into higher value-added products requires, inter alia, productivity improvements, upgrading, certification and standardization, all of which are examples of innovation. These improvements and the types of technology or innovation needed can be directly informed through the CDPs. 150. Regarding the regulatory framework for innovation, Ecuador has room to improve its policies to create favorable conditions for incentivizing and disseminating innovation among its companies. Based on international best practices and analysis of Ecuador’s current policies, topic areas such as labor regulation, competition policy, and bureaucratic requirements could be reformed to increase flexibility and ease the regulatory burden, thereby creating more capacity for companies to innovate; while other areas, such as international trade and intellectual property regimes could be improved to encourage the dissemination of innovations. Finally, regulatory reforms aiming to improve Ecuador’s overall investment climate in areas covering business entry, exit, and operations could have a longer-term impact on increasing both local and international investment, which would in turn create a more favorable climate for innovation. 7.2. Policy implications 151. The diagnosis in this report leads to the policy recommendations summarized in Table 7.1 below. 71 Table 7.1. Matrix of policy recommendations Evidence/finding Policy actions 39 Macroeconomic context 1  Structural vulnerabilities due to low  Macroeconomic stability and sustainability, pro-productivity productivity and limited diversification and reforms, including trade openness as well as FDI attraction and competitiveness retention  Uncertain macroeconomic context  Innovation policies and cluster development policies to reduce structural vulnerabilities R&D and innovation 2  Innovation model promoting public R&D and  Promote R&D and innovation policy to ensure greater private human capital is not enough to boost business sector participation. The private sector needs to be involved in innovation performance the design and implementation of policies.  Very limited role of private sector in the  Public-private R&D and public-private business-related national science and technology system (e.g. innovation policies are needed. only 1% private of total R&D funding, one of the lowest in the region) 3  Limited impact of current R&D policies.  Shift toward a more demand-driven model based on  Limits of the R&D and supply-based innovation collaborative innovation policies, such as public-private model with minor role of collaboration between business-related innovation policies (e.g., special calls and public and private sectors. programs to promote collaboration and cluster development). 4  Lack of knowledge-intensive business service  Technology extension services to facilitate diagnostics and the (KIBS) to facilitate innovation use of KIBS (matching grants instruments may apply). 5  Many recent innovation programs have been  Undertake a review or evaluation (e.g. Public Expenditure terminated due to budgetary constraints or Review) of recent innovation and industrial programs to assess because their success was questionable. their effectiveness and outcomes. Value chains development 6  A value chains approach can show how value is  Prioritize strategic analysis when undertaking value chains distributed along the value chain nor prioritized programs, to understand where value is created and who is poverty reduction capturing it. 7  Evaluations of CDPs have shown increased  Consider Cluster Development programs as a policy for employment of beneficiary firms, an increase in increasing employment and exports, but ensure design and the value of exports, and the likelihood of institutionalization are sustainable and not one-off programs exporting. 8  MIPRO and MAGAP have implemented cluster  Assessment of past cluster programs improvement programs, but their effectiveness and outcomes are unknown 9  Because Ecuador has a natural competitive  In order for Ecuadorian firms to compete in higher value-added advantage in agriculture, economic GVCs, they will require upgrading, productivity improvements, diversification should focus on integrating into technology adoption, certification and standardization. higher value-added agricultural value chains  The public sector could support the Ecuadorian firms to  There are gaps in the National Quality integrate in higher-value added agricultural GVCs by Infrastructure (NQI), in particular in terms of strengthening the National Quality Infrastructure (NQI). metrology, conformity assessment and Specifically : (i) metrology and standardization: building the awareness raising. capacity of the national metrology institute, INEN, to obtain more Calibration and Measurement Capabilities (CMCs); build the capacity of INEN to develop a more market-oriented institution and strategy; new equipment and technical support in new areas of measurement required for key industries; (ii) Conformity assessment: matching grants and credit lines for the development of new private conformity assessment bodies; and (iii) Industry: Extension services on quality and continuous improvements, including an awareness campaign; matching grants for technical assistance on quality and continuous improvement systems; and, capacity building for quality and continuous improvement consultants. Investment climate 10  Companies declare access to finance as the most  Partial guarantee systems for long-term investment, risk capital important constraint to innovation. (only if linked to guarantees to share risks), extension of periods in credit lines for SMEs to make long-term investment possible, tax deductions, revision of the interest rate cap policies related to the medium size of companies that may get negative benefits with the current system, or innovation support like in the case of services provided in the context of a cluster development program or through technology extension. 11  Cumbersome investment climate and regulatory  Combat the main regulatory challenges related to innovation, burden is limiting innovation and value chain such as improving intellectual property regimes, labor development. regulations, and competition policy, as well as streamlining other administrative procedures and regulation (particularly in business registration and operations) that primarily affect innovative firms. 72 152. Policy recommendations derived from this study to improve innovation through horizontal and cluster development policies in Ecuador include the following: A. Structural reforms affecting innovation and value chains development should go hand in hand with macroeconomic stability and sustainability as well as private investment mobilization. Implementing a public expenditure rationalization and a revenue mobilization strategy more resilient to external shocks is a priority. Leveraging private investment is critical to activate the recovery process. In particular, facilitate the rapid reallocation of resources in the economy from firms and sectors that are no longer viable toward new ventures is needed, which implies lifting barriers to firm entry and exit. It also requires enabling a better investment climate for FDI, implementing pro-competition policies and reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. B. There is an urgent need for private sector engagement and involvement, for which collaborative public-private R&D and innovation policies can be useful channels. The private sector plays a very limited role of in the national science and technology system (e.g. only 1% private of total R&D funding, one of the lowest in the region). R&D policies in Ecuador have been too oriented toward the public sector, and there is a need to bring the private sector on board for the design and implication of innovation policies. Existing proposals (like the one the textile industry promoted jointly with a North Carolina university in the US and Yachai) need to move forward, and discontinued collaborative projects (such as the plastics lab at ESPOL) should be assessed to work toward private engagement. The private sector could have much greater participation and leadership in technology centers and institutes. It is important to reduce the distance between academia, the government, and the private sector to make significant advances in R&D investment. Most of the investment on innovation in Ecuador has been concentrated in public sector initiatives, rather than emulating from the private sector’s improvements to their products or processes. Based on stakeholder interviews in various sectors, the private sector mostly produces for the domestic market responding to the economic cycles of the demand, usually without making serious efforts to increase innovation and improve their technologies. In this regard, it is important to reduce the distance between academia, the government, and the private sector to make significant advances in R&D investment. Moreover, beyond T&D, policy makers should pay a higher attention to other inputs and drivers for innovation, such as ICT and knowledge-intensive business services. One concrete example of how R&D policies can promote private R&D is collaborative R&D schemes that link public R&D funding to the participation of firms. A second is the participation of businessmen (or their representatives) in the selection committees for R&D programs. A third is the involvement of professional associations, chambers of commerce in the managerial structure and funding of technological centers and research institutes. A fourth is open and social innovation initiatives, such as innovation awards, to bring the private sector together with the third sector, NGOs, and the public sector to design R&D and innovation programs and disseminate an innovation culture in the country. Finally, benchmarking programs could encourage public-private R&D cooperation and sharing successful international experiences. These possible actions for R&D policies can also extend to the full range of innovation policies beyond R&D. There is room to combine both vertical policies in priority value chains (e.g. 39 These policy actions include both crosscutting and horizontal policies as well as institutional dimensions. 73 value chain development and technology extension) and horizontal policies (e.g. access to finance) useful for any sector. C. Ecuador needs to move from a largely top-down and supply driven model to a more powerful model based on user-driven, demand-based and collaborative innovation policies. The limited role of the private sector in the innovation system is due to the dominance of a STC system that is too public-sector oriented, leading to a top-down, supply driven and R&D driven model. Modern innovation policies are much more demand based and try to adapt to the local productive endowments and potentialities giving a lead role to local actors (private sector, third sector, local communities, final users). This can be done through programs promoting collaboration and co-innovations between different actors (e.g. through clusters and innovation networks). Collaboration for innovation, when it exists, is a factor for obtaining positive impacts on productivity, as shown by both econometric results from existent quantitative data and evaluations of the effects of CDPs. Despite the evidence showing this to be so important, the collaborative schemes in the country are marginal, indicating market coordination failures all over the country. These market coordination failures justify policy action in this field. Promoting collaboration in R&D and innovation policies is a way to convert supply-drive and top-down driven policies into policies more based on the real needs and potentiality of local producers. Another way could be related to assess the managerial structure and incentive systems in the STC system, to give more room to non-public actors in the decision making. D. If the Government of Ecuador is interested in pursuing a Cluster Development Program—as these can help firms become more innovative, increase the likelihood of exporting and improve productivity over time—they should apply the lessons learned from past CDP experiences. The positive effects of CDPs have been documented and include improved resource allocation and investments, business practices and technologies and finally business performance of firms. A Government of Ecuador program may support value chains where the opportunity is highest to promote backward linkages of shared facilities, equipment, and services, with a requirement for counterpart funding (matching grants). Examples of possible needs include: cold chain equipment; logistics centers or services; traceability systems; testing laboratories; design centers; joint design of packaging and labeling appropriate for foreign markets; etc… (World Bank Group, 2015). While CDPs can help clusters of firms to overcome coordination failures but should be designed and executed in a manner to ensure success. Some CDPs have encountered various constraints during implementation. Lessons learned from other CDP experiences show that institution building and public-public collaboration can be the most challenging aspects of successful implementation. E. Upgrading to higher value-added agricultural GVCs would allow Ecuador to increase diversification and exports but in order to do so Ecuadorian firms need to improve productivity and adopt new technologies and the public sector should ensure the NQI adequately meets their needs of obtaining certifications and meeting international standards. To pursue upgrading strategies, particularly in agricultural GVCs, companies will need access to a sufficient NQI. Ecuador’s NQI needs improvement in several areas. One is strengthening the capacity of the country’s two NQI institutions (SAE and INEN). Another is catalyzing a private market for calibration laboratories. A third is promoting a more demand- driven strategy for INEN (the national metrology institution). A fourth is promoting a culture of quality within the private sector. F. Ecuador should learn from its own experiences and that of other countries in order to avoid repeating costly mistakes. Ecuador can learn from leading countries with successful industrial and innovation policy experience (e.g., Tekes promoting user-driven innovation in 74 Finland), neighbor countries with positive experiences (e.g. in Chile, Colombia and Peru), and countries currently under performing interesting cluster development initiatives in the region (e.g. on-going WBG project on cluster development in Haiti) as well as from the own Ecuadorian experience. On lessons learned from programs in other countries, in particular, Colombia and Peru as neighbors and Chile as a regional leader, should be obtained to experiment and adapt relevant and fruitful initiatives that promote innovation in these countries. For example, Colombia’s Colosciencias program to support university-private sector innovation work and the World Bank program for technology extension could be of particular interest for Ecuador. Of course, careful sectoral analysis must be done using international benchmarking; some success stories in one country may not work in another country if the two nations are not similar enough. There have been Competitiveness Improvement Programs (“Programa de Mejora Competiva” [PMC]) in Ecuador—one around 2011–2012, managed by MIPRO, and another more recently, managed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fishing (MAGAP). The adequate institutionalization of CDPs, implementation design, client capacity, and choosing the right local structure are necessary for the sustainability of such programs. 40 A review of these programs should cover the results achieved to date and whether these programs were institutionalized or one-off programs. More recent programs such as Encadena at MIPRO could also be rapidly reviewed to see whether they could incorporate best practices from successful CDP experiences in other countries, such as Colombia (Innpulsa/Rutas Competitivas) and Austria (Clusterland UpperAustria). G. The Government of Ecuador should undertake a Public Expenditure Review (PER) of recent innovation and industrial programs to assess their effectiveness. Ecuador has discontinued most of its public programs supporting innovation 4-8 years ago (Emprende Ecuador, Innova Ecuador, loans for technology absorption, tech labs in universities) due to budgetary constraints or because their success was questionable. Indeed, the econometric analysis in this report shows that public programs for technological innovation do not have significant impacts on productivity. This result complements previous findings that participating in innovation programs does not have significant effects on sales and exports in service companies (Rubalcaba et al., 2016). However, even in cases where the public program was not successful overall, the positive experiences of some individual cases (such as wood, fish or software) should be identified and analyzed in comparison with the non-successful experiences to build a repository of what worked what did not work in each program. A PER analysis would provide key elements to learn from past experiences and design and priorities future actions toward an efficient cost/benefit ratio. For example, a PER approach would be useful to assess why the massive investment on R&D is not leading into the significant results in terms of business innovation and which programs work better than others to maximize impacts. The WBG is performing PER analysis in differ countries in the region (including Colombia, Peru and Mexico). One particular aspect for assessment is the one referring to innovation policies that could be more internationally-oriented and aligned with export promotion policies. In Ecuador, openness to international markets is not a guarantee of success nor of realizing the effects of innovation within productivity or competitiveness. The econometric model in this report shows little or no impact regarding innovation outcomes, and only in few cases FDI and exports have a positive significant influence on innovation outputs. Innovation can be more effective if it is based on international benchmarking and is focused on innovating to the world or to country 40 See recommendations for institutionalizing CDPs in the background paper: “Competitive reinforcement of value chains in Ecuador” (Kim, 2017). 75 level (not only within the firm). Moreover, there are business cases explained in the report of innovation companies that innovate because they are fully open to international markets; for them, innovation and internationalization go hand by hand. But this is an exception in the country rather than the norm, and thus the econometric results are not significant. The country has a strong tradition of exporting commodities with little or no innovation and little tradition of exporting new differentiated and innovative products in the markets; as such, export-oriented policies like some of the ones from Pro-Ecuador could be redesigned to promote synergies with innovation and business development policies. Openness to international trade can be more related to openness to new innovative products and processes. In this context, it is an important signal that many businesspersons interviewed for this report have considered the signed agreement with the European Union as an opportunity for boosting innovation programs and overall competitiveness in sectors that may benefit from the trade agreement. One of the major problems for innovation is the lack of internationalization of most Ecuadorian sectors combined with the large dependency on the public sector. In this context, the opening to the EU may bring new impetus for innovation, as well as a new, big market to trade with. A similar process may happen as in 1992 when the Andean Community was created and some sectors jumped into the regional market. Specific export programs oriented to the EU should be combined with innovation actions that make quality and differentiation a competitive advantage tool. Otherwise, the exports would be limited to the agroindustry products in which there are already some price competitive advantages. Also, under the new agreement, most Ecuador’s exports would enter the EU tariff-free markets, which would greatly benefit the agricultural and fishing industries. The EU represents a new potential market of 500 million consumers. Integrating into higher value-added segments would help not only to diversify the current export product basket but also to leverage this new market opportunity. H. Technology extension centers are another vertical innovation policy, together to policies towards better knowledge intensive business services markets, that would be useful in Ecuador given serious knowledge gaps about innovation barriers and potential of firms. Ecuador should consider technology extension projects as possible innovation promotion areas so firms can identify their real innovation needs and approach their potentialities. WBG work in the country (this report as well as previous reports on services) has shown that sector and value chain technology experts need specific technology diagnosis and innovation knowledge. These requirements also suggest a need to promote the use of knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS), which is a horizontal need for all sectors of the Ecuadorian economy that offer solutions to industries or value chains (Rubalcaba et al., 2015). Extension services through public-private technology centers or platforms, KIBS-oriented, for strategic sectors, led by the private sector, can be highly relevant in the country and could be instrument through cofounding mechanisms. These would provide qualified diagnosis of technological and knowledge needs, appropriate business plans and effective solution implementations (the so-called “extensionist” would play a fundamental role in these actions). International experiences developed by the World Bank on technology extension programs, like the ones in Colombia and Uruguay, can be offered to provide lessons learned and practical advice on design and implementation. I. Ecuadorian companies complain the most about access to credit for innovation so policies toward facilitating access to innovation are important in Ecuador. The most significant horizontal innovation activity highlighted in the innovation report is access to funding, (credit or other), which should be compatible with funding vertical initiatives on selected value chains. The primary barriers to innovation all sectors reported qualitatively and quantitatively are access to finance and other areas related to high innovation costs. However, solutions do not need to be oriented toward new credit lines. Rather, they can address other financial actions like 76  Partial guarantee systems for long-term investment, risk capital (only if linked to guarantees to share risks)  Extension of periods in credit lines for SMEs to make long-term investment possible  Tax deductions  Revision of the interest rate cap policies related to the medium size of companies that may get negative benefits with the current system, or  Innovation support, such as services provided via a cluster development initiative or technology extension by sharing costs and benefit from grants facilitating knowledge and technology adoption and abortion, including training costs, market intelligence costs, and upgrading. These actions may integrate, or complement, current emerging initiatives in Ecuador such as seed capital funds and the Ideas Bank promoted by Senescyt. J. There is a need for Ecuador to examine crosscutting regulations affecting the overall investment climate for entrepreneurs and reforms specific to innovation policy. Cumbersome investment climate and regulatory burden is limiting innovation and value chains developments in Ecuador, whose overall performance in Doing Business and other international indicators shows room for improvement on investment climate areas, particularly in procedures to start a business, lengthy and costly insolvency regulations, and poor protection of minority shareholders. Other aspects of business operations, such as access to finance, red tape, some permits and labor skills and training, could also benefit from deep and far-reaching reforms (CEM, 2015). By improving the climate for entrepreneurship, Ecuador can indirectly support its nascent innovation system through crosscutting reforms that create the right incentives for growth, innovation, and dissemination of knowledge. The most effective reforms that support innovation across policy areas complement each other to create the right incentives for growth, innovation, and dissemination of knowledge. Reforms to improve the overall investment climate would be relevant across sectors, as these crosscutting areas affect the overall ease of doing business in the country; therefore, the promotion of investment climate reforms would also ease the formation of clusters and may improve innovation indirectly through collaboration. The competition policy framework should be strengthened by introducing competitive neutrality principles to level the playing field will allow to increase the expected returns from innovations in sectors where SOEs are present (including in Ecuador’s ICT sector which plays a key role as an input to innovation outcomes and as a driver of innovation in its own); developing and implementing the competition authority’s mandate to act upon anticompetitive actions of state and public bodies (and state aids should prevent undue comparative advantages to certain market players and distort the effects of innovations in the market); introducing reforms in product market regulation can open key markets to competition and to ensure that the more efficient an innovative market player is able to compete and thrive. Finally, expressly classifying price-fixing cartels as per se illegal by law and implementing anti-cartel enforcement more effectively could deter the most egregious violation against competition dynamics that are at the core of incentives to innovate. Specifically, relevant to innovation policy, regulation affecting international trade and FDI could be eased to promote exchange of information across borders and easily integrate best practices from abroad. The intellectual property regime should be reformed to find a balance to protect inventors and their advances, thereby boosting incentives for innovation within the private sector, without affecting public welfare and competition. Another suggestion: Labor laws should also be examined to impart more flexibility for firms to respond to their business needs, (particularly regarding short-term and outsourced workers). Financial markets, as 77 discussed above, could be examined to meet the needs of small businesses and entrepreneurs, which may also be explored through reforming public procurement policies. In addition, in order for Ecuador to meet the standards demanded by trading partners, there is a need to improve the NQI. In particular, strengthening the capacity of the country’s NQI institutions—INEN and SAE—and filling several gaps in the NQI would be necessary to provide the services needed by the private sector to export products. 78 References Ahmed, G. and Hamrick, D. (2016) “Review of Ecuador’s Agri-Industries GVCs – Bottlenecks and Roadmap for implementation.” (Background paper for the Ecuador CEM 2016). Alfaro, D., Maffioli, A. and Stucchi, R. “Measuring the Effects of CDP” (2016) The Impact Evaluation of Cluster Development Programs: Methods and Practices (Maffioli, A., Pietrobelli, C., Stucchi, R., eds.) Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank. pp. 19-33. Álvarez, R. and Crespi, G.A. (2015) Heterogeneous effects of financial constraints on innovation: Evidence from Chile, Science and Public Policy, Volume doi: 10.1093/scipol/scu091 http://spp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/02/14/scipol.scu091.short Casaburi, G. and Pittaluga, L., “Lessons Learned from Case Studies of CDPs in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay” (2016) The Impact Evaluation of Cluster Development Programs: Methods and Practices (Maffioli, A., Pietrobelli, C., Stucchi, R., eds.) Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank. pp. 167-194. Chaherli, N. and Nash, J., (2013) “Agricultural exports from Latin America and the Caribbean: Harnessing Trade to Feed the World and Promote Development”, World Bank Group. Chesbrough, H. (2006) Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation, En H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J. West (eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press. D’Este, P, Iammarino, S., Savona, M. y von Tunzelmann, N. (2012) What hampers innovation? Revealed barriers versus deterring barriers, Research Policy, Volume 41, Issue 2, March 2012, Pages 482-488, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.008. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733311001764 Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of economic literature, 1120-1171. Ferro, E., Iacovone, L., Kapil, N and Fernandez, C. (2013) “Economic Diversification and Economic Opportunities through Enterprise Growth”, World Bank, April 2013. Financial Times (2014) The FDI Report 2014: Global greenfield investment trends, FDI Intelligence, Global Insight From the Financial Times, London Financial Times (2016) The FDI Report 2016: Global greenfield investment trends, FDI Intelligence, Global Insight From the Financial Times, London Freel, M.S. (2000) Barriers to Product Innovation in Small Manufacturing Firms, International Small Business Journal Vol. 18 number. 2, pages: 60-80, doi: 10.1177/0266242600182003 http://isb.sagepub.com/content/18/2/60.short Garrone, F. and Maffioli A. “Impact Evaluation of Cluster Policies: An Application to Arranjos Productivos Locais in Brazil” (2016). The Impact Evaluation of Cluster Development Programs: Methods and Practices (Maffioli, A., Pietrobelli, C., Stucchi, R., eds.) Washington, DC: Inter- American Development Bank. pp. 85-111. González Sanz, A. (2012) Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Review of Peru: Main Findings and Recommendations, UN Commission in Science and Technology for Development, Geneva. González, J. L. C. (2000) Una caracterización de la innovación tecnológica en los sectores manufactureros españoles: Algunos datos. Economía Industrial, (331), 139-150. 79 Greis, N.P. Dibner, M.D. y Bean, A.S. (1995) External partnering as a response to innovation barriers and global competition in biotechnology, Research Policy, Volume 24, Issue 4, 1995, Pages 609-630, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(94)00789-6. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733394007896 Guaipatín, C. and Schwartz, L. (2014) Ecuador: Análisis del Sistema Nacional de Innovación: hacia la consolidación de una cultura innovadora, Monografía del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID) No. 223 (IDB-MG-223), BID, Washington. Hadjimanolis A. (1999) Barriers to innovation for SMEs in a small less developed country (Cyprus), Technovation, Volume 19, Issue 9, Pages 561-570, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(99)00034-6 ; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016649729900034 Kim, M. (2017) Competitive Reinforcement of Value Chains in Ecuador. Background paper. The World Ban, washignton, DC. Lederman, D., Messina, J., Pienknagura, S and Rigolini, J. (2013) Latin America Entrepreneurs: Many firms but too little innovation. The World Bank, Washington DC. Loewe, P. y Dominiquini, J. (2006) Overcoming the barriers to effective innovation, Strategy & Leadership, Volume. 34 Issue: 1, Pages: 24 - 31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10878570610637858 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/10878570610637858 Madrid-Guijarro, A., Garcia, D. and Van Auken, H. (2009) Barriers to Innovation among Spanish Manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, Volume 47, Pages: 465–488. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00279.x McAdam, R., McConvery, T. y Amstrong, G. (2004) Barriers to innovation within small firms in a peripheral location, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 10 Iss: 3, pp.206 - 221, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552550410536780 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/13552550410536780 Miles, I. (1993) Services in the new industrial economy. Futures, 25(6), 653-672. Miles, I., and Tether, B. (2003). Innovation in the Service Economy. IPTS Report No 71, pp. 45 – 51. Mohnen, P. y Rosa, J.M. (2002) Barriers to Innovation in Service Industries in Canada, en (cap. 25) Feldman, M.P., Massard, Nadine (Eds.) Institutions and Systems in the Geography of Innovation, Ed. Springer. Nijssen, E. J., Hillebrand, B., Vermeulen, P. A., & Kemp, R. G. (2006) Exploring product and service innovation similarities and differences. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(3), 241- 251. OECD (2005), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. OECD, Paris. OECD (2007). Innovation and Growth: Rationale for an Innovation Strategy. OECD, Paris. OECD, UN/ECLAC and CAF (2014) Latin American Economic Outlook 2015. Education, Skills and Innovation for Development, Paris Rekas, M. (2015). Republic of Ecuador Fostering Productivity for Export and Growth. Technical Note. November 2015 Report No: ACS16906. The World Bank Group. 80 Reynolds, J. and Hristov, L. (2009) Are there barriers to innovation in retailing? The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research Volume 19, Issue 4, Pages 317-330. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09593960903331295 RICYT (2015) El Estado de la Ciencia, Principales Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Iberoamericanos/Interamericanos, Buenos Aires. Rubalcaba, L, Gago, D., Ariano, M, Tripathi, A. (2016) Services and innovation for the competitiveness of the Ecuadorian economy, Policy Research Working Paper 7767, The World Bank Group. Rubalcaba, L., Gago, D., Montes, O., Pérez, L. M., and Briones, A. (2015) Supply of and Demand for Industrial Services in Ecuador: Diagnosis and Action Plan for Knowledge-Intensive Business Services. Mipro and the World Bank Group. Segarra-Blasco, A., Garcia-Quevedo, J. & Teruel-Carrizosa, M. Int Entrep Manage J (2008) Barriers to innovation and public policy in Catalonia, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Volume: 4, Pages: 431-451. doi:10.1007/s11365-008-0086-z http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11365-008-0086-z Silva, M.J. , Joao Leitao, J. y Raposo, M. (2008) Barriers to innovation faced by manufacturing firms in Portugal: how to overcome it for fostering business excellence?, International Journal of Business Excellence, Volume 1, Issue 1-2 DOI: 10.1504/IJBEX.2008.017568 http://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJBEX.2008.017568 Slavova, S., Franco-Temple, E, Victor, J. (2016) Innovation and Investment climate in Ecuador. Chapter in The World Bank Group (2016) Ecuador: Country Economic Memorandum. Productivity Growth under Adverse Global Conditions Report Tether, B. S. (2005) Do services innovate (differently)? Insights from the European Innobarometer survey. Industry & Innovation, 12(2), 153-184. The World Bank (2010). Innovation Policy: A Guide for Developing Countries.” World Bank. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2460 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. The World Bank Group (2016) Ecuador: Country Economic Memorandum. Productivity Growth under Adverse Global Conditions Report No. 102745-EC. UNCTAD (2013) Investing in innovation for development, note by the UNCTAD Secretariat, Geneva UNESCO (2015) UNESCO Science Report: Toward 2030, Revised Edition (2016), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris UNIDO (2015) Industrial Development Report 2016. The Role of Technology and Innovation in Inclusive and Sustainable Industrial Development (UNIDO ID/447), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Vienna WIPO (2015) World Intellectual Property Indicators, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geneva WIPO (2015) World Intellectual Property Report: Breakthrough Innovation and Economic Growth, Geneva 81 Appendix I. The national innovation survey in Ecuador: some characteristics This appendix presents the National Survey of Innovation Activities 2013 conducted by the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses of the Republic of Ecuador (INEC). The National Survey on Innovation Activities aims at obtaining information from companies belonging to the economic activity of mining and quarrying (2 digits), manufacturing (3 digits) and services (2 digits), according With ISIC 4.0. Although survey results are expected to be issued every three years, similar to the approach of other innovation surveys carried out in other countries, the version used in this work is that of 2013 (at the date of work completion the 2016 edition is still not available), which collects data referring to the situation of companies between 2009 and 2011. The unit of analysis in the survey is the company (company is defined as a physical, fixed and visible research unit, separated from a home, in which an economic activity can be performed or supported). The geographical coverage is the 24 provinces of Ecuador. The companies analyzed are those with ten or more persons employed, and whose main activity according to the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC 4.0) is in the following economic sectors: Mining and quarrying; Manufacturing industries; Construction; Wholesale and Retail; Repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles; Transport and storage; Accommodation and meal service activities; Information and communication; Financial and insurance activities; Real estate activities; Professional, scientific and technical activities; Administrative and support service activities; Activities of human health care and social assistance. Total number of sectors analyzed is 59, although, for some indicators, there is no available data in any of the sectors. The sampling frame was formed from the universe of companies determined through the processing of primary sources, mainly the National Economic Census conducted in 2010, whose database consists of 467,086 companies. From this, it was necessary to generate the specific sampling frame for the innovation survey, in which the companies that meet the specifications necessary to be considered as target population were established; that is, those where characteristics of economic activity and company size are verified. Size classifies companies according to the number of people occupied as indicated by Resolution No. 1260 of the Andean Community of Nations (CAN). In this sense, we proceeded to segment the 467,086 records, according to different exclusion parameters. Following this segmentation, the sampling frame established for the innovation survey 2013 was formed by a list of 9,338 companies. Regarding the length of the survey, it can be noted that the national non-response rate represents 9% of the sample. Data was collected between May 15, 2013 and August 15, 2013. Those responsible for this study were able to access the microdata of the survey, in accordance with established regulations, with them carrying out the statistical study contained in this chapter. It should be noted that no data cleansing has been done, with only those observations (companies) where there is not enough information to present the results referred to in each table / graph. 82 Appendix II. List of institutions and firms interviewed during NLTA Mission (December 12-16, 2016) II.1. Government of Ecuador MIPRO – Ministry of Industry and Productivity II.2. Chambers and associations  “Comité Empresarial” (Business Committee)  Chamber of Production and Industry  Chamber of Industry in Guayaquil  Association of Young Entrepreneurs  AITE - Association of Textile Industry in Ecuador  ASOTECA -- Ecuadorian Association of Producers and Traders  AEBE – Association of Banana Exporters of Ecuador  AIMA -- Ecuadorian Association of Timber Industry  ANECAFE -- National Association of Coffee Exporters  CEIPA -- Ecuadorian Chamber of Tuna Industries and Processors  Chamber of Ecuatorian Consultants  AESOFT -- Ecuatorian Association of Software II.3. Private firms and companies  Masplay  Fibran  Grupo Vilaseca  Ecuambiente  SEPROYCO  Copade  Grupo Empresarial CEAS  Estudio 10  Agroprecision  BioMetrika  RedPartner  SDConsult 83 Appendix III. Some comparative results Chile vs Ecuador III.1. Innovative profile of Ecuadorian and Chilean firms in seven selected sectors Firms' technological activities: Industry "Agroindustry" Technological Innovation 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% New processes in the market 0% Non-technological innovation Fuentes: Chile: 9ª Encuesta innovación empresas New products in the market Ecuador: Encuesta Nacional de Chile Ecuador Actividades de Innovación 2013 Firms' technological activities: Industry "Textiles, cuir, tobacco" Technological Innovation 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% New processes in the market 0% Non-technological innovation Fuentes: Chile: 9ª Encuesta innovación empresas New products in the market Ecuador: Encuesta Nacional de Chile Ecuador Actividades de Innovación 2013 84 Firms' technological activities: Industry "Rubber and plastics" Technological Innovation 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% New processes in the market 0% Non-technological innovation Fuentes: Chile: 9ª Encuesta innovación empresas New products in the market Ecuador: Encuesta Nacional de Chile Ecuador Actividades de Innovación 2013 Firms' technological activities: Industry Metalmechanics" Technological Innovation 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% New processes in the market 0% Non-technological innovation Fuentes: Chile: 9ª Encuesta innovación empresas New products in the market Ecuador: Encuesta Nacional de Chile Ecuador Actividades de Innovación 2013 85 Firms' technological activities: Industry "Furniture, other manufacturing activities" Technological Innovation 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% New processes in the market 0% Non-technological innovation Fuentes: Chile: 9ª Encuesta innovación empresas Ecuador: Encuesta Nacional de in the market Ecuador New productsChile Actividades de Innovación 2013 Firms' technological activities: Industry "Computing and related" Technological Innovation 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% New processes in the market 0% Non-technological innovation Fuentes: Chile: 9ª Encuesta innovación empresas New products in the market Ecuador: Encuesta Nacional de Chile Ecuador Actividades de Innovación 2013 86 Firms' technological activities: Industry "Miscellaneous" Technological Innovation 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% New processes in the market 0% Non-technological innovation Fuentes: Chile: 9ª Encuesta innovación empresas New products in the market Ecuador: Encuesta Nacional de Chile Ecuador Actividades de Innovación 2013 III.2. Innovative profile of Ecuadorian and Chilean firms firms in seven selected sectors Barriers to firm's innovation: Industry "Agroindustry" (% of firms that consider "high" the importance of each factor) Lack of resources 40% No demand of innovations 35% Lack of external resources 30% 25% Unnecesary for previous 20% High costs innovations 15% 10% 5% 0% Uncertainty Lack staff Dominated market by incumbents Lack tecnological information Dif. Find partners Lack market information Fuentes: Chile: 9ª Encuesta innovación empresas Chile Ecuador Ecuador: Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación 2013 87 Barriers to firm's innovation: Industry "Textiles, cuir & tobacco" (% of firms that consider "high" the importance of each factor) Lack of resources 45% No demand of innovations 40% Lack of external resources 35% 30% 25% Unnecesary for previous 20% High costs innovations 15% 10% 5% 0% Uncertainty Lack staff Dominated market by incumbents Lack tecnological information Dif. Find partners Lack market information Fuentes: Chile: 9ª Encuesta innovación empresas Chile Ecuador Ecuador: Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación 2013 Barriers to firm's innovation: Industry "Rubber and plastics" (% of firms that consider "high" the importance of each factor) Lack of resources 45% No demand of innovations 40% Lack of external resources 35% 30% 25% Unnecesary for previous 20% High costs innovations 15% 10% 5% 0% Uncertainty Lack staff Dominated market by incumbents Lack tecnological information Dif. Find partners Lack market information Fuentes: Chile: 9ª Encuesta innovación empresas Chile Ecuador Ecuador: Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación 2013 88 Barriers to firm's innovation: Industry "Metalmechanics" (% of firms that consider "high" the importance of each factor) Lack of resources 50% No demand of innovations 45% Lack of external resources 40% 35% 30% Unnecesary for previous 25% 20% High costs innovations 15% 10% 5% 0% Uncertainty Lack staff Dominated market by incumbents Lack tecnological information Dif. Find partners Lack market information Fuentes: Chile: 9ª Encuesta innovación empresas Chile Ecuador Ecuador: Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación 2013 Barriers to firm's innovation: Industry "Furniture, other manufacturing activities" (% of firms that consider "high" the importance of each factor) Lack of resources 45% No demand of innovations 40% Lack of external resources 35% 30% 25% Unnecesary for previous 20% High costs innovations 15% 10% 5% 0% Uncertainty Lack staff Dominated market by incumbents Lack tecnological information Fuentes: Dif. Find partners Lack market information Chile: 9ª Encuesta innovación empresas Chile Ecuador Ecuador: Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación 2013 89 Barriers to firm's innovation: Industry "Computing and related" (% of firms that consider "high" the importance of each factor) Lack of resources 40% No demand of innovations 35% Lack of external resources 30% 25% Unnecesary for previous 20% High costs innovations 15% 10% 5% 0% Uncertainty Lack staff Dominated market by incumbents Lack tecnological information Dif. Find partners Lack market information Fuentes: Chile: 9ª Encuesta innovación empresas Chile Ecuador Ecuador: Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación 2013 Barriers to firm's innovation: Industry "Miscellaneous" (% of firms that consider "high" the importance of each factor) Lack of resources 35% No demand of innovations 30% Lack of external resources 25% 20% Unnecesary for previous 15% High costs innovations 10% 5% 0% Uncertainty Lack staff Dominated market by incumbents Lack tecnological information Dif. Find partners Lack market information Fuentes: Chile: 9ª Encuesta innovación empresas Chile Ecuador Ecuador: Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación 2013 90 Appendix IV. Econometric results: full set of tables with detailed results Table IV.1. Innovation expenditures by type of firm Average expenditure on R&D Average expenditure on ICT Average non-ICT expenditure per employee (2009-2011), US$ per employee (2009-2011), US$ per employee (2009-2011), US$ High-tech manufacturing 734 226 488 Medium-tech manufacturing 178 70 188 Low-tech manufacturing 295 29 147 High-tech knowledge-intensive services 963 303 801 Knowledge-intensive market services 185 80 281 Knowledge-intensive financial services 156 301 395 Other knowledge- intensive services 506 133 488 Traditional services 53 44 161 Source: National Survey of Innovation Activity 2013 Note: High-tech manufacturing includes pharmaceuticals (C21), computer, electronic and optical products (C26), chemicals and chemical products (C20), electrical equipment (C27), machinery and equipment (C28), motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers (C29), manufacture of medical and dental instruments and supplies (C325), extraction of crude petroleum (B061), electric power generation, transmission and distribution (D351), manufacture of gas and distribution of gaseous fuels through mains (D352), steam and air-conditioning supply (D353) and water collection, treatment and supply (E360). Medium-tech manufacturing includes manufacture of refined petroleum products (C19), rubber and plastics (C22), glass and non-metallic mineral products (C23), basic metals (C24), fabricated metal products except machinery (C25), building of ships and boats (C301) and repair and installation of machinery and equipment (C33). Low-tech manufacturing includes manufacture of food products (C10), beverages (C11), textiles (C13), wearing apparel (C14), leather and related products (C15), wood and wood products, except furniture (C16), paper and pulp (C17), printing and reproduction of recorded media (C18), furniture (C31), other manufacturing, excluding manufacture of medical and dental instruments and supplies (C32). High-tech knowledge-intensive services include motion picture, video and television program production, sound recording and music publishing (J59), programming and broadcasting (J60), telecommunications (J61), computer programming, consultancy and related services (J62), information service activities (J63), scientific research and development (M72) and software publishing (J582). KIMS include water transport (H50), air transport (H51), legal and accounting services (M69), activities of head offices and management consultancy services (M70), architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis (M71), advertising and market research (M73), other professional, scientific and technical activities (M74). Knowledge-intensive financial services include financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding (K64), insurance, reinsurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security (K65) and activities auxiliary to financial services and insurance activities (K66). Other knowledge-intensive services include publishing activities, except software publishing (J58), human health activities (Q86) , residential care activities (Q87) and call centers (N822). Traditional services include wholesale and retail trade and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles (G45), wholesale trade, except for motor vehicles and motorcycles (G46), retail trade, except for motor vehicles and motorcycles (G47), other land transport (H492), warehousing and support activities for transportation (H52), courier activities (H532), accommodation (I55), food and beverage service activities (I56), real estate activities (L68), rental and leasing activities (N77), travel agency and tour operator activities (N791), services to building and landscape activities (N81), office administrative, office support and other business support activities, except call centers (N82), and private security activities (M801). 91 Table IV.2. Investment in Innovation Decision and Intensity of Investment (R&D, ICT and non-ICT) Heckman selection model Complete Sample (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Variables P(LogRDexp)>0 LogRDexp P(LogICTexp)>0 LogICTexp P(LogNonICTexp)>0 LogNonICTexp Lem (=size) 0.160*** 0.164*** 0.162*** (0.029) (0.026) (0.029) D (exporter) 0.197 0.023 -0.235* -0.015 0.151 0.201 (0.129) (0.264) (0.127) (0.266) (0.130) (0.202) D (foreign- -0.279** -0.089 -0.059 0.406* -0.062 0.091 owned) (0.118) (0.272) (0.113) (0.216) (0.113) (0.188) D (Patent) 0.232* 0.472* 0.127 0.425** 0.299** 0.331* (0.123) (0.244) (0.118) (0.214) (0.136) (0.180) D (Gov -0.005 -0.321 -0.114 -0.358 0.371* 0.154 Financing) (0.188) (0.393) (0.178) (0.325) (0.207) (0.271) D (Coop_RD) 0.996*** 1.188*** 0.166 0.849*** 0.714*** 0.834*** (0.120) (0.274) (0.111) (0.192) (0.141) (0.173) H 1.122*** 2.564*** 0.133 1.581*** 0.764*** 2.087*** (0.231) (0.510) (0.233) (0.450) (0.256) (0.360) D (h=0) -0.784*** -0.994*** -0.297*** -0.321* -0.474*** -0.465*** (0.090) (0.371) (0.078) (0.189) (0.076) (0.176) D (market 0.770*** 0.647** 0.881*** 0.552** 1.017*** 0.476** info) (0.078) (0.283) (0.071) (0.245) (0.069) (0.216) D (Scientific 0.187 0.123 -0.104 -0.350 0.162 0.090 info) (0.136) (0.254) (0.128) (0.226) (0.150) (0.185) D (Public 0.281*** 0.477*** 0.456*** 0.377** 0.584*** 0.320** info) (0.076) (0.178) (0.071) (0.160) (0.073) (0.137) D (Cost 0.216*** 0.234 0.295*** 0.306** 0.294*** 0.030 barriers) (0.079) (0.178) (0.072) (0.142) (0.074) (0.125) D (Market -0.034 -0.047 -0.088 -0.369** 0.038 0.146 barriers) (0.085) (0.185) (0.079) (0.150) (0.081) (0.127) D (knowledge 0.248*** 0.173 0.081 0.242* 0.302*** 0.194 barriers) (0.082) (0.189) (0.077) (0.144) (0.079) (0.130) D (Regulatory 0.131 0.309 0.245** 0.262 0.439*** 0.266* barriers) (0.101) (0.210) (0.096) (0.175) (0.108) (0.156) Constant -2.304*** 2.599*** -1.753*** 3.029*** -2.019*** 4.109*** (0.258) (0.974) (0.202) (0.604) (0.225) (0.599) Athrho 0.631*** 0.616*** 0.246 (0.212) (0.203) (0.160) Lnsigma 0.684*** 0.490*** 0.533*** (0.068) (0.069) (0.029) Observations 2,808 2,808 2,808 2,808 2,808 2,808 Log likelihood -2198 -2198 -2364 -2364 -3109 -3109 Standard errors are in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. All regressions include sector dummies at the ISIC-2 level. 92 Table IV.3. Investment in Innovation Decision and Intensity of Investment (R&D and ICT) Heckman selection model: by sector Manufacturing Services (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Variables P(LogRDe LogRDexp P(LogICTe LogICTexp P(LogRDe LogRDexp P(LogICTe LogICTexp xp)>0 xp)>0 xp)>0 xp)>0 Lem (=size) 0.079 0.139*** 0.260*** 0.147** (0.059) (0.031) (0.044) (0.043) D (exporter) 0.302* -0.052 -0.192 -0.168 0.127 0.247 -0.385 0.445 (0.163) (0.434) (0.147) (0.325) (0.273) (0.562) (0.254) (0.539) D (foreign- -0.329** 0.206 -0.059 0.419 -0.197 -0.498 0.043 0.378 owned) (0.158) (0.435) (0.157) (0.343) (0.179) (0.429) (0.162) (0.293) D (Patent) 0.251* 0.386 0.193 0.703** 0.179 0.851** 0.037 0.390 (0.151) (0.347) (0.145) (0.303) (0.217) (0.426) (0.202) (0.325) D (Gov -0.110 0.374 0.166 0.641 0.049 -1.942*** -0.565* -1.713*** Financing) (0.214) (0.447) (0.203) (0.416) (0.390) (0.713) (0.340) (0.622) D (Coop_RD) 0.895*** 0.836 0.229 0.785*** 1.159*** 1.743*** 0.081 1.082*** (0.164) (0.673) (0.140) (0.289) (0.196) (0.414) (0.176) (0.273) H 0.842* 2.899*** 0.147 2.312** 1.303*** 2.229*** 0.065 1.383*** (0.436) (1.078) (0.454) (0.962) (0.281) (0.633) (0.278) (0.530) D (h=0) -0.766*** -0.585 -0.216** -0.506** -0.935*** -2.799*** -0.479*** -0.021 (0.120) (0.877) (0.104) (0.239) (0.169) (0.695) (0.120) (0.299) D (market info) 0.656*** 0.460 0.650*** 0.801*** 1.014*** 1.010** 1.124*** 0.406 (0.102) (0.701) (0.096) (0.261) (0.129) (0.439) (0.106) (0.389) D (Scientific 0.111 0.691* -0.059 -0.393 0.164 -0.658 -0.176 -0.362 info) (0.183) (0.354) (0.168) (0.353) (0.210) (0.409) (0.198) (0.316) D (Public info) 0.296*** 0.680** 0.430*** 0.636*** 0.260** 0.454 0.505*** 0.376* (0.100) (0.338) (0.093) (0.216) (0.120) (0.281) (0.107) (0.223) D (Cost 0.216** 0.239 0.272*** 0.320 0.196 0.412 0.303*** 0.409** barriers) (0.104) (0.265) (0.095) (0.209) (0.127) (0.291) (0.111) (0.205) D (Market -0.100 -0.230 -0.134 -0.564** 0.096 0.165 -0.087 -0.265 barriers) (0.108) (0.235) (0.103) (0.223) (0.138) (0.310) (0.122) (0.215) D (knowledge 0.195* 0.297 0.057 0.264 0.291** -0.047 0.196* 0.043 barriers) (0.104) (0.298) (0.101) (0.218) (0.133) (0.299) (0.118) (0.210) D (Regulatory 0.161 0.192 0.269** 0.216 0.118 0.557 0.237 0.496* barriers) (0.124) (0.294) (0.117) (0.248) (0.182) (0.373) (0.167) (0.268) Constant -1.450*** 2.566 -1.807*** 1.538*** -2.790*** 2.405** -1.749*** 3.453*** (0.289) (2.205) (0.229) (0.580) (0.305) (1.112) (0.247) (0.791) Athrho 0.678 1.380*** 0.820*** 0.321 (0.808) (0.208) (0.268) (0.271) Lnsigma 0.663*** 0.682*** 0.722*** 0.459*** (0.248) (0.085) (0.092) (0.061) Observations 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,309 1,309 1,309 1,309 Log likelihood -1322 -1322 -1191 -1191 -850 -850 -1147 -1147 Standard errors are in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. All regressions include sector dummies at the ISIC-2 level. 93 Table IV.4. Probability of Technological Innovation (R&D): Complete Sample (Product or Process Innovation) Product Process Product Process Tech innovation innovation innovation innovation innovation market market Innovation Intensity RD 0.28*** 0.26*** 0.08*** 0.05*** 0.41*** (predicted RD expenditure (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.02) (log) per employee) Size (log employees) 0.02* 0.05*** 0.03*** 0.02*** 0.02** (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) Exporter dummy -0.07 -0.09** 0.01 -0.01 -0.10** (0.05) (0.05) (0.02) (0.02) (0.05) Foreign ownership dummy 0.03 -0.06 0.05** 0.00 -0.02 (0.04) (0.04) (0.02) (0.01) (0.04) Number of observations 2,808 2,808 2,808 2,784 2,808 Wald Chi-squared 762.35*** 724.83*** 449.28*** 279.95*** 830.39*** Log pseudo likelihood -1388.42 -1425.93 -936.75 -664.63 -1203.99 Pseudo R-squared 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.19 0.38 Predicted probability (values 0.39 0.40 0.10 0.05 0.59 at means) Note: Coefficients reported are marginal effects. Standards errors are in parentheses. *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included but not reported. Table IV.5. Probability of Technological Innovation (ICT): Complete Sample (Product or Process Innovation): Complete Sample Product Process Product Process Tech innovation innovation innovation innovation innovation market market Innovation Intensity ICT 0.48*** 0.45*** 0.13*** 0.07*** 0.78*** (predicted ICT expenditure (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.03) (log) per employee) Size (log employees) 0.03*** 0.06*** 0.03*** 0.02*** 0.04*** (0.01) (0.01) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01) Exporter dummy -0.02 -0.06 0.03 -0.01 -0.04 (0.05) (0.05) (0.02) (0.02) (0.05) Foreign ownership dummy -0.18*** -0.26*** -0.01 -0.03** -0.36*** (0.04) (0.04) (0.02) (0.01) (0.05) Number of observations 2,808 2,808 2,808 2,784 2,808 Wald Chi-squared 721.18*** 707.32*** 497.17*** 297.55*** 659.28*** Log pseudo likelihood -1319.38 -1356.40 -919.77 -662.56 -1035.87 Pseudo R-squared 0.31 0.29 0.22 0.19 0.47 Predicted probability (values 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.05 0..64 at means) Note: Coefficients reported are marginal effects. Standard errors are in parentheses. *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included but not reported. 94 Table IV.6. Probability of Technological Innovation (R&D): Manufacturing (Product or Process Innovation): Product Process Product Process Tech innovation innovation innovation innovation innovation market market Innovation Intensity RD (predicted 0.26*** 0.29*** 0.09*** 0.05*** 0.39*** RD expenditure (log) per employee) (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.02) Size (log employees) 0.02 0.05*** 0.02*** 0.01*** 0.03** (0.01) (0.02) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) Exporter dummy -0.07 -0.08 0.04 -0.00 -0.09* (0.05) (0.06) (0.03) (0.02) (0.05) Foreign ownership dummy 0.07 -0.08 0.05* 0.03 -0.01 (0.06) (0.06) (0.03) (0.02) (0.05) Number of observations 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 Wald Chi-squared 344.70*** 384.94*** 230.98*** 151.69*** 386.45*** Log pseudo likelihood -780.79 -783.33 -542.87 -394.61 -648.57 Pseudo R-squared 0.24 0.25 0.18 0.17 0.36 Predicted probability (values at 0.42 0.48 0.12 0.06 0.66 means) Note: Coefficients reported are marginal effects. Standards errors are in parentheses. *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included but not reported. Table IV.7. Probability of Technological Innovation (ICT): Manufacturing (Product or Process Innovation) Product Process Product Process Tech innovation innovation innovation innovation innovation market market Innovation Intensity ICT (predicted 0.40*** 0.45*** 0.13*** 0.07*** 0.63*** ICT expenditure (log) per employee) (0.03) (0.03) (0.01) (0.01) (0.03) Size (log employees) 0.03** 0.06*** 0.03*** 0.02*** 0.05*** (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) Exporter dummy -0.02 -0.03 0.05* 0.01 -0.03 (0.05) (0.06) (0.03) (0.02) (0.05) Foreign ownership dummy -0.12* -0.29*** -0.01 -0.01 -0.33*** (0.06) (0.06) (0.03) (0.02) (0.06) Number of observations 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 Wald Chi-squared 315.00*** 330.91*** 221.74*** 132.21*** 282.69*** Log pseudo likelihood -766.84 -767.36 -548.47 -401.83 -601.36 Pseudo R-squared 0.25 0.26 0.18 0.16 0.41 Predicted probability (values at 0.42 0.49 0.12 0.07 0.68 means) Note: Coefficients reported are marginal effects. Standards errors are in parentheses. *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included but not reported. 95 Table IV.8. Probability of Technological Innovation (R&D): Services (Product or Process Innovation) Product Process Product Process Tech innovation innovation innovation innovation innovation market market Innovation Intensity RD (predicted 0.28*** 0.21*** 0.07*** 0.04*** 0.40*** RD expenditure (log) per employee) (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.02) Size (log employees) 0.02 0.05*** 0.03*** 0.02*** 0.02 (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) Exporter dummy -0.08 -0.11 -0.01 -0.02 -0.14 (0.09) (0.09) (0.04) (0.03) (0.11) Foreign ownership dummy -0.01 -0.04 0.05* -0.02 -0.02 (0.06) (0.05) (0.02) (0.02) (0.06) Number of observations 1,309 1,309 1,309 1,285 1,309 Wald Chi-squared 407.37*** 301.14*** 218.68*** 132.66*** 394.02*** Log pseudo likelihood -611.67 -642.75 -391.98 -268.93 -564.59 Pseudo R-squared 0.30 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.38 Predicted probability (values at 0.36 0.31 0.08 0.04 0.52 means) Note: Coefficients reported are marginal effects. Standards errors are in parentheses. *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included but not reported. Table IV.9. Probability of Technological Innovation (ICT): Services (Product or Process Innovation) Product Process Product Process Tech innovation innovation innovation innovation innovation market market Innovation Intensity ICT (predicted 0.53*** 0.37*** 0.12*** 0.06*** 0.82*** ICT expenditure (log) per employee) (0.03) (0.03) (0.01) (0.01) (0.05) Size (log employees) 0.03* 0.06*** 0.04*** 0.02*** 0.04** (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.00) (0.02) Exporter dummy -0.04 -0.10 -0.01 -0.02 -0.09 (0.10) (0.10) (0.04) (0.03) (0.12) Foreign ownership dummy -0.24*** -0.20*** -0.01 -0.05** -0.37*** (0.06) (0.05) (0.02) (0.02) (0.07) Number of observations 1,309 1,309 1,309 1,285 1,309 Wald Chi-squared 386.22*** 289.51*** 256.54*** 141.98*** 340.86*** Log pseudo likelihood -565.67 -613.37 -383.79 -269.08 -478.49 Pseudo R-squared 0.36 0.27 0.26 0.22 0.47 Predicted probability (values at 0.37 0.30 0.08 0.04 0.55 means) Note: Coefficients reported are marginal effects. Standards errors are in parentheses. *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included but not reported. 96 Table IV.10. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity (R&D): Complete Sample Complete Sample (R&D-based innovation measures): OLS Estimation with Bootstrapping Labor Productivity (Log of Sales per Employee in 2011) Predicted probability of technological 0.395*** innovation (0.101) Predicted probability of product innovation 0.433*** (0.114) Predicted probability of process innovation 0.397*** (0.116) Predicted probability of product innovation 0.595*** for the market (0.188) Predicted probability of process innovation 0.661** for the market (0.289) Predicted Intensity of Investment in R&D 0.100*** (0.024) Size (log number of employees) 0.184*** 0.185*** 0.178*** 0.169*** 0.177*** 0.190*** (0.021) (0.021) (0.022) (0.023) (0.022) (0.021) Non-Technological Innovation dummy -0.010 -0.007 -0.004 0.008 0.013 -0.010 (0.052) (0.053) (0.053) (0.053) (0.062) (0.053) Log of Fixed Capital Investment per 0.254*** 0.254*** 0.255*** 0.254*** 0.255*** 0.254*** employee (0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.019) (0.020) Number of observations 1,773 1,773 1,773 1,773 1,757 1,773 Wald Chi-Squared test 1202.16*** 1190.17*** 1198.16*** 1993.97*** 1084.00*** 1190.06*** Adjusted R-squared 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34 Note: Coefficients reported are elasticities and semi-elasticities. Bootstrapped standards errors are in parentheses (100 replications). *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included in all regressions, but not reported. Predicted probabilities of innovation are from Probit estimations in stage 2 and predicted intensity of investment in R&D is from the Heckman estimation in Stage 1 of the CDM model. 97 Table IV.11. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity (ICT): Complete Sample Complete Sample (ICT innovation measures): OLS Estimation with Bootstrapping Labor Productivity (Log of Sales per Employee in 2011) Predicted probability of technological 0.220** innovation (0.092) Predicted probability of product innovation 0.248** (0.105) Predicted probability of process innovation 0.222** (0.107) Predicted probability of product innovation 0.366** for the market (0.170) Predicted probability of process innovation 0.383 for the market (0.280) Predicted Intensity of Investment in ICT 0.141*** (0.038) Size (log number of employees) 0.194*** 0.194*** 0.190*** 0.182*** 0.188*** 0.193*** (0.021) (0.021) (0.022) (0.023) (0.022) (0.021) Non-Technological Innovation dummy 0.007 0.009 0.012 0.018 0.024 -0.003 (0.052) (0.053) (0.053) (0.053) (0.062) (0.053) Log of Fixed Capital Investment per 0.256*** 0.256*** 0.256*** 0.256*** 0.256*** 0.254*** employee (0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.019) (0.020) Number of observations 1,773 1,773 1,773 1,773 1,757 1,773 Wald Chi-Squared test 1164.16*** 1159.54*** 1166.65*** 1180.07*** 1091.12*** 1161.08*** Adjusted R-squared 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34 Note: Coefficients reported are elasticities and semi-elasticities. Bootstrapped standards errors are in parentheses (100 replications). *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included in all regressions, but not reported. Predicted probabilities of innovation are from Probit estimations in stage 2 and predicted intensity of investment in ICT is from the Heckman estimation in Stage 1 of the CDM model. 98 Table IV.12. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity (R&D): Manufacturing Manufacturing Sample (R&D-based innovation measures): OLS Estimation with Bootstrapping Labor Productivity (Log of Sales per Employee in 2011) Predicted probability of technological 0.350** innovation (0.144) Predicted probability of product 0.436*** innovation (0.157) Predicted probability of process 0.420** innovation (0.167) Predicted probability of product 0.781*** innovation for the market (0.258) Predicted probability of process 0.974*** innovation for the market (0.358) Predicted Intensity of Investment in 0.114*** R&D (0.036) Size (log number of employees) 0.190*** 0.189*** 0.181*** 0.162*** 0.167*** 0.192*** (0.028) (0.028) (0.029) (0.032) (0.032) (0.027) Non-Technological Innovation dummy 0.090 0.085 0.087 0.096 0.097 0.076 (0.072) (0.072) (0.073) (0.069) (0.070) (0.071) Log of Fixed Capital Investment per 0.271*** 0.270*** 0.271*** 0.269*** 0.271*** 0.269*** employee (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.030) (0.030) (0.030) Number of observations 1,015 1,015 1,015 1,015 1,015 1,015 Wald Chi-Squared test 710.18*** 708.58*** 698.20*** 704.72*** 690.24*** 697.17*** Adjusted R-squared 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Note: Coefficients reported are elasticities and semi-elasticities. Bootstrapped standards errors are in parentheses (100 replications). *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included in all regressions, but not reported. Predicted probabilities of innovation are from Probit estimations in stage 2 and predicted intensity of investment in R&D is from the Heckman estimation in Stage 1 of the CDM model. 99 Table IV.13. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity: (ICT): Manufacturing Manufacturing Sample (ICT innovation measures): OLS Estimation with Bootstrapping Labor Productivity (Log of Sales per Employee in 2011) Predicted probability of technological 0.239* innovation (0.130) Predicted probability of product 0.298** innovation (0.138) Predicted probability of process 0.293* innovation (0.151) Predicted probability of product 0.594*** innovation for the market (0.228) Predicted probability of process 0.692** innovation for the market (0.325) Predicted Intensity of Investment in ICT 0.127*** (0.048) Size (log number of employees) 0.197*** 0.196*** 0.190*** 0.173*** 0.179*** 0.196*** (0.028) (0.027) (0.028) (0.031) (0.031) (0.027) Non-Technological Innovation dummy 0.102 0.100 0.101 0.106 0.111 0.095 (0.072) (0.072) (0.073) (0.070) (0.070) (0.072) Log of Fixed Capital Investment per 0.273*** 0.272*** 0.273*** 0.271*** 0.272*** 0.270*** employee (0.031) (0.030) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) Number of observations 1,015 1,015 1,015 1,015 1,015 1,015 Wald Chi-Squared test 706.86*** 702.57*** 697.42*** 698.25*** 686.23*** 712.83*** Adjusted R-squared 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Note: Coefficients reported are elasticities and semi-elasticities. Bootstrapped standards errors are in parentheses (100 replications). *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included in all regressions, but not reported. Predicted probabilities of innovation are from Probit estimations in stage 2 and predicted intensity of investment in ICT is from the Heckman estimation in Stage 1 of the CDM model. 100 Table IV.14. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity (R&D): Services Services Sample (R&D-based innovation measures): OLS Estimation with Bootstrapping Labor Productivity (Log of Sales per Employee in 2011) Predicted probability of technological innovation 0.410*** (0.142) Predicted probability of product innovation 0.388** (0.171) Predicted probability of process innovation 0.332* (0.177) Predicted probability of product innovation for the 0.396 market (0.321) Predicted probability of process innovation for the 0.192 market (0.482) Predicted Intensity of Investment in R&D 0.083** (0.039) Size (log number of employees) 0.169*** 0.173*** 0.170*** 0.170*** 0.186*** 0.180*** (0.028) (0.028) (0.029) (0.031) (0.035) (0.028) Non-Technological Innovation dummy -0.133 -0.125 -0.122 -0.111 -0.101 -0.126 (0.085) (0.085) (0.085) (0.084) (0.092) (0.084) Log of Fixed Capital Investment per employee 0.239*** 0.239*** 0.239*** 0.239*** 0.239*** 0.239*** (0.025) (0.025) (0.025) (0.025) (0.026) (0.025) Number of observations 758 758 758 758 742 758 Wald Chi-Squared test 413.00*** 414.53*** 418.53*** 406.60*** 413.01*** 417.27*** Adjusted R-squared 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.32 Note: Coefficients reported are elasticities and semi-elasticities. Bootstrapped standards errors are in parentheses (100 replications). *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included in all regressions, but not reported. Predicted probabilities of innovation are from Probit estimations in stage 2 and predicted intensity of investment in R&D is from the Heckman estimation in Stage 1 of the CDM model. 101 Table IV.15. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity (ICT): Services Services Sample (ICT innovation measures): OLS Estimation with Bootstrapping Labor Productivity (Log of Sales per Employee in 2011) Predicted probability of technological 0.171 innovation (0.123) Predicted probability of product 0.145 innovation (0.149) Predicted probability of process 0.107 innovation (0.151) Predicted probability of product 0.122 innovation for the market (0.278) Predicted probability of process -0.075 innovation for the market (0.457) Predicted Intensity of Investment in ICT 0.086 (0.056) Size (log number of employees) 0.184*** 0.186*** 0.186*** 0.187*** 0.197*** 0.185*** (0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.030) (0.035) (0.028) Non-Technological Innovation dummy -0.115 -0.109 -0.106 -0.101 -0.093 -0.116 (0.086) (0.085) (0.085) (0.083) (0.092) (0.084) Log of Fixed Capital Investment per 0.240*** 0.240*** 0.241*** 0.241*** 0.240*** 0.239*** employee (0.025) (0.025) (0.025) (0.025) (0.027) (0.025) Number of observations 758 758 758 758 742 758 Wald Chi-Squared test 394.16*** 394.94*** 399.83*** 397.85*** 412.29*** 402.13*** Adjusted R-squared 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Note: Coefficients reported are elasticities and semi-elasticities. Bootstrapped standards errors are in parentheses (100 replications). *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included in all regressions, but not reported. Predicted probabilities of innovation are from Probit estimations in stage 2 and predicted intensity of investment in ICT is from the Heckman estimation in Stage 1 of the CDM model. 102 Table IV.16. Effects of Innovation on Labor Productivity (Non-ICT): Services Services Sample (Non-ICT innovation measures): OLS Estimation with Bootstrapping Labor Productivity (Log of Sales per Employee in 2011) Predicted probability of technological 0.330** innovation (0.145) Predicted probability of product 0.312* innovation (0.170) Predicted probability of process 0.267 innovation (0.178) Predicted probability of product 0.270 innovation for the market (0.306) Predicted probability of process 0.020 innovation for the market (0.464) Predicted Intensity of Investment in 0.105* non-ICT (0.058) Size (log number of employees) 0.174*** 0.178*** 0.175*** 0.178*** 0.193*** 0.184*** (0.028) (0.028) (0.029) (0.031) (0.035) (0.028) Non-Technological Innovation dummy -0.130 -0.121 -0.118 -0.107 -0.096 -0.122 (0.085) (0.084) (0.085) (0.084) (0.092) (0.084) Log of Fixed Capital Investment per 0.239*** 0.239*** 0.239*** 0.240*** 0.240*** 0.239*** employee (0.025) (0.025) (0.025) (0.025) (0.026) (0.025) Number of observations 758 758 758 758 742 758 Wald Chi-Squared test 403.13*** 406.60*** 411.67*** 404.15*** 413.03*** 409.83*** Adjusted R-squared 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Note: Coefficients reported are elasticities and semi-elasticities. Bootstrapped standard errors are in parentheses (100 replications). *** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level, ** at the 5% level and * at the 10% level. Industry dummies included in all regressions, but not reported. Predicted probabilities of innovation are from Probit estimations in stage 2 and predicted intensity of investment in non-ICT is 103 Appendix V. Innovation profile of 59 economic sectors (1 summary page per sector) 104 104 Tamaño de la muestra de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación de Ecuador y distribución sectorial basada en la CIIUD a 2  dígitos Sector (2 dígitos) Nº empresas B05+B06: EXTRACCIÓN DE CARBÓN, PETRÓLEO CRUDO Y GAS NATURAL 12 B07: EXTRACCIÓN DE MINERALES METALÍFEROS 19 B08: EXPLOTACIÓN DE OTRAS MINAS Y CANTERAS 19 B09: ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS DE APOYO PARA LA EXPLOTACIÓN DE MINAS Y CANTERAS 24 C10: ELABORACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS ALIMENTICIOS 216 C11: ELABORACIÓN DE BEBIDAS 27 C13: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS TEXTILES 49 C14: FABRICACIÓN DE PRENDAS DE VESTIR 162 C15: FABRICACIÓN DE CUEROS Y PRODUCTOS CONEXOS 65 C16: IND. DE LA MADERA (EXC. MUEBLES); FAB. DE ART. DE PAJA Y MATERIALES TRENZABLES 27 C17: FABRICACIÓN DE PAPEL Y DE PRODUCTOS DE PAPEL 25 C18: IMPRESIÓN Y REPRODUCCIÓN DE GRABACIONES 83 C19+C20: FAB. DE COQUE Y DE PROD. DE LA REFINACIÓN DEL PETRÓLEO  Y PROD. QUIMICOS 64 C21: FAB. DE PROD. FARMACÉUTICOS, SUSTANCIAS QUÍMICAS MEDICINALES Y PROD. BOTÁNICOS DE USO FARMACÉUTIC 17 C22: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS DE CAUCHO Y PLÁSTICO 97 C23: FABRICACIÓN DE OTROS PRODUCTOS MINERALES NO METÁLICOS 54 C24: FABRICACIÓN DE METALES COMUNES 14 C25: FAB. PROD. ELABORADOS DE METAL, EXCEPTO MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO ELÉCTRICO 75 C26+C27: FABRICACIÓN DE EQ. INFORMÁTICO, ÓPTICO Y ELÉCTRICO 18 C28: FABRICACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO NCP 22 C29+C30: FAB. DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES Y SEMIRREMOLQUES Y OTRO MAT. TRANSPORTE 26 C31: FABRICACIÓN DE MUEBLES 93 C32: OTRAS INDUSTRIAS MANUFACTURERAS 21 C33: REPARACIÓN E INSTALACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO 36 D35: SUMINISTRO DE ELECTRICIDAD, GAS, VAPOR Y AIRE ACONDICIONADO 32 E36: CAPTACIÓN, TRATAMIENTO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN DE AGUA 23 E38+E39: RECOLECCIÓN, TRATAMIENTO, DESCONTAMINACIÓN Y ELIMINACIÓN DE DESECHOS, RECUP. DE MATERIALES 13 F41: CONSTRUCCIÓN DE EDIFICIOS 69 F42: OBRAS DE INGENIERÍA CIVIL 64 F43: ACTIVIDADES ESPECIALIZADAS DE LA CONSTRUCCIÓN 38 G45: COMERCIO Y REPARACIÓN DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS 40 G46: COMERCIO AL POR MAYOR, EXCEPTO EL DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS 127 G47: COMERCIO AL POR MENOR, EXCEPTO EL DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS 24 H49: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA TERRESTRE Y POR TUBERÍAS 116 H50: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA ACUÁTICA 6 H51: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA AÉREA 12 H52: ALMACENAMIENTO Y ACTIVIDADES DE APOYO AL TRANSPORTE 38 H53: ACTIVIDADES POSTALES Y DE MENSAJERÍA 9 I55: ACTIVIDADES DE ALOJAMIENTO 32 I56: SERVICIO DE ALIMENTO Y BEBIDA 53 J58: ACTIVIDADES DE PUBLICACIÓN 38 J59: ACT. DE PROD. DE PELÍCULAS CINEMATOGRÁFICAS, VÍDEOS Y PROGRAMAS DE TV, GRABACIÓN DE SONIDO Y EDICIÓ 12 J60: ACTIVIDADES DE PROGRAMACIÓN Y TRANSMISIÓN 81 J61: TELECOMUNICACIONES 42 J62+J63: PROGRAMACIÓN INFORMÁTICA, CONSULTORÍA DE INFORMÁTICA Y ACTIVIDADES CONEXAS 36 K64: ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS, EXCEPTO LAS DE SEGUROS Y FONDOS DE PENSIONES 109 K65: SEGUROS, REASEGUROS Y FONDOS DE PENSIONES, EXCEPTO LOS PLANES DE SEGURIDAD SOCIAL DE AFILIACIÓN OB 47 K66: ACTIVIDADES AUXILIARES DE LAS ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS 14 L68: ACTIVIDADES INMOBILIARIAS 49 M69: ACTIVIDADES JURÍDICAS Y DE CONTABILIDAD 94 M70: ACTIVIDADES DE OFICINAS PRINCIPALES; ACTIVIDADES DE CONSULTORÍA DE GESTIÓN 29 M71: ACTIVIDADES DE ARQUITECTURA E INGENIERÍA; ENSAYOS Y ANÁLISIS TÉCNICOS 67 M72: INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y DESARROLLO 6 M73: PUBLICIDAD Y ESTUDIOS DE MERCADO 58 M74: OTRAS ACTIVIDADES PROFESIONALES, CIENTÍFICAS Y TÉCNICAS 24 N77: ACTIVIDADES DE ALQUILER Y ARRENDAMIENTO 23 N79+N80+N81: AG. DE VIAJES Y CONEXAS, SEG. E INVESTIGACIÓN, SERV. A EDIFICIOS 7 N82: ACT. ADMINISTRATIVAS DE APOYO OFICINAS Y OTRAS DE APOYO EMPRESAS  40 Q86+Q87: ACTIVIDADES DE ATENC. SALUD HUMANA Y ATENC. EN INSTITUCIONES 78 TOTAL 2.815 Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación SECTOR REFERENCIA CON INTENSIDAD INNOVADORA EN LA MEDIANA  SECTORIAL (C14: : FABRICACIÓN DE PRENDAS DE VESTIR) Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 24,7% Faltan fondos internos 22,8% Innov. no tecnológica 21,0% Falta financ. externa 19,1% Productos inn. mercado 2,5% Coste elevado 36,4% Falta pers. calif. en país 21,0% Procesos inn. mercado 3,7% Falta inform. tecnología 25,9% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 21,6% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 16,7% Interna a la empresa 39,5% Mercado dom. incumbentes 23,5% Proveedores 24,1% Incertidumbre demanda 24,1% Clientes 45,1% No necesario (innov.prev) 9,3% Competidores 19,1% No necesario (falta dem) 6,2% Consultores 4,3% Complejidad proteger P.I. 3,1% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 1,2% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,446 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 57,5% 0% Reemplazar productos 52,5% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  Z99Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 47,5% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 75,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 57,5% Reducir costos unitarios 55,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 37,5% Mejorar salud trabaj. 50,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 61,8% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  52,9% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 52,9% Mejorar flujos informaci 32,4% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación B05+B06: EXTRACCIÓN DE CARBÓN, PETRÓLEO CRUDO Y GAS  NATURAL Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 0,0% Faltan fondos internos 8,3% Innov. no tecnológica 33,3% Falta financ. externa 16,7% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 25,0% Falta pers. calif. en país 0,0% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 8,3% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 0,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 0,0% Interna a la empresa 8,3% Mercado dom. incumbentes 8,3% Proveedores 8,3% Incertidumbre demanda 8,3% Clientes 8,3% No necesario (innov.prev) 16,7% Competidores 0,0% No necesario (falta dem) 16,7% Consultores 0,0% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 10% Aumentar variedad prod 0% Reemplazar productos Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  B06Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad Reducir costos unitarios Red. impacto M. Amb. Mejorar salud trabaj. Mejorar tiempos resp. 50,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  25,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 50,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 25,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación B07: EXTRACCIÓN DE MINERALES METALÍFEROS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 21,1% Faltan fondos internos 5,3% Innov. no tecnológica 26,3% Falta financ. externa 10,5% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 0,0% Falta pers. calif. en país 5,3% Procesos inn. mercado 5,3% Falta inform. tecnología 10,5% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 0,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 5,3% Interna a la empresa 42,1% Mercado dom. incumbentes 0,0% Proveedores 10,5% Incertidumbre demanda 10,5% Clientes 0,0% No necesario (innov.prev) 5,3% Competidores 0,0% No necesario (falta dem) 0,0% Consultores 10,5% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 20% % export prod. innovadores 10% Aumentar variedad prod 0,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 0,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  B07Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 0,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 25,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 25,0% Reducir costos unitarios 25,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 100,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 100,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 40,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  20,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 20,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 20,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación B08: EXPLOTACIÓN DE OTRAS MINAS Y CANTERAS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 5,3% Faltan fondos internos 5,3% Innov. no tecnológica 5,3% Falta financ. externa 5,3% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 15,8% Falta pers. calif. en país 5,3% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 10,5% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 5,3% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 0,0% Interna a la empresa 21,1% Mercado dom. incumbentes 10,5% Proveedores 10,5% Incertidumbre demanda 10,5% Clientes 10,5% No necesario (innov.prev) 26,3% Competidores 5,3% No necesario (falta dem) 5,3% Consultores 5,3% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 5,3% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 20% % export prod. innovadores 10% Aumentar variedad prod 100,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 100,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  B08Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 0,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 100,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 0,0% Reducir costos unitarios 100,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 100,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 100,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 100,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  100,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 100,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 100,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación B09: ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS DE APOYO PARA LA EXPLOTACIÓN  MINAS Y CANTERAS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 25,0% Faltan fondos internos 20,8% Innov. no tecnológica 33,3% Falta financ. externa 12,5% Productos inn. mercado 4,2% Coste elevado 37,5% Falta pers. calif. en país 20,8% Procesos inn. mercado 16,7% Falta inform. tecnología 12,5% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 4,2% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 8,3% Interna a la empresa 50,0% Mercado dom. incumbentes 29,2% Proveedores 12,5% Incertidumbre demanda 16,7% Clientes 45,8% No necesario (innov.prev) 16,7% Competidores 12,5% No necesario (falta dem) 8,3% Consultores 16,7% Complejidad proteger P.I. 4,2% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,4266667 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,3333333 10% Aumentar variedad prod 50,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 33,3% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  B09Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 50,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 66,7% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 66,7% Reducir costos unitarios 66,7% Red. impacto M. Amb. 66,7% Mejorar salud trabaj. 83,3% Mejorar tiempos resp. 50,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  37,5% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 25,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 50,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C10: ELABORACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS ALIMENTICIOS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 36,6% Faltan fondos internos 13,9% Innov. no tecnológica 24,5% Falta financ. externa 14,8% Productos inn. mercado 10,6% Coste elevado 24,1% Falta pers. calif. en país 7,9% Procesos inn. mercado 7,9% Falta inform. tecnología 11,1% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 11,6% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 9,7% Interna a la empresa 53,2% Mercado dom. incumbentes 13,9% Proveedores 19,9% Incertidumbre demanda 9,3% Clientes 39,4% No necesario (innov.prev) 6,0% Competidores 16,7% No necesario (falta dem) 4,6% Consultores 10,2% Complejidad proteger P.I. 4,6% Universidades 2,3% Org. públicos de CyT 2,8% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,2981818 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,0874545 10% Aumentar variedad prod 53,2% 0% Reemplazar productos 45,6% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C10Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 49,4% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 67,1% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 46,8% Reducir costos unitarios 59,5% Red. impacto M. Amb. 51,9% Mejorar salud trabaj. 58,2% Mejorar tiempos resp. 62,3% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  47,2% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 52,8% Mejorar flujos informaci 49,1% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C11: ELABORACIÓN DE BEBIDAS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 29,6% Faltan fondos internos 11,1% Innov. no tecnológica 11,1% Falta financ. externa 0,0% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 14,8% Falta pers. calif. en país 3,7% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 3,7% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 0,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 3,7% Interna a la empresa 51,9% Mercado dom. incumbentes 11,1% Proveedores 7,4% Incertidumbre demanda 11,1% Clientes 44,4% No necesario (innov.prev) 3,7% Competidores 11,1% No necesario (falta dem) 3,7% Consultores 0,0% Complejidad proteger P.I. 3,7% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,168 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,07 10% Aumentar variedad prod 37,5% 0% Reemplazar productos 25,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C11Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 25,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 62,5% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 12,5% Reducir costos unitarios 50,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 37,5% Mejorar salud trabaj. 50,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 0,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  0,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 66,7% Mejorar flujos informaci 66,7% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C13: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS TEXTILES Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 26,5% Faltan fondos internos 14,3% Innov. no tecnológica 24,5% Falta financ. externa 14,3% Productos inn. mercado 12,2% Coste elevado 26,5% Falta pers. calif. en país 8,2% Procesos inn. mercado 6,1% Falta inform. tecnología 10,2% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 14,3% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 12,2% Interna a la empresa 49,0% Mercado dom. incumbentes 10,2% Proveedores 28,6% Incertidumbre demanda 14,3% Clientes 44,9% No necesario (innov.prev) 8,2% Competidores 28,6% No necesario (falta dem) 10,2% Consultores 6,1% Complejidad proteger P.I. 2,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,355 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,0875 10% Aumentar variedad prod 61,5% 0% Reemplazar productos 23,1% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C13Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 61,5% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 53,8% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 38,5% Reducir costos unitarios 61,5% Red. impacto M. Amb. 61,5% Mejorar salud trabaj. 69,2% Mejorar tiempos resp. 66,7% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  16,7% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 41,7% Mejorar flujos informaci 25,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C14: FABRICACIÓN DE PRENDAS DE VESTIR Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 24,7% Faltan fondos internos 22,8% Innov. no tecnológica 21,0% Falta financ. externa 19,1% Productos inn. mercado 2,5% Coste elevado 36,4% Falta pers. calif. en país 21,0% Procesos inn. mercado 3,7% Falta inform. tecnología 25,9% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 21,6% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 16,7% Interna a la empresa 39,5% Mercado dom. incumbentes 23,5% Proveedores 24,1% Incertidumbre demanda 24,1% Clientes 45,1% No necesario (innov.prev) 9,3% Competidores 19,1% No necesario (falta dem) 6,2% Consultores 4,3% Complejidad proteger P.I. 3,1% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 1,2% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,446 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 57,5% 0% Reemplazar productos 52,5% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C14Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 47,5% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 75,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 57,5% Reducir costos unitarios 55,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 37,5% Mejorar salud trabaj. 50,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 61,8% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  52,9% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 52,9% Mejorar flujos informaci 32,4% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C15: FABRICACIÓN DE CUEROS Y PRODUCTOS CONEXOS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 29,2% Faltan fondos internos 44,6% Innov. no tecnológica 27,7% Falta financ. externa 35,4% Productos inn. mercado 6,2% Coste elevado 50,8% Falta pers. calif. en país 36,9% Procesos inn. mercado 1,5% Falta inform. tecnología 43,1% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 26,2% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 20,0% Interna a la empresa 50,8% Mercado dom. incumbentes 20,0% Proveedores 30,8% Incertidumbre demanda 18,5% Clientes 56,9% No necesario (innov.prev) 6,2% Competidores 21,5% No necesario (falta dem) 1,5% Consultores 4,6% Complejidad proteger P.I. 4,6% Universidades 3,1% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,4533333 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,01 10% Aumentar variedad prod 47,4% 0% Reemplazar productos 57,9% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C15Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 57,9% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 84,2% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 68,4% Reducir costos unitarios 47,4% Red. impacto M. Amb. 47,4% Mejorar salud trabaj. 68,4% Mejorar tiempos resp. 66,7% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  55,6% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 44,4% Mejorar flujos informaci 44,4% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C16: IND. DE LA MADERA (EXC. MUEBLES); FAB. DE ART. DE PAJA Y  MATERIALES TRENZABLES Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 14,8% Faltan fondos internos 14,8% Innov. no tecnológica 22,2% Falta financ. externa 14,8% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 14,8% Falta pers. calif. en país 7,4% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 18,5% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 11,1% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 7,4% Interna a la empresa 22,2% Mercado dom. incumbentes 14,8% Proveedores 14,8% Incertidumbre demanda 7,4% Clientes 25,9% No necesario (innov.prev) 3,7% Competidores 11,1% No necesario (falta dem) 0,0% Consultores 7,4% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,175 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,05 10% Aumentar variedad prod 50,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 75,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C16Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 50,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 100,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 50,0% Reducir costos unitarios 50,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 50,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 100,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 66,7% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  66,7% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 83,3% Mejorar flujos informaci 66,7% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C17: FABRICACIÓN DE PAPEL Y DE PRODUCTOS DE PAPEL Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 24,0% Faltan fondos internos 12,0% Innov. no tecnológica 20,0% Falta financ. externa 12,0% Productos inn. mercado 16,0% Coste elevado 20,0% Falta pers. calif. en país 4,0% Procesos inn. mercado 8,0% Falta inform. tecnología 20,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 16,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 4,0% Interna a la empresa 48,0% Mercado dom. incumbentes 20,0% Proveedores 16,0% Incertidumbre demanda 8,0% Clientes 32,0% No necesario (innov.prev) 12,0% Competidores 12,0% No necesario (falta dem) 8,0% Consultores 8,0% Complejidad proteger P.I. 4,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 4,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,45 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,15 10% Aumentar variedad prod 83,3% 0% Reemplazar productos 16,7% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C17Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 83,3% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 83,3% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 83,3% Reducir costos unitarios 100,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 83,3% Mejorar salud trabaj. 50,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 60,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  60,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 40,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 60,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C18: IMPRESIÓN Y REPRODUCCIÓN DE GRABACIONES Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 24,1% Faltan fondos internos 30,1% Innov. no tecnológica 16,9% Falta financ. externa 16,9% Productos inn. mercado 3,6% Coste elevado 41,0% Falta pers. calif. en país 12,0% Procesos inn. mercado 6,0% Falta inform. tecnología 14,5% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 12,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 16,9% Interna a la empresa 41,0% Mercado dom. incumbentes 24,1% Proveedores 19,3% Incertidumbre demanda 21,7% Clientes 30,1% No necesario (innov.prev) 7,2% Competidores 18,1% No necesario (falta dem) 3,6% Consultores 2,4% Complejidad proteger P.I. 1,2% Universidades 1,2% Org. públicos de CyT 1,2% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,3078572 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,0714286 10% Aumentar variedad prod 70,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 35,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C18Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 55,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 75,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 55,0% Reducir costos unitarios 50,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 70,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 65,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 64,3% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  57,1% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 50,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 71,4% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C19+C20: FABRICACIÓN DE COQUE Y DE PROD. DE LA REFINACIÓN  DEL PETRÓLEO  Y PROD. QUIMICOS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 35,9% Faltan fondos internos 12,5% Innov. no tecnológica 26,6% Falta financ. externa 10,9% Productos inn. mercado 15,6% Coste elevado 26,6% Falta pers. calif. en país 4,7% Procesos inn. mercado 1,6% Falta inform. tecnología 7,8% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 4,7% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 7,8% Interna a la empresa 62,5% Mercado dom. incumbentes 21,9% Proveedores 29,7% Incertidumbre demanda 9,4% Clientes 53,1% No necesario (innov.prev) 9,4% Competidores 25,0% No necesario (falta dem) 6,3% Consultores 6,3% Complejidad proteger P.I. 4,7% Universidades 1,6% Org. públicos de CyT 4,7% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,3541177 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,0941176 10% Aumentar variedad prod 52,2% 0% Reemplazar productos 26,1% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C20Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 43,5% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 56,5% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 47,8% Reducir costos unitarios 43,5% Red. impacto M. Amb. 60,9% Mejorar salud trabaj. 65,2% Mejorar tiempos resp. 70,6% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  70,6% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 47,1% Mejorar flujos informaci 58,8% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C21: FABRICACIÓN DE PROD. FARMACÉUTICOS, SUSTANCIAS  QUÍMICAS MEDICINALES Y PROD. BOTÁNICOS DE USO FARMACÉUTICO Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 41,2% Faltan fondos internos 11,8% Innov. no tecnológica 23,5% Falta financ. externa 11,8% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 23,5% Falta pers. calif. en país 5,9% Procesos inn. mercado 11,8% Falta inform. tecnología 0,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 0,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 11,8% Interna a la empresa 47,1% Mercado dom. incumbentes 5,9% Proveedores 23,5% Incertidumbre demanda 0,0% Clientes 17,6% No necesario (innov.prev) 5,9% Competidores 11,8% No necesario (falta dem) 5,9% Consultores 11,8% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 50% 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,2242857 30% % export prod. innovadores 0,0142857 20% 10% Aumentar variedad prod 42,9% 0% Reemplazar productos 28,6% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C21Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 14,3% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 85,7% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 42,9% Reducir costos unitarios 14,3% Red. impacto M. Amb. 28,6% Mejorar salud trabaj. 42,9% Mejorar tiempos resp. 100,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  50,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 50,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 75,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C22: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS DE CAUCHO Y PLÁSTICO Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 24,7% Faltan fondos internos 15,5% Innov. no tecnológica 16,5% Falta financ. externa 16,5% Productos inn. mercado 6,2% Coste elevado 18,6% Falta pers. calif. en país 10,3% Procesos inn. mercado 2,1% Falta inform. tecnología 16,5% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 13,4% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 10,3% Interna a la empresa 28,9% Mercado dom. incumbentes 10,3% Proveedores 14,4% Incertidumbre demanda 3,1% Clientes 36,1% No necesario (innov.prev) 8,2% Competidores 16,5% No necesario (falta dem) 5,2% Consultores 2,1% Complejidad proteger P.I. 1,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,2452941 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,0064706 10% Aumentar variedad prod 58,3% 0% Reemplazar productos 45,8% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C22Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 62,5% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 58,3% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 45,8% Reducir costos unitarios 50,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 41,7% Mejorar salud trabaj. 54,2% Mejorar tiempos resp. 56,3% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  50,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 50,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 43,8% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C23: FABRICACIÓN DE OTROS PRODUCTOS MINERALES NO METÁLICOS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 24,1% Faltan fondos internos 24,1% Innov. no tecnológica 18,5% Falta financ. externa 16,7% Productos inn. mercado 11,1% Coste elevado 27,8% Falta pers. calif. en país 14,8% Procesos inn. mercado 3,7% Falta inform. tecnología 13,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 9,3% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 7,4% Interna a la empresa 40,7% Mercado dom. incumbentes 16,7% Proveedores 7,4% Incertidumbre demanda 5,6% Clientes 22,2% No necesario (innov.prev) 14,8% Competidores 9,3% No necesario (falta dem) 13,0% Consultores 9,3% Complejidad proteger P.I. 5,6% Universidades 3,7% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,403 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 76,9% 0% Reemplazar productos 61,5% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C23Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 61,5% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 84,6% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 46,2% Reducir costos unitarios 69,2% Red. impacto M. Amb. 61,5% Mejorar salud trabaj. 76,9% Mejorar tiempos resp. 70,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  60,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 40,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 40,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C24: FABRICACIÓN DE METALES COMUNES Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 42,9% Faltan fondos internos 7,1% Innov. no tecnológica 35,7% Falta financ. externa 21,4% Productos inn. mercado 14,3% Coste elevado 7,1% Falta pers. calif. en país 7,1% Procesos inn. mercado 21,4% Falta inform. tecnología 7,1% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 0,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 7,1% Interna a la empresa 57,1% Mercado dom. incumbentes 0,0% Proveedores 21,4% Incertidumbre demanda 21,4% Clientes 21,4% No necesario (innov.prev) 21,4% Competidores 14,3% No necesario (falta dem) 0,0% Consultores 14,3% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 7,1% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 50% 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,088 30% % export prod. innovadores 0,302 20% 10% Aumentar variedad prod 83,3% 0% Reemplazar productos 33,3% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C24Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 50,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 83,3% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 50,0% Reducir costos unitarios 33,3% Red. impacto M. Amb. 50,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 66,7% Mejorar tiempos resp. 60,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  60,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 20,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 20,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C25: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS ELABORADOS DE METAL,  EXCEPTO MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 26,7% Faltan fondos internos 12,0% Innov. no tecnológica 18,7% Falta financ. externa 13,3% Productos inn. mercado 8,0% Coste elevado 18,7% Falta pers. calif. en país 9,3% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 12,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 9,3% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 4,0% Interna a la empresa 38,7% Mercado dom. incumbentes 9,3% Proveedores 18,7% Incertidumbre demanda 5,3% Clientes 38,7% No necesario (innov.prev) 12,0% Competidores 12,0% No necesario (falta dem) 10,7% Consultores 2,7% Complejidad proteger P.I. 1,3% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,2357143 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,0071429 10% Aumentar variedad prod 65,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 30,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C25Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 40,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 55,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 40,0% Reducir costos unitarios 45,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 55,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 60,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 35,7% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  42,9% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 14,3% Mejorar flujos informaci 28,6% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C26+C27: FABRICACIÓN DE EQ. INFORMÁTICO, ÓPTICO Y ELÉCTRICO Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 38,9% Faltan fondos internos 16,7% Innov. no tecnológica 27,8% Falta financ. externa 5,6% Productos inn. mercado 22,2% Coste elevado 11,1% Falta pers. calif. en país 0,0% Procesos inn. mercado 22,2% Falta inform. tecnología 5,6% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 5,6% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 11,1% Interna a la empresa 55,6% Mercado dom. incumbentes 5,6% Proveedores 27,8% Incertidumbre demanda 5,6% Clientes 16,7% No necesario (innov.prev) 16,7% Competidores 11,1% No necesario (falta dem) 11,1% Consultores 11,1% Complejidad proteger P.I. 5,6% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 5,6% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 50% 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,4 30% % export prod. innovadores 0,1 20% 10% Aumentar variedad prod 28,6% 0% Reemplazar productos 71,4% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C27Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 57,1% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 71,4% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 28,6% Reducir costos unitarios 85,7% Red. impacto M. Amb. 42,9% Mejorar salud trabaj. 57,1% Mejorar tiempos resp. 40,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  80,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 60,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 40,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C28: FABRICACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO NCP Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 36,4% Faltan fondos internos 22,7% Innov. no tecnológica 13,6% Falta financ. externa 27,3% Productos inn. mercado 9,1% Coste elevado 31,8% Falta pers. calif. en país 9,1% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 13,6% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 13,6% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 13,6% Interna a la empresa 40,9% Mercado dom. incumbentes 4,5% Proveedores 31,8% Incertidumbre demanda 9,1% Clientes 40,9% No necesario (innov.prev) 0,0% Competidores 9,1% No necesario (falta dem) 0,0% Consultores 0,0% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 4,5% Org. públicos de CyT 9,1% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,275 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 62,5% 0% Reemplazar productos 37,5% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C28Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 50,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 87,5% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 75,0% Reducir costos unitarios 12,5% Red. impacto M. Amb. 75,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 75,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 100,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  100,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 33,3% Mejorar flujos informaci 66,7% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C29+C30: FABRICACIÓN DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES  Y SEMIRREMOLQUES Y OTRO MAT. DE TRANSPORTE Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 26,9% Faltan fondos internos 34,6% Innov. no tecnológica 23,1% Falta financ. externa 26,9% Productos inn. mercado 15,4% Coste elevado 42,3% Falta pers. calif. en país 19,2% Procesos inn. mercado 3,8% Falta inform. tecnología 23,1% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 26,9% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 23,1% Interna a la empresa 53,8% Mercado dom. incumbentes 42,3% Proveedores 34,6% Incertidumbre demanda 30,8% Clientes 50,0% No necesario (innov.prev) 0,0% Competidores 30,8% No necesario (falta dem) 3,8% Consultores 11,5% Complejidad proteger P.I. 7,7% Universidades 3,8% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,386 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 42,9% 0% Reemplazar productos 28,6% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C29Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 42,9% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 85,7% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 71,4% Reducir costos unitarios 57,1% Red. impacto M. Amb. 42,9% Mejorar salud trabaj. 57,1% Mejorar tiempos resp. 100,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  83,3% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 83,3% Mejorar flujos informaci 16,7% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C31: FABRICACIÓN DE MUEBLES Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 39,8% Faltan fondos internos 26,9% Innov. no tecnológica 23,7% Falta financ. externa 18,3% Productos inn. mercado 7,5% Coste elevado 36,6% Falta pers. calif. en país 9,7% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 15,1% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 11,8% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 12,9% Interna a la empresa 40,9% Mercado dom. incumbentes 24,7% Proveedores 26,9% Incertidumbre demanda 16,1% Clientes 33,3% No necesario (innov.prev) 5,4% Competidores 20,4% No necesario (falta dem) 1,1% Consultores 1,1% Complejidad proteger P.I. 3,2% Universidades 2,2% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 50% 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,3485714 30% % export prod. innovadores 0,0617857 20% 10% Aumentar variedad prod 54,1% 0% Reemplazar productos 48,6% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C31Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 40,5% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 73,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 40,5% Reducir costos unitarios 43,2% Red. impacto M. Amb. 43,2% Mejorar salud trabaj. 59,5% Mejorar tiempos resp. 40,9% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  22,7% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 22,7% Mejorar flujos informaci 40,9% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C32: OTRAS INDUSTRIAS MANUFACTURERAS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 33,3% Faltan fondos internos 19,0% Innov. no tecnológica 28,6% Falta financ. externa 14,3% Productos inn. mercado 14,3% Coste elevado 19,0% Falta pers. calif. en país 14,3% Procesos inn. mercado 9,5% Falta inform. tecnología 19,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 28,6% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 23,8% Interna a la empresa 33,3% Mercado dom. incumbentes 9,5% Proveedores 23,8% Incertidumbre demanda 9,5% Clientes 38,1% No necesario (innov.prev) 9,5% Competidores 19,0% No necesario (falta dem) 4,8% Consultores 0,0% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,2875 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,05 10% Aumentar variedad prod 42,9% 0% Reemplazar productos 71,4% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C32Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 85,7% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 85,7% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 71,4% Reducir costos unitarios 14,3% Red. impacto M. Amb. 42,9% Mejorar salud trabaj. 42,9% Mejorar tiempos resp. 66,7% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  50,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 66,7% Mejorar flujos informaci 50,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación C33: REPARACIÓN E INSTALACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 16,7% Faltan fondos internos 8,3% Innov. no tecnológica 16,7% Falta financ. externa 13,9% Productos inn. mercado 8,3% Coste elevado 16,7% Falta pers. calif. en país 8,3% Procesos inn. mercado 5,6% Falta inform. tecnología 0,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 2,8% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 13,9% Interna a la empresa 38,9% Mercado dom. incumbentes 8,3% Proveedores 19,4% Incertidumbre demanda 0,0% Clientes 27,8% No necesario (innov.prev) 11,1% Competidores 11,1% No necesario (falta dem) 11,1% Consultores 8,3% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 2,8% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,3683333 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 33,3% 0% Reemplazar productos 33,3% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  C33Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 50,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 66,7% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 50,0% Reducir costos unitarios 33,3% Red. impacto M. Amb. 33,3% Mejorar salud trabaj. 66,7% Mejorar tiempos resp. 83,3% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  50,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 50,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 50,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación D35: SUMINISTRO DE ELECTRICIDAD, GAS, VAPOR Y AIRE  ACONDICIONADO Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 21,9% Faltan fondos internos 15,6% Innov. no tecnológica 28,1% Falta financ. externa 18,8% Productos inn. mercado 3,1% Coste elevado 21,9% Falta pers. calif. en país 18,8% Procesos inn. mercado 3,1% Falta inform. tecnología 9,4% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 6,3% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 0,0% Interna a la empresa 37,5% Mercado dom. incumbentes 3,1% Proveedores 21,9% Incertidumbre demanda 6,3% Clientes 34,4% No necesario (innov.prev) 9,4% Competidores 6,3% No necesario (falta dem) 6,3% Consultores 12,5% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 6,3% Org. públicos de CyT 3,1% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,16 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 14,3% 0% Reemplazar productos 42,9% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  D35Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 0,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 71,4% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 14,3% Reducir costos unitarios 14,3% Red. impacto M. Amb. 28,6% Mejorar salud trabaj. 28,6% Mejorar tiempos resp. 55,6% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  55,6% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 11,1% Mejorar flujos informaci 66,7% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación E36: CAPTACIÓN, TRATAMIENTO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN DE AGUA Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 13,0% Faltan fondos internos 30,4% Innov. no tecnológica 30,4% Falta financ. externa 21,7% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 39,1% Falta pers. calif. en país 4,3% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 13,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 0,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 17,4% Interna a la empresa 60,9% Mercado dom. incumbentes 4,3% Proveedores 13,0% Incertidumbre demanda 0,0% Clientes 47,8% No necesario (innov.prev) 8,7% Competidores 4,3% No necesario (falta dem) 4,3% Consultores 17,4% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 8,7% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,5 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 33,3% 0% Reemplazar productos 100,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  E36Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 0,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 100,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 66,7% Reducir costos unitarios 66,7% Red. impacto M. Amb. 100,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 33,3% Mejorar tiempos resp. 71,4% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  71,4% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 14,3% Mejorar flujos informaci 28,6% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación E38+E39: RECOLECCIÓN, TRATAMIENTO, DESCONTAMINACIÓN Y  ELIMINACIÓN DE DESECHOS, RECUPERACIÓN DE MATERIALES Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 23,1% Faltan fondos internos 7,7% Innov. no tecnológica 30,8% Falta financ. externa 23,1% Productos inn. mercado 7,7% Coste elevado 23,1% Falta pers. calif. en país 0,0% Procesos inn. mercado 7,7% Falta inform. tecnología 7,7% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 0,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 0,0% Interna a la empresa 53,8% Mercado dom. incumbentes 0,0% Proveedores 15,4% Incertidumbre demanda 0,0% Clientes 38,5% No necesario (innov.prev) 7,7% Competidores 0,0% No necesario (falta dem) 7,7% Consultores 15,4% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 7,7% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,08 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 66,7% 0% Reemplazar productos 66,7% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  E38Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 100,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 100,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 66,7% Reducir costos unitarios 66,7% Red. impacto M. Amb. 66,7% Mejorar salud trabaj. 33,3% Mejorar tiempos resp. 100,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  75,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 50,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 75,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación F41: CONSTRUCCIÓN DE EDIFICIOS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 20,3% Faltan fondos internos 10,1% Innov. no tecnológica 23,2% Falta financ. externa 2,9% Productos inn. mercado 1,4% Coste elevado 10,1% Falta pers. calif. en país 4,3% Procesos inn. mercado 1,4% Falta inform. tecnología 1,4% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 4,3% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 2,9% Interna a la empresa 31,9% Mercado dom. incumbentes 2,9% Proveedores 21,7% Incertidumbre demanda 2,9% Clientes 30,4% No necesario (innov.prev) 14,5% Competidores 11,6% No necesario (falta dem) 7,2% Consultores 5,8% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 1,4% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,4555556 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 21,4% 0% Reemplazar productos 35,7% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  F41Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 28,6% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 71,4% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 28,6% Reducir costos unitarios 21,4% Red. impacto M. Amb. 21,4% Mejorar salud trabaj. 28,6% Mejorar tiempos resp. 50,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  56,3% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 43,8% Mejorar flujos informaci 31,3% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación F42: OBRAS DE INGENIERÍA CIVIL Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 15,6% Faltan fondos internos 7,8% Innov. no tecnológica 20,3% Falta financ. externa 9,4% Productos inn. mercado 1,6% Coste elevado 12,5% Falta pers. calif. en país 3,1% Procesos inn. mercado 4,7% Falta inform. tecnología 4,7% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 6,3% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 6,3% Interna a la empresa 34,4% Mercado dom. incumbentes 15,6% Proveedores 17,2% Incertidumbre demanda 14,1% Clientes 32,8% No necesario (innov.prev) 7,8% Competidores 14,1% No necesario (falta dem) 4,7% Consultores 6,3% Complejidad proteger P.I. 1,6% Universidades 1,6% Org. públicos de CyT 1,6% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,3375 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 50,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 30,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  F42Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 30,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 80,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 50,0% Reducir costos unitarios 20,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 40,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 50,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 53,8% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  38,5% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 23,1% Mejorar flujos informaci 46,2% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación F43: ACTIVIDADES ESPECIALIZADAS DE LA CONSTRUCCIÓN Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 13,2% Faltan fondos internos 28,9% Innov. no tecnológica 31,6% Falta financ. externa 18,4% Productos inn. mercado 5,3% Coste elevado 26,3% Falta pers. calif. en país 10,5% Procesos inn. mercado 2,6% Falta inform. tecnología 13,2% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 7,9% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 7,9% Interna a la empresa 31,6% Mercado dom. incumbentes 13,2% Proveedores 10,5% Incertidumbre demanda 13,2% Clientes 23,7% No necesario (innov.prev) 13,2% Competidores 10,5% No necesario (falta dem) 15,8% Consultores 2,6% Complejidad proteger P.I. 2,6% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,36 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 40,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 0,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  F43Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 40,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 80,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 60,0% Reducir costos unitarios 40,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 20,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 60,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 50,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  33,3% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 41,7% Mejorar flujos informaci 25,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación G45: COMERCIO Y REPARACIÓN DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y  MOTOCICLETAS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 22,5% Faltan fondos internos 17,5% Innov. no tecnológica 22,5% Falta financ. externa 7,5% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 30,0% Falta pers. calif. en país 10,0% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 15,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 17,5% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 5,0% Interna a la empresa 22,5% Mercado dom. incumbentes 12,5% Proveedores 25,0% Incertidumbre demanda 12,5% Clientes 30,0% No necesario (innov.prev) 10,0% Competidores 12,5% No necesario (falta dem) 7,5% Consultores 2,5% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,3333333 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 66,7% 0% Reemplazar productos 33,3% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  G45Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 33,3% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 77,8% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 33,3% Reducir costos unitarios 33,3% Red. impacto M. Amb. 44,4% Mejorar salud trabaj. 44,4% Mejorar tiempos resp. 66,7% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  33,3% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 11,1% Mejorar flujos informaci 77,8% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación G46: COMERCIO AL POR MAYOR, EXCEPTO EL DE VEHÍCULOS  AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 17,3% Faltan fondos internos 6,3% Innov. no tecnológica 15,0% Falta financ. externa 3,9% Productos inn. mercado 5,5% Coste elevado 14,2% Falta pers. calif. en país 2,4% Procesos inn. mercado 1,6% Falta inform. tecnología 4,7% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 3,9% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 7,1% Interna a la empresa 26,8% Mercado dom. incumbentes 3,1% Proveedores 16,5% Incertidumbre demanda 4,7% Clientes 26,8% No necesario (innov.prev) 15,0% Competidores 11,8% No necesario (falta dem) 11,0% Consultores 4,7% Complejidad proteger P.I. 2,4% Universidades 0,8% Org. públicos de CyT 0,8% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,3853846 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,1384615 10% Aumentar variedad prod 68,2% 0% Reemplazar productos 45,5% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  G46Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 50,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 63,6% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 40,9% Reducir costos unitarios 40,9% Red. impacto M. Amb. 22,7% Mejorar salud trabaj. 40,9% Mejorar tiempos resp. 78,9% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  15,8% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 21,1% Mejorar flujos informaci 68,4% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación G47: COMERCIO AL POR MENOR, EXCEPTO EL DE VEHÍCULOS  AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 25,0% Faltan fondos internos 8,3% Innov. no tecnológica 50,0% Falta financ. externa 8,3% Productos inn. mercado 4,2% Coste elevado 16,7% Falta pers. calif. en país 12,5% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 8,3% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 8,3% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 4,2% Interna a la empresa 50,0% Mercado dom. incumbentes 16,7% Proveedores 29,2% Incertidumbre demanda 25,0% Clientes 29,2% No necesario (innov.prev) 4,2% Competidores 20,8% No necesario (falta dem) 4,2% Consultores 0,0% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 60% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,55 40% % export prod. innovadores 0 20% Aumentar variedad prod 50,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 66,7% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  G47Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 33,3% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 100,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 50,0% Reducir costos unitarios 50,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 50,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 83,3% Mejorar tiempos resp. 75,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  58,3% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 33,3% Mejorar flujos informaci 50,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación H49: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA TERRESTRE Y POR TUBERÍAS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 8,6% Faltan fondos internos 11,2% Innov. no tecnológica 15,5% Falta financ. externa 8,6% Productos inn. mercado 0,9% Coste elevado 18,1% Falta pers. calif. en país 3,4% Procesos inn. mercado 0,9% Falta inform. tecnología 7,8% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 6,9% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 6,9% Interna a la empresa 15,5% Mercado dom. incumbentes 11,2% Proveedores 7,8% Incertidumbre demanda 6,0% Clientes 18,1% No necesario (innov.prev) 18,1% Competidores 7,8% No necesario (falta dem) 17,2% Consultores 0,9% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,9% Universidades 0,9% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,3425 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 40,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 60,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  H49Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 30,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 90,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 30,0% Reducir costos unitarios 40,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 20,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 60,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 66,7% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  55,6% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 33,3% Mejorar flujos informaci 66,7% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación H50: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA ACUÁTICA Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 16,7% Faltan fondos internos 0,0% Innov. no tecnológica 16,7% Falta financ. externa 16,7% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 0,0% Falta pers. calif. en país 16,7% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 16,7% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 0,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 16,7% Interna a la empresa 16,7% Mercado dom. incumbentes 0,0% Proveedores 16,7% Incertidumbre demanda 16,7% Clientes 16,7% No necesario (innov.prev) 0,0% Competidores 16,7% No necesario (falta dem) 0,0% Consultores 0,0% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 20% % export prod. innovadores 10% Aumentar variedad prod 100,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 100,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  H50Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 100,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 100,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 100,0% Reducir costos unitarios 0,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 100,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 100,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 100,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  0,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 0,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 100,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación H51: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA AÉREA Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 16,7% Faltan fondos internos 25,0% Innov. no tecnológica 25,0% Falta financ. externa 16,7% Productos inn. mercado 16,7% Coste elevado 16,7% Falta pers. calif. en país 8,3% Procesos inn. mercado 16,7% Falta inform. tecnología 0,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 0,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 8,3% Interna a la empresa 33,3% Mercado dom. incumbentes 8,3% Proveedores 8,3% Incertidumbre demanda 8,3% Clientes 33,3% No necesario (innov.prev) 33,3% Competidores 8,3% No necesario (falta dem) 0,0% Consultores 8,3% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,375 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 100,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 50,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  H51Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 100,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 100,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 100,0% Reducir costos unitarios 50,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 100,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 100,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 66,7% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  66,7% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 33,3% Mejorar flujos informaci 33,3% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación H52: ALMACENAMIENTO Y ACTIVIDADES DE APOYO AL TRANSPORTE Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 5,3% Faltan fondos internos 7,9% Innov. no tecnológica 18,4% Falta financ. externa 7,9% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 15,8% Falta pers. calif. en país 2,6% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 5,3% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 2,6% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 0,0% Interna a la empresa 26,3% Mercado dom. incumbentes 7,9% Proveedores 13,2% Incertidumbre demanda 7,9% Clientes 21,1% No necesario (innov.prev) 10,5% Competidores 7,9% No necesario (falta dem) 7,9% Consultores 5,3% Complejidad proteger P.I. 2,6% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,45 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 100,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 100,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  H52Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 50,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 100,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 100,0% Reducir costos unitarios 50,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 100,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 100,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 85,7% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  71,4% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 71,4% Mejorar flujos informaci 42,9% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación H53: ACTIVIDADES POSTALES Y DE MENSAJERÍA Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 22,2% Faltan fondos internos 11,1% Innov. no tecnológica 44,4% Falta financ. externa 0,0% Productos inn. mercado 11,1% Coste elevado 22,2% Falta pers. calif. en país 0,0% Procesos inn. mercado 11,1% Falta inform. tecnología 0,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 11,1% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 0,0% Interna a la empresa 33,3% Mercado dom. incumbentes 33,3% Proveedores 0,0% Incertidumbre demanda 22,2% Clientes 33,3% No necesario (innov.prev) 22,2% Competidores 11,1% No necesario (falta dem) 11,1% Consultores 0,0% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 50% 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,435 30% % export prod. innovadores 0,165 20% 10% Aumentar variedad prod 50,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 50,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  H53Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 0,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 100,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 0,0% Reducir costos unitarios 50,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 0,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 0,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 75,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  25,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 25,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 50,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación I55: ACTIVIDADES DE ALOJAMIENTO Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 18,8% Faltan fondos internos 6,3% Innov. no tecnológica 18,8% Falta financ. externa 12,5% Productos inn. mercado 3,1% Coste elevado 34,4% Falta pers. calif. en país 9,4% Procesos inn. mercado 3,1% Falta inform. tecnología 0,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 3,1% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 6,3% Interna a la empresa 43,8% Mercado dom. incumbentes 6,3% Proveedores 12,5% Incertidumbre demanda 12,5% Clientes 40,6% No necesario (innov.prev) 12,5% Competidores 9,4% No necesario (falta dem) 3,1% Consultores 3,1% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 3,1% Org. públicos de CyT 3,1% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,4125 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 83,3% 0% Reemplazar productos 16,7% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  I55 Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 66,7% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 100,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 50,0% Reducir costos unitarios 33,3% Red. impacto M. Amb. 66,7% Mejorar salud trabaj. 83,3% Mejorar tiempos resp. 66,7% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  83,3% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 50,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 83,3% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación I56: SERVICIO DE ALIMENTO Y BEBIDA Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 26,4% Faltan fondos internos 7,5% Innov. no tecnológica 17,0% Falta financ. externa 1,9% Productos inn. mercado 7,5% Coste elevado 15,1% Falta pers. calif. en país 3,8% Procesos inn. mercado 5,7% Falta inform. tecnología 7,5% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 11,3% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 9,4% Interna a la empresa 30,2% Mercado dom. incumbentes 9,4% Proveedores 15,1% Incertidumbre demanda 7,5% Clientes 32,1% No necesario (innov.prev) 13,2% Competidores 11,3% No necesario (falta dem) 9,4% Consultores 3,8% Complejidad proteger P.I. 1,9% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,3783333 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 71,4% 0% Reemplazar productos 28,6% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  I56 Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 28,6% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 78,6% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 64,3% Reducir costos unitarios 21,4% Red. impacto M. Amb. 28,6% Mejorar salud trabaj. 42,9% Mejorar tiempos resp. 55,6% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  77,8% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 22,2% Mejorar flujos informaci 22,2% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación J58: ACTIVIDADES DE PUBLICACIÓN Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 44,7% Faltan fondos internos 21,1% Innov. no tecnológica 21,1% Falta financ. externa 13,2% Productos inn. mercado 18,4% Coste elevado 18,4% Falta pers. calif. en país 15,8% Procesos inn. mercado 7,9% Falta inform. tecnología 10,5% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 10,5% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 18,4% Interna a la empresa 63,2% Mercado dom. incumbentes 18,4% Proveedores 13,2% Incertidumbre demanda 7,9% Clientes 47,4% No necesario (innov.prev) 7,9% Competidores 15,8% No necesario (falta dem) 10,5% Consultores 7,9% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 5,3% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 50% 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,2986667 30% % export prod. innovadores 0,0013333 20% 10% Aumentar variedad prod 35,3% 0% Reemplazar productos 29,4% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  J58Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 47,1% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 52,9% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 41,2% Reducir costos unitarios 35,3% Red. impacto M. Amb. 23,5% Mejorar salud trabaj. 35,3% Mejorar tiempos resp. 62,5% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  62,5% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 25,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 62,5% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación J59: ACTIVIDADES DE PRODUCCIÓN DE PELÍCULAS  CINEMATOGRÁFICAS, VÍDEOS Y PROGRAMAS DE TELEVISIÓN,  Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 25,0% Faltan fondos internos 16,7% Innov. no tecnológica 33,3% Falta financ. externa 0,0% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 25,0% Falta pers. calif. en país 16,7% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 8,3% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 0,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 16,7% Interna a la empresa 33,3% Mercado dom. incumbentes 8,3% Proveedores 25,0% Incertidumbre demanda 8,3% Clientes 41,7% No necesario (innov.prev) 16,7% Competidores 8,3% No necesario (falta dem) 8,3% Consultores 16,7% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 8,3% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 10% Aumentar variedad prod 66,7% 0% Reemplazar productos 100,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  J59Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 66,7% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 100,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 100,0% Reducir costos unitarios 33,3% Red. impacto M. Amb. 33,3% Mejorar salud trabaj. 66,7% Mejorar tiempos resp. 75,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  75,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 25,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 75,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación J60: ACTIVIDADES DE PROGRAMACIÓN Y TRANSMISIÓN Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 25,9% Faltan fondos internos 21,0% Innov. no tecnológica 30,9% Falta financ. externa 17,3% Productos inn. mercado 7,4% Coste elevado 33,3% Falta pers. calif. en país 2,5% Procesos inn. mercado 1,2% Falta inform. tecnología 8,6% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 6,2% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 8,6% Interna a la empresa 35,8% Mercado dom. incumbentes 17,3% Proveedores 17,3% Incertidumbre demanda 17,3% Clientes 40,7% No necesario (innov.prev) 11,1% Competidores 21,0% No necesario (falta dem) 7,4% Consultores 7,4% Complejidad proteger P.I. 1,2% Universidades 3,7% Org. públicos de CyT 1,2% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,4461111 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 71,4% 0% Reemplazar productos 47,6% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  J60Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 38,1% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 76,2% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 38,1% Reducir costos unitarios 9,5% Red. impacto M. Amb. 4,8% Mejorar salud trabaj. 23,8% Mejorar tiempos resp. 64,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  40,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 16,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 52,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación J61: TELECOMUNICACIONES Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 23,8% Faltan fondos internos 14,3% Innov. no tecnológica 35,7% Falta financ. externa 14,3% Productos inn. mercado 7,1% Coste elevado 28,6% Falta pers. calif. en país 9,5% Procesos inn. mercado 4,8% Falta inform. tecnología 14,3% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 14,3% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 11,9% Interna a la empresa 61,9% Mercado dom. incumbentes 23,8% Proveedores 26,2% Incertidumbre demanda 19,0% Clientes 52,4% No necesario (innov.prev) 7,1% Competidores 31,0% No necesario (falta dem) 2,4% Consultores 11,9% Complejidad proteger P.I. 2,4% Universidades 2,4% Org. públicos de CyT 7,1% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,3233333 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 70,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 40,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  J61Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 50,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 80,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 40,0% Reducir costos unitarios 30,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 30,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 50,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 86,7% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  66,7% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 46,7% Mejorar flujos informaci 33,3% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación J62+J63: PROGRAMACIÓN INFORMÁTICA, CONSULTORÍA DE  INFORMÁTICA Y ACTIVIDADES CONEXAS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 44,4% Faltan fondos internos 25,0% Innov. no tecnológica 30,6% Falta financ. externa 11,1% Productos inn. mercado 22,2% Coste elevado 19,4% Falta pers. calif. en país 13,9% Procesos inn. mercado 8,3% Falta inform. tecnología 5,6% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 5,6% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 11,1% Interna a la empresa 63,9% Mercado dom. incumbentes 5,6% Proveedores 8,3% Incertidumbre demanda 19,4% Clientes 44,4% No necesario (innov.prev) 8,3% Competidores 16,7% No necesario (falta dem) 0,0% Consultores 13,9% Complejidad proteger P.I. 8,3% Universidades 2,8% Org. públicos de CyT 5,6% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 50% 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,4908333 30% % export prod. innovadores 0,0416667 20% 10% Aumentar variedad prod 62,5% 0% Reemplazar productos 50,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  J62Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 50,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 81,3% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 43,8% Reducir costos unitarios 18,8% Red. impacto M. Amb. 6,3% Mejorar salud trabaj. 31,3% Mejorar tiempos resp. 90,9% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  63,6% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 9,1% Mejorar flujos informaci 36,4% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación K64: ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS, EXCEPTO LAS DE  SEGUROS Y FONDOS DE PENSIONES Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 58,7% Faltan fondos internos 11,9% Innov. no tecnológica 53,2% Falta financ. externa 12,8% Productos inn. mercado 11,0% Coste elevado 23,9% Falta pers. calif. en país 3,7% Procesos inn. mercado 3,7% Falta inform. tecnología 11,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 13,8% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 11,9% Interna a la empresa 62,4% Mercado dom. incumbentes 15,6% Proveedores 16,5% Incertidumbre demanda 11,0% Clientes 60,6% No necesario (innov.prev) 7,3% Competidores 21,1% No necesario (falta dem) 0,9% Consultores 15,6% Complejidad proteger P.I. 1,8% Universidades 4,6% Org. públicos de CyT 1,8% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 80% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,3559649 60% 40% % export prod. innovadores 0 20% Aumentar variedad prod 68,8% 0% Reemplazar productos 46,9% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  K64Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 50,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 78,1% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 56,3% Reducir costos unitarios 26,6% Red. impacto M. Amb. 14,1% Mejorar salud trabaj. 31,3% Mejorar tiempos resp. 77,6% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  60,3% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 31,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 51,7% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación K65: SEGUROS, REASEGUROS Y FONDOS DE PENSIONES, EXCEPTO LOS  PLANES DE SEGURIDAD SOCIAL DE AFILIACIÓN OBLIGATORIA Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 25,5% Faltan fondos internos 4,3% Innov. no tecnológica 34,0% Falta financ. externa 2,1% Productos inn. mercado 4,3% Coste elevado 8,5% Falta pers. calif. en país 0,0% Procesos inn. mercado 2,1% Falta inform. tecnología 4,3% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 2,1% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 4,3% Interna a la empresa 44,7% Mercado dom. incumbentes 12,8% Proveedores 6,4% Incertidumbre demanda 8,5% Clientes 38,3% No necesario (innov.prev) 14,9% Competidores 17,0% No necesario (falta dem) 8,5% Consultores 8,5% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,284 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 41,7% 0% Reemplazar productos 25,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  K65Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 83,3% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 91,7% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 75,0% Reducir costos unitarios 8,3% Red. impacto M. Amb. 8,3% Mejorar salud trabaj. 50,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 87,5% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  56,3% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 6,3% Mejorar flujos informaci 31,3% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación K66: ACTIVIDADES AUXILIARES DE LAS ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS  FINANCIEROS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 21,4% Faltan fondos internos 7,1% Innov. no tecnológica 7,1% Falta financ. externa 0,0% Productos inn. mercado 14,3% Coste elevado 0,0% Falta pers. calif. en país 0,0% Procesos inn. mercado 14,3% Falta inform. tecnología 0,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 0,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 0,0% Interna a la empresa 21,4% Mercado dom. incumbentes 7,1% Proveedores 0,0% Incertidumbre demanda 7,1% Clientes 28,6% No necesario (innov.prev) 21,4% Competidores 21,4% No necesario (falta dem) 14,3% Consultores 0,0% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,17 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 66,7% 0% Reemplazar productos 0,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  K66Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 33,3% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 66,7% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 33,3% Reducir costos unitarios 0,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 0,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 0,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 100,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  0,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 0,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 0,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación L68: ACTIVIDADES INMOBILIARIAS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 8,2% Faltan fondos internos 16,3% Innov. no tecnológica 10,2% Falta financ. externa 4,1% Productos inn. mercado 2,0% Coste elevado 14,3% Falta pers. calif. en país 2,0% Procesos inn. mercado 2,0% Falta inform. tecnología 0,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 2,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 8,2% Interna a la empresa 20,4% Mercado dom. incumbentes 2,0% Proveedores 6,1% Incertidumbre demanda 4,1% Clientes 22,4% No necesario (innov.prev) 18,4% Competidores 6,1% No necesario (falta dem) 8,2% Consultores 4,1% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,48 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 75,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 25,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  L68Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 25,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 50,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 50,0% Reducir costos unitarios 25,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 25,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 50,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 20,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  20,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 0,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 20,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación M69: ACTIVIDADES JURÍDICAS Y DE CONTABILIDAD Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 18,1% Faltan fondos internos 7,4% Innov. no tecnológica 19,1% Falta financ. externa 4,3% Productos inn. mercado 7,4% Coste elevado 10,6% Falta pers. calif. en país 3,2% Procesos inn. mercado 5,3% Falta inform. tecnología 2,1% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 2,1% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 4,3% Interna a la empresa 25,5% Mercado dom. incumbentes 5,3% Proveedores 3,2% Incertidumbre demanda 4,3% Clientes 26,6% No necesario (innov.prev) 20,2% Competidores 4,3% No necesario (falta dem) 14,9% Consultores 7,4% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 1,1% Org. públicos de CyT 1,1% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,38 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,0833333 10% Aumentar variedad prod 64,7% 0% Reemplazar productos 35,3% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  M69 Inn.  Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn Producto  Proceso  Ingresar mercados 41,2% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 88,2% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 41,2% Reducir costos unitarios 11,8% Red. impacto M. Amb. 23,5% Mejorar salud trabaj. 29,4% Mejorar tiempos resp. 55,6% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  66,7% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 16,7% Mejorar flujos informaci 61,1% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación M70: ACTIVIDADES DE OFICINAS PRINCIPALES; ACTIVIDADES DE  CONSULTORÍA DE GESTIÓN Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 31,0% Faltan fondos internos 24,1% Innov. no tecnológica 27,6% Falta financ. externa 13,8% Productos inn. mercado 13,8% Coste elevado 24,1% Falta pers. calif. en país 10,3% Procesos inn. mercado 10,3% Falta inform. tecnología 6,9% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 3,4% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 13,8% Interna a la empresa 41,4% Mercado dom. incumbentes 6,9% Proveedores 17,2% Incertidumbre demanda 10,3% Clientes 34,5% No necesario (innov.prev) 10,3% Competidores 13,8% No necesario (falta dem) 6,9% Consultores 10,3% Complejidad proteger P.I. 3,4% Universidades 10,3% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,25 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,002 10% Aumentar variedad prod 77,8% 0% Reemplazar productos 44,4% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  M70 Inn.  Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn Producto  Proceso  Ingresar mercados 44,4% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 88,9% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 44,4% Reducir costos unitarios 44,4% Red. impacto M. Amb. 11,1% Mejorar salud trabaj. 33,3% Mejorar tiempos resp. 62,5% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  50,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 50,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 37,5% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación M71: ACTIVIDADES DE ARQUITECTURA E INGENIERÍA; ENSAYOS Y  ANÁLISIS TÉCNICOS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 17,9% Faltan fondos internos 16,4% Innov. no tecnológica 22,4% Falta financ. externa 9,0% Productos inn. mercado 10,4% Coste elevado 19,4% Falta pers. calif. en país 11,9% Procesos inn. mercado 3,0% Falta inform. tecnología 6,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 4,5% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 6,0% Interna a la empresa 29,9% Mercado dom. incumbentes 11,9% Proveedores 17,9% Incertidumbre demanda 13,4% Clientes 31,3% No necesario (innov.prev) 13,4% Competidores 7,5% No necesario (falta dem) 7,5% Consultores 11,9% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 1,5% Org. públicos de CyT 3,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,3944444 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,0055556 10% Aumentar variedad prod 58,3% 0% Reemplazar productos 41,7% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  M71 Inn.  Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn Producto  Proceso  Ingresar mercados 41,7% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 91,7% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 58,3% Reducir costos unitarios 33,3% Red. impacto M. Amb. 41,7% Mejorar salud trabaj. 66,7% Mejorar tiempos resp. 66,7% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  66,7% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 53,3% Mejorar flujos informaci 66,7% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación M72: INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y DESARROLLO Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 16,7% Faltan fondos internos 50,0% Innov. no tecnológica 0,0% Falta financ. externa 66,7% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 50,0% Falta pers. calif. en país 0,0% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 0,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 0,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 0,0% Interna a la empresa 33,3% Mercado dom. incumbentes 16,7% Proveedores 0,0% Incertidumbre demanda 16,7% Clientes 33,3% No necesario (innov.prev) 16,7% Competidores 0,0% No necesario (falta dem) 0,0% Consultores 0,0% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 20% % export prod. innovadores 10% Aumentar variedad prod 100,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 0,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  M72 Inn.  Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn Producto  Proceso  Ingresar mercados 0,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 100,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 100,0% Reducir costos unitarios 0,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 0,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 0,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios Mejorar flujos informaci Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación M73: PUBLICIDAD Y ESTUDIOS DE MERCADO Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 27,6% Faltan fondos internos 8,6% Innov. no tecnológica 37,9% Falta financ. externa 6,9% Productos inn. mercado 6,9% Coste elevado 13,8% Falta pers. calif. en país 3,4% Procesos inn. mercado 1,7% Falta inform. tecnología 3,4% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 5,2% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 5,2% Interna a la empresa 43,1% Mercado dom. incumbentes 12,1% Proveedores 12,1% Incertidumbre demanda 8,6% Clientes 29,3% No necesario (innov.prev) 12,1% Competidores 8,6% No necesario (falta dem) 8,6% Consultores 3,4% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 1,7% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,455 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0,015 10% Aumentar variedad prod 75,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 62,5% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  M73 Inn.  Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn Producto  Proceso  Ingresar mercados 37,5% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 81,3% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 31,3% Reducir costos unitarios 12,5% Red. impacto M. Amb. 6,3% Mejorar salud trabaj. 31,3% Mejorar tiempos resp. 77,3% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  54,5% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 31,8% Mejorar flujos informaci 27,3% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación M74: OTRAS ACTIVIDADES PROFESIONALES, CIENTÍFICAS Y TÉCNICAS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 16,7% Faltan fondos internos 16,7% Innov. no tecnológica 33,3% Falta financ. externa 29,2% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 29,2% Falta pers. calif. en país 4,2% Procesos inn. mercado 4,2% Falta inform. tecnología 4,2% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 16,7% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 8,3% Interna a la empresa 33,3% Mercado dom. incumbentes 16,7% Proveedores 12,5% Incertidumbre demanda 16,7% Clientes 29,2% No necesario (innov.prev) 12,5% Competidores 16,7% No necesario (falta dem) 12,5% Consultores 0,0% Complejidad proteger P.I. 4,2% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,3333333 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 50,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 25,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  M74 Inn.  Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn Producto  Proceso  Ingresar mercados 50,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 50,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 25,0% Reducir costos unitarios 0,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 25,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 25,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 50,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  50,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 12,5% Mejorar flujos informaci 62,5% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación N77: ACTIVIDADES DE ALQUILER Y ARRENDAMIENTO Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 13,0% Faltan fondos internos 8,7% Innov. no tecnológica 13,0% Falta financ. externa 8,7% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 17,4% Falta pers. calif. en país 4,3% Procesos inn. mercado 0,0% Falta inform. tecnología 8,7% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 8,7% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 4,3% Interna a la empresa 17,4% Mercado dom. incumbentes 0,0% Proveedores 8,7% Incertidumbre demanda 4,3% Clientes 13,0% No necesario (innov.prev) 17,4% Competidores 4,3% No necesario (falta dem) 8,7% Consultores 0,0% Complejidad proteger P.I. 4,3% Universidades 0,0% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,2 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 66,7% 0% Reemplazar productos 33,3% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  N77Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 33,3% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 100,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 33,3% Reducir costos unitarios 0,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 0,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 33,3% Mejorar tiempos resp. 100,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  0,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 33,3% Mejorar flujos informaci 33,3% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación N79+N80+N81: AG. DE VIAJES Y CONEXAS, SEG. E INVESTIGACIÓN,  Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 28,6% Faltan fondos internos 14,3% Innov. no tecnológica 14,3% Falta financ. externa 0,0% Productos inn. mercado 0,0% Coste elevado 28,6% Falta pers. calif. en país 0,0% Procesos inn. mercado 14,3% Falta inform. tecnología 0,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 14,3% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 0,0% Interna a la empresa 57,1% Mercado dom. incumbentes 0,0% Proveedores 14,3% Incertidumbre demanda 14,3% Clientes 28,6% No necesario (innov.prev) 14,3% Competidores 28,6% No necesario (falta dem) 0,0% Consultores 0,0% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 14,3% Org. públicos de CyT 0,0% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,4 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 50,0% 0% Reemplazar productos 100,0% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  N79Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 0,0% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 50,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 50,0% Reducir costos unitarios 50,0% Red. impacto M. Amb. 50,0% Mejorar salud trabaj. 50,0% Mejorar tiempos resp. 0,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  0,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 0,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 100,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación N82: ACT. ADMINISTRATIVAS DE APOYO OFICINAS Y OTRAS DE APOYO  EMPRESAS Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 27,5% Faltan fondos internos 7,5% Innov. no tecnológica 22,5% Falta financ. externa 15,0% Productos inn. mercado 5,0% Coste elevado 20,0% Falta pers. calif. en país 7,5% Procesos inn. mercado 7,5% Falta inform. tecnología 0,0% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 5,0% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 7,5% Interna a la empresa 37,5% Mercado dom. incumbentes 12,5% Proveedores 7,5% Incertidumbre demanda 12,5% Clientes 27,5% No necesario (innov.prev) 15,0% Competidores 10,0% No necesario (falta dem) 7,5% Consultores 2,5% Complejidad proteger P.I. 0,0% Universidades 2,5% Org. públicos de CyT 2,5% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 30% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,36 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 45,5% 0% Reemplazar productos 54,5% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  N82Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 54,5% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 81,8% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 72,7% Reducir costos unitarios 45,5% Red. impacto M. Amb. 9,1% Mejorar salud trabaj. 63,6% Mejorar tiempos resp. 100,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  66,7% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 44,4% Mejorar flujos informaci 88,9% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación Q86+Q87: ACTIVIDADES DE ATENC. SALUD HUMANA Y ATENC. EN  INSTITUCIONES Actividad innovadora Barreras para innovar (% empresas que realizan) (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Innov. tecnológica 35,9% Faltan fondos internos 21,8% Innov. no tecnológica 32,1% Falta financ. externa 14,1% Productos inn. mercado 3,8% Coste elevado 34,6% Falta pers. calif. en país 9,0% Procesos inn. mercado 5,1% Falta inform. tecnología 3,8% Fuentes de información para innovar Falta inform. mercado 2,6% (% empresas que las señalan como alta) Dif. encontrar socios 11,5% Interna a la empresa 32,1% Mercado dom. incumbentes 9,0% Proveedores 29,5% Incertidumbre demanda 12,8% Clientes 43,6% No necesario (innov.prev) 9,0% Competidores 12,8% No necesario (falta dem) 5,1% Consultores 7,7% Complejidad proteger P.I. 2,6% Universidades 3,8% Org. públicos de CyT 1,3% Actividad innovadora (% empresas) Resultados y Objetivos de la innovación (% empresas que señalan como alta) 40% % ventas prod. innovadores 0,292381 30% 20% % export prod. innovadores 0 10% Aumentar variedad prod 60,7% 0% Reemplazar productos 46,4% Inn. Tecn Inn. no  Inn.  Q86Producto Inn.  Innovación  tecnológica Tecn   Proceso  Ingresar mercados 39,3% mercado mercado Sector  Mejorar calidad 75,0% Referencia Mejorar flexibilidad 46,4% Reducir costos unitarios 14,3% Red. impacto M. Amb. 35,7% Mejorar salud trabaj. 53,6% Mejorar tiempos resp. 76,0% Inno. no tecnológica Mejorar cap. desarrollo  48,0% nuevos productos Mejorar costos unitarios 28,0% Mejorar flujos informaci 48,0% Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de la Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación Appendix VI. Barriers to innovation: statistical information by type of barrier 105 Annex IV. Barriers to innovation in Ecuador according to the Innovation Survey 2013 Sector codes (In Spanish) B05+B06: EXTRACCIÓN DE CARBÓN, PETRÓLEO CRUDO Y GAS NATURAL B07: EXTRACCIÓN DE MINERALES METALÍFEROS B08: EXPLOTACIÓN DE OTRAS MINAS Y CANTERAS B09: ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS DE APOYO PARA LA EXPLOTACIÓN DE MINAS Y CANTERAS C10: ELABORACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS ALIMENTICIOS C11: ELABORACIÓN DE BEBIDAS C13: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS TEXTILES C14: FABRICACIÓN DE PRENDAS DE VESTIR C15: FABRICACIÓN DE CUEROS Y PRODUCTOS CONEXOS C16: PRODUCCIÓN DE MADERA Y FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS DE MADERA Y CORCHO, EXCEPTO MUEBLES; FABRICACIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS DE PAJA Y C17: FABRICACIÓN DE PAPEL Y DE PRODUCTOS DE PAPEL C18: IMPRESIÓN Y REPRODUCCIÓN DE GRABACIONES C19+C20: FABRICACIÓN DE COQUE Y DE PROD. DE LA REFINACIÓN DEL PETRÓLEO Y PROD. QUIMICOS C21: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS FARMACÉUTICOS, SUSTANCIAS QUÍMICAS MEDICINALES Y PRODUCTOS BOTÁNICOS DE USO FARMACÉUTICO C22: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS DE CAUCHO Y PLÁSTICO C23: FABRICACIÓN DE OTROS PRODUCTOS MINERALES NO METÁLICOS C24: FABRICACIÓN DE METALES COMUNES C25: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS ELABORADOS DE METAL, EXCEPTO MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO C26+C27: FABRICACIÓN DE EQ. INFORMÁTICO, ÓPTICO Y ELÉCTRICO C28: FABRICACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO NCP C29+C30: FABRICACIÓN DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES Y SEMIRREMOLQUES C31: FABRICACIÓN DE MUEBLES C32: OTRAS INDUSTRIAS MANUFACTURERAS C33: REPARACIÓN E INSTALACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO D35: SUMINISTRO DE ELECTRICIDAD, GAS, VAPOR Y AIRE ACONDICIONADO E36: CAPTACIÓN, TRATAMIENTO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN DE AGUA E38+E39: RECOLECCIÓN, TRATAMIENTO, DESCONTAMINACIÓN Y ELIMINACIÓN DE DESECHOS, RECUPERACIÓN DE MATERIALES F41: CONSTRUCCIÓN DE EDIFICIOS F42: OBRAS DE INGENIERÍA CIVIL F43: ACTIVIDADES ESPECIALIZADAS DE LA CONSTRUCCIÓN G45: COMERCIO Y REPARACIÓN DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS G46: COMERCIO AL POR MAYOR, EXCEPTO EL DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS G47: COMERCIO AL POR MENOR, EXCEPTO EL DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS H49: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA TERRESTRE Y POR TUBERÍAS H50: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA ACUÁTICA H51: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA AÉREA H52: ALMACENAMIENTO Y ACTIVIDADES DE APOYO AL TRANSPORTE H53: ACTIVIDADES POSTALES Y DE MENSAJERÍA I55: ACTIVIDADES DE ALOJAMIENTO I56: SERVICIO DE ALIMENTO Y BEBIDA 1 J58: ACTIVIDADES DE PUBLICACIÓN J59: ACTIVIDADES DE PRODUCCIÓN DE PELÍCULAS CINEMATOGRÁFICAS, VÍDEOS Y PROGRAMAS DE TELEVISIÓN, GRABACIÓN DE SONIDO Y EDICIÓN J60: ACTIVIDADES DE PROGRAMACIÓN Y TRANSMISIÓN J61: TELECOMUNICACIONES J62+J63: PROGRAMACIÓN INFORMÁTICA, CONSULTORÍA DE INFORMÁTICA Y ACTIVIDADES CONEXAS K64: ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS, EXCEPTO LAS DE SEGUROS Y FONDOS DE PENSIONES K65: SEGUROS, REASEGUROS Y FONDOS DE PENSIONES, EXCEPTO LOS PLANES DE SEGURIDAD SOCIAL DE AFILIACIÓN OBLIGATORIA K66: ACTIVIDADES AUXILIARES DE LAS ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS L68: ACTIVIDADES INMOBILIARIAS M69: ACTIVIDADES JURÍDICAS Y DE CONTABILIDAD M70: ACTIVIDADES DE OFICINAS PRINCIPALES; ACTIVIDADES DE CONSULTORÍA DE GESTIÓN M71: ACTIVIDADES DE ARQUITECTURA E INGENIERÍA; ENSAYOS Y ANÁLISIS TÉCNICOS M72: INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y DESARROLLO M73: PUBLICIDAD Y ESTUDIOS DE MERCADO M74: OTRAS ACTIVIDADES PROFESIONALES, CIENTÍFICAS Y TÉCNICAS N77: ACTIVIDADES DE ALQUILER Y ARRENDAMIENTO N79+N80+N81: AG. DE VIAJES Y CONEXAS, SEG. E INVESTIGACIÓN, N80: ACTIVIDADES DE SEGURIDAD E INVESTIGACIÓN, SERV. A EDIFICIOS Q86+Q87: ACTIVIDADES DE ATENC. SALUD HUMANA Y ATENC. EN INSTITUCIONES 2 Ecuadorian sectors more relatively affected by barriers to innovation (based on the self- reporting in the innovation survey, 2013) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C15: FABRICACIÓN DE CUEROS Y PRODUCTOS CONEXOS C29: FABRICACIÓN DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES Y… C14: FABRICACIÓN DE PRENDAS DE VESTIR C18: IMPRESIÓN Y REPRODUCCIÓN DE GRABACIONES B09: ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS DE APOYO PARA LA EXPLOTACIÓN DE… C31: FABRICACIÓN DE MUEBLES C32: OTRAS INDUSTRIAS MANUFACTURERAS E36: CAPTACIÓN, TRATAMIENTO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN DE AGUA H53: ACTIVIDADES POSTALES Y DE MENSAJERÍA M72: INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y DESARROLLO C17: FABRICACIÓN DE PAPEL Y DE PRODUCTOS DE PAPEL C24: FABRICACIÓN DE METALES COMUNES H50: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA ACUÁTICA J59: ACTIVIDADES DE PRODUCCIÓN DE PELÍCULAS CINEMATOGRÁFICAS,… J61: TELECOMUNICACIONES M74: OTRAS ACTIVIDADES PROFESIONALES, CIENTÍFICAS Y TÉCNICAS B06: EXTRACCIÓN DE PETRÓLEO CRUDO Y GAS NATURAL C23: FABRICACIÓN DE OTROS PRODUCTOS MINERALES NO METÁLICOS C27: FABRICACIÓN DE EQUIPO ELÉCTRICO C33: REPARACIÓN E INSTALACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO D35: SUMINISTRO DE ELECTRICIDAD, GAS, VAPOR Y AIRE ACONDICIONADO F43: ACTIVIDADES ESPECIALIZADAS DE LA CONSTRUCCIÓN G45: COMERCIO Y REPARACIÓN DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y… H49: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA TERRESTRE Y POR TUBERÍAS H51: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA AÉREA J58: ACTIVIDADES DE PUBLICACIÓN J62: PROGRAMACIÓN INFORMÁTICA, CONSULTORÍA DE INFORMÁTICA Y… K66: ACTIVIDADES AUXILIARES DE LAS ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS… M69: ACTIVIDADES JURÍDICAS Y DE CONTABILIDAD B08: EXPLOTACIÓN DE OTRAS MINAS Y CANTERAS C13: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS TEXTILES C16: PRODUCCIÓN DE MADERA Y FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS DE… C20: FABRICACIÓN DE SUBSTANCIAS Y PRODUCTOS QUÍMICOS C22: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS DE CAUCHO Y PLÁSTICO C28: FABRICACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO NCP E38: RECOLECCIÓN, TRATAMIENTO Y ELIMINACIÓN DE DESECHOS,… G47: COMERCIO AL POR MENOR, EXCEPTO EL DE VEHÍCULOS… I55: ACTIVIDADES DE ALOJAMIENTO J60: ACTIVIDADES DE PROGRAMACIÓN Y TRANSMISIÓN L68: ACTIVIDADES INMOBILIARIAS M70: ACTIVIDADES DE OFICINAS PRINCIPALES; ACTIVIDADES DE… N77: ACTIVIDADES DE ALQUILER Y ARRENDAMIENTO N79: ACTIVIDADES DE AGENCIAS DE VIAJES, OPERADORES TURÍSTICOS,… Q86: ACTIVIDADES DE ATENCIÓN DE LA SALUD HUMANA B07: EXTRACCIÓN DE MINERALES METALÍFEROS C10: ELABORACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS ALIMENTICIOS C11: ELABORACIÓN DE BEBIDAS C21: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS FARMACÉUTICOS, SUSTANCIAS… C25: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS ELABORADOS DE METAL, EXCEPTO… F41: CONSTRUCCIÓN DE EDIFICIOS F42: OBRAS DE INGENIERÍA CIVIL G46: COMERCIO AL POR MAYOR, EXCEPTO EL DE VEHÍCULOS… H52: ALMACENAMIENTO Y ACTIVIDADES DE APOYO AL TRANSPORTE I56: SERVICIO DE ALIMENTO Y BEBIDA K64: ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS, EXCEPTO LAS DE SEGUROS… K65: SEGUROS, REASEGUROS Y FONDOS DE PENSIONES, EXCEPTO LOS… M71: ACTIVIDADES DE ARQUITECTURA E INGENIERÍA; ENSAYOS Y ANÁLISIS… M73: PUBLICIDAD Y ESTUDIOS DE MERCADO N82: ACTIVIDADES ADMINISTRATIVAS Y DE APOYO DE OFICINA Y OTRAS… Fuente: Encuesta Nacional de Actividades de Innovación 3 4 5 Barrera para la innovación: Falta de fondos internos en la empresa H50: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA ACUÁTICA 0,0% K65: SEG. REASEGUROS Y F. PENSIONES, EXCEPTO LOS PLANES DE S.S. OBLIGATORIOS 4,3% B07: EXTRACCIÓN DE MINERALES METALÍFEROS 5,3% B08: EXPLOTACIÓN DE OTRAS MINAS Y CANTERAS 5,3% Menos I55: ACTIVIDADES DE ALOJAMIENTO 6,3% G46: COM. AL POR MAYOR, EXCEPTO VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS 6,3% C24: FABRICACIÓN DE METALES COMUNES 7,1% K66: ACTIVIDADES AUXILIARES DE LAS ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS 7,1% M69: ACTIVIDADES JURÍDICAS Y DE CONTABILIDAD 7,4% N82: ACT. ADMINISTRATIVAS DE APOYO OFICINAS Y OTRAS DE APOYO EMPRESAS 7,5% M70: ACT. DE OFICINAS PRINCIPALES; ACTIVIDADES DE CONSULTORÍA DE GESTIÓN 24,1% H51: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA AÉREA 25,0% J62+J63: PROG. INFORMÁTICA, CONSULTORÍA DE INFORMÁTICA Y ACT. CONEXAS 25,0% C31: FABRICACIÓN DE MUEBLES 26,9% F43: ACTIVIDADES ESPECIALIZADAS DE LA CONSTRUCCIÓN 28,9% Más C18: IMPRESIÓN Y REPRODUCCIÓN DE GRABACIONES 30,1% E36: CAPTACIÓN, TRATAMIENTO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN DE AGUA 30,4% C29+C30: FAB. DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES Y SEMIRREMOLQUES 34,6% C15: FABRICACIÓN DE CUEROS Y PRODUCTOS CONEXOS 44,6% M72: INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y DESARROLLO 50,0% 6 Barrera para la innovación: Falta de financiación externa a la empresa C11: ELABORACIÓN DE BEBIDAS 0,0% H53: ACTIVIDADES POSTALES Y DE MENSAJERÍA 0,0% J59: ACT. DE PROD DE PELÍCULAS CINE., VÍDEOS, PROG. DE TV, GRAB. SONIDO Y EDICIÓN 0,0% K66: ACTIVIDADES AUXILIARES DE LAS ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS 0,0% Menos N79+N80+N81: AG. DE VIAJES Y CONEXAS, SEG. E INVESTIGACIÓN, 0,0% I56: SERVICIO DE ALIMENTO Y BEBIDA 1,9% K65: SEG. REASEGUROS Y F. PENSIONES, EXCEPTO LOS PLANES DE S.S. OBLIGATORIOS 2,1% F41: CONSTRUCCIÓN DE EDIFICIOS 2,9% G46: COM. AL POR MAYOR, EXCEPTO VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS 3,9% L68: ACTIVIDADES INMOBILIARIAS 4,1% D35: SUMINISTRO DE ELECTRICIDAD, GAS, VAPOR Y AIRE ACONDICIONADO 18,8% C14: FABRICACIÓN DE PRENDAS DE VESTIR 19,1% C24: FABRICACIÓN DE METALES COMUNES 21,4% E36: CAPTACIÓN, TRATAMIENTO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN DE AGUA 21,7% E38+E39: RECOLECCIÓN, TRATAMIENTO, DESCONT. Y ELIMINACIÓN DE DESECHOS 23,1% Más C29+C30: FAB. DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES Y SEMIRREMOLQUES 26,9% C28: FABRICACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO NCP 27,3% M74: OTRAS ACTIVIDADES PROFESIONALES, CIENTÍFICAS Y TÉCNICAS 29,2% C15: FABRICACIÓN DE CUEROS Y PRODUCTOS CONEXOS 35,4% M72: INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y DESARROLLO 66,7% 7 Barrera para la innovación: Alto coste B07: EXTRACCIÓN DE MINERALES METALÍFEROS 0,0% H50: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA ACUÁTICA 0,0% K66: ACTIVIDADES AUXILIARES DE LAS ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS 0,0% C24: FABRICACIÓN DE METALES COMUNES 7,1% Menos K65: SEG. REASEGUROS Y F. PENSIONES, EXCEPTO LOS PLANES DE S.S. OBLIGATORIOS 8,5% F41: CONSTRUCCIÓN DE EDIFICIOS 10,1% M69: ACTIVIDADES JURÍDICAS Y DE CONTABILIDAD 10,6% C26+C27: FABRICACIÓN DE EQ. INFORMÁTICO, ÓPTICO Y ELÉCTRICO 11,1% F42: OBRAS DE INGENIERÍA CIVIL 12,5% M73: PUBLICIDAD Y ESTUDIOS DE MERCADO 13,8% I55: ACTIVIDADES DE ALOJAMIENTO 34,4% Q86+Q87: ACTIVIDADES DE ATENC. SALUD HUMANA Y ATENC. EN INSTITUCIONES 34,6% C14: FABRICACIÓN DE PRENDAS DE VESTIR 36,4% C31: FABRICACIÓN DE MUEBLES 36,6% B09: ACT. DE SERVICIOS DE APOYO PARA LA EXPLOTACIÓN DE MINAS Y CANTERAS 37,5% Más E36: CAPTACIÓN, TRATAMIENTO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN DE AGUA 39,1% C18: IMPRESIÓN Y REPRODUCCIÓN DE GRABACIONES 41,0% C29+C30: FAB. DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES Y SEMIRREMOLQUES 42,3% M72: INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y DESARROLLO 50,0% C15: FABRICACIÓN DE CUEROS Y PRODUCTOS CONEXOS 50,8% 8 Barrera para la innovación: Falta personal calificado en el país B05+B06: EXTRACCIÓN DE CARBÓN, PETRÓLEO CRUDO Y GAS NATURAL 0,0% C26+C27: FABRICACIÓN DE EQ. INFORMÁTICO, ÓPTICO Y ELÉCTRICO 0,0% E38+E39: RECOLECCIÓN, TRATAMIENTO, DESCONT. Y ELIMINACIÓN DE DESECHOS 0,0% H53: ACTIVIDADES POSTALES Y DE MENSAJERÍA 0,0% Menos K65: SEG. REASEGUROS Y F. PENSIONES, EXCEPTO LOS PLANES DE S.S. OBLIGATORIOS 0,0% K66: ACTIVIDADES AUXILIARES DE LAS ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS 0,0% M72: INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y DESARROLLO 0,0% N79+N80+N81: AG. DE VIAJES Y CONEXAS, SEG. E INVESTIGACIÓN, 0,0% L68: ACTIVIDADES INMOBILIARIAS 2,0% G46: COM. AL POR MAYOR, EXCEPTO VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS 2,4% C32: OTRAS INDUSTRIAS MANUFACTURERAS 14,3% C23: FABRICACIÓN DE OTROS PRODUCTOS MINERALES NO METÁLICOS 14,8% J58: ACTIVIDADES DE PUBLICACIÓN 15,8% H50: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA ACUÁTICA 16,7% J59: ACT. DE PROD DE PELÍCULAS CINE., VÍDEOS, PROG. DE TV, GRAB. SONIDO Y EDICIÓN 16,7% Más D35: SUMINISTRO DE ELECTRICIDAD, GAS, VAPOR Y AIRE ACONDICIONADO 18,8% C29+C30: FAB. DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES Y SEMIRREMOLQUES 19,2% B09: ACT. DE SERVICIOS DE APOYO PARA LA EXPLOTACIÓN DE MINAS Y CANTERAS 20,8% C14: FABRICACIÓN DE PRENDAS DE VESTIR 21,0% C15: FABRICACIÓN DE CUEROS Y PRODUCTOS CONEXOS 36,9% 9 Barrera para la innovación: Falta información sobre tecnología C21: FAB. DE PROD. FARM., SUST. Q. MEDICINALES Y PROD. BOTÁNICOS DE USO FARM. 0,0% C33: REPARACIÓN E INSTALACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO 0,0% H51: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA AÉREA 0,0% H53: ACTIVIDADES POSTALES Y DE MENSAJERÍA 0,0% Menos I55: ACTIVIDADES DE ALOJAMIENTO 0,0% K66: ACTIVIDADES AUXILIARES DE LAS ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS 0,0% L68: ACTIVIDADES INMOBILIARIAS 0,0% M72: INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y DESARROLLO 0,0% N79+N80+N81: AG. DE VIAJES Y CONEXAS, SEG. E INVESTIGACIÓN, 0,0% N82: ACT. ADMINISTRATIVAS DE APOYO OFICINAS Y OTRAS DE APOYO EMPRESAS 0,0% G45: COMERCIO Y REPARACIÓN DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS 15,0% C31: FABRICACIÓN DE MUEBLES 15,1% C22: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS DE CAUCHO Y PLÁSTICO 16,5% H50: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA ACUÁTICA 16,7% C16: PROD. DE MADERA Y FAB. DE PROD. DE MADERA Y CORCHO, EXCEPTO MUEBLES 18,5% Más C32: OTRAS INDUSTRIAS MANUFACTURERAS 19,0% C17: FABRICACIÓN DE PAPEL Y DE PRODUCTOS DE PAPEL 20,0% C29+C30: FAB. DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES Y SEMIRREMOLQUES 23,1% C14: FABRICACIÓN DE PRENDAS DE VESTIR 25,9% C15: FABRICACIÓN DE CUEROS Y PRODUCTOS CONEXOS 43,1% 10 Barrera para la innovación: Falta información mercado B05+B06: EXTRACCIÓN DE CARBÓN, PETRÓLEO CRUDO Y GAS NATURAL 0,0% B07: EXTRACCIÓN DE MINERALES METALÍFEROS 0,0% C11: ELABORACIÓN DE BEBIDAS 0,0% C21: FAB. DE PROD. FARM., SUST. Q. MEDICINALES Y PROD. BOTÁNICOS DE USO FARM. 0,0% Menos C24: FABRICACIÓN DE METALES COMUNES 0,0% E36: CAPTACIÓN, TRATAMIENTO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN DE AGUA 0,0% E38+E39: RECOLECCIÓN, TRATAMIENTO, DESCONT. Y ELIMINACIÓN DE DESECHOS 0,0% H50: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA ACUÁTICA 0,0% H51: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA AÉREA 0,0% J59: ACT. DE PROD DE PELÍCULAS CINE., VÍDEOS, PROG. DE TV, GRAB. SONIDO Y EDICIÓN 0,0% C13: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS TEXTILES 14,3% J61: TELECOMUNICACIONES 14,3% N79+N80+N81: AG. DE VIAJES Y CONEXAS, SEG. E INVESTIGACIÓN, 14,3% C17: FABRICACIÓN DE PAPEL Y DE PRODUCTOS DE PAPEL 16,0% M74: OTRAS ACTIVIDADES PROFESIONALES, CIENTÍFICAS Y TÉCNICAS 16,7% Más G45: COMERCIO Y REPARACIÓN DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS 17,5% C14: FABRICACIÓN DE PRENDAS DE VESTIR 21,6% C15: FABRICACIÓN DE CUEROS Y PRODUCTOS CONEXOS 26,2% C29+C30: FAB. DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES Y SEMIRREMOLQUES 26,9% C32: OTRAS INDUSTRIAS MANUFACTURERAS 28,6% 11 Barrera para la innovación: Dificultad encontrar socios B05+B06: EXTRACCIÓN DE CARBÓN, PETRÓLEO CRUDO Y GAS NATURAL 0,0% B08: EXPLOTACIÓN DE OTRAS MINAS Y CANTERAS 0,0% D35: SUMINISTRO DE ELECTRICIDAD, GAS, VAPOR Y AIRE ACONDICIONADO 0,0% E38+E39: RECOLECCIÓN, TRATAMIENTO, DESCONT. Y ELIMINACIÓN DE DESECHOS 0,0% Menos H52: ALMACENAMIENTO Y ACTIVIDADES DE APOYO AL TRANSPORTE 0,0% H53: ACTIVIDADES POSTALES Y DE MENSAJERÍA 0,0% K66: ACTIVIDADES AUXILIARES DE LAS ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS 0,0% M72: INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y DESARROLLO 0,0% N79+N80+N81: AG. DE VIAJES Y CONEXAS, SEG. E INVESTIGACIÓN, 0,0% F41: CONSTRUCCIÓN DE EDIFICIOS 2,9% C33: REPARACIÓN E INSTALACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO 13,9% C14: FABRICACIÓN DE PRENDAS DE VESTIR 16,7% H50: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA ACUÁTICA 16,7% J59: ACT. DE PROD DE PELÍCULAS CINE., VÍDEOS, PROG. DE TV, GRAB. SONIDO Y EDICIÓN 16,7% C18: IMPRESIÓN Y REPRODUCCIÓN DE GRABACIONES 16,9% Más E36: CAPTACIÓN, TRATAMIENTO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN DE AGUA 17,4% J58: ACTIVIDADES DE PUBLICACIÓN 18,4% C15: FABRICACIÓN DE CUEROS Y PRODUCTOS CONEXOS 20,0% C29+C30: FAB. DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES Y SEMIRREMOLQUES 23,1% C32: OTRAS INDUSTRIAS MANUFACTURERAS 23,8% 12 Barrera para la innovación: El mercado está dominado por empresas establecidas B07: EXTRACCIÓN DE MINERALES METALÍFEROS 0,0% C24: FABRICACIÓN DE METALES COMUNES 0,0% E38+E39: RECOLECCIÓN, TRATAMIENTO, DESCONT. Y ELIMINACIÓN DE DESECHOS 0,0% H50: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA ACUÁTICA 0,0% Menos N77: ACTIVIDADES DE ALQUILER Y ARRENDAMIENTO 0,0% N79+N80+N81: AG. DE VIAJES Y CONEXAS, SEG. E INVESTIGACIÓN, 0,0% L68: ACTIVIDADES INMOBILIARIAS 2,0% F41: CONSTRUCCIÓN DE EDIFICIOS 2,9% D35: SUMINISTRO DE ELECTRICIDAD, GAS, VAPOR Y AIRE ACONDICIONADO 3,1% G46: COM. AL POR MAYOR, EXCEPTO VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS 3,1% C15: FABRICACIÓN DE CUEROS Y PRODUCTOS CONEXOS 20,0% C17: FABRICACIÓN DE PAPEL Y DE PRODUCTOS DE PAPEL 20,0% C19+C20: FAB. DE COQUE Y DE PROD. DE LA REF. DEL PETRÓLEO Y PROD. QUIMICOS 21,9% C14: FABRICACIÓN DE PRENDAS DE VESTIR 23,5% J61: TELECOMUNICACIONES 23,8% Más C18: IMPRESIÓN Y REPRODUCCIÓN DE GRABACIONES 24,1% C31: FABRICACIÓN DE MUEBLES 24,7% B09: ACT. DE SERVICIOS DE APOYO PARA LA EXPLOTACIÓN DE MINAS Y CANTERAS 29,2% H53: ACTIVIDADES POSTALES Y DE MENSAJERÍA 33,3% C29+C30: FAB. DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES Y SEMIRREMOLQUES 42,3% 13 Barrera para la innovación: Incertidumbre en la dem. de productos innovadores C21: FAB. DE PROD. FARM., SUST. Q. MEDICINALES Y PROD. BOTÁNICOS DE USO FARM. 0,0% C33: REPARACIÓN E INSTALACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO 0,0% E36: CAPTACIÓN, TRATAMIENTO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN DE AGUA 0,0% E38+E39: RECOLECCIÓN, TRATAMIENTO, DESCONT. Y ELIMINACIÓN DE DESECHOS 0,0% Menos F41: CONSTRUCCIÓN DE EDIFICIOS 2,9% C22: FABRICACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS DE CAUCHO Y PLÁSTICO 3,1% L68: ACTIVIDADES INMOBILIARIAS 4,1% M69: ACTIVIDADES JURÍDICAS Y DE CONTABILIDAD 4,3% N77: ACTIVIDADES DE ALQUILER Y ARRENDAMIENTO 4,3% G46: COM. AL POR MAYOR, EXCEPTO VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS 4,7% J60: ACTIVIDADES DE PROGRAMACIÓN Y TRANSMISIÓN 17,3% C15: FABRICACIÓN DE CUEROS Y PRODUCTOS CONEXOS 18,5% J61: TELECOMUNICACIONES 19,0% J62+J63: PROG. INFORMÁTICA, CONSULTORÍA DE INFORMÁTICA Y ACT. CONEXAS 19,4% C24: FABRICACIÓN DE METALES COMUNES 21,4% Más C18: IMPRESIÓN Y REPRODUCCIÓN DE GRABACIONES 21,7% H53: ACTIVIDADES POSTALES Y DE MENSAJERÍA 22,2% C14: FABRICACIÓN DE PRENDAS DE VESTIR 24,1% G47: COM. AL POR MENOR, EXCEPTO VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS 25,0% C29+C30: FAB. DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES Y SEMIRREMOLQUES 30,8% 14 Barrera para la innovación: No necesaria por innovaciones anteriores C28: FABRICACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO NCP 0,0% C29+C30: FABRICACIÓN DE VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES, REMOLQUES Y SEMIRREMOLQUES 0,0% H50: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA ACUÁTICA 0,0% C11: ELABORACIÓN DE BEBIDAS 3,7% Menos C16: PROD. DE MADERA Y FAB. DE PROD. DE MADERA Y CORCHO, EXCEPTO MUEBLES 3,7% G47: COM. AL POR MENOR, EXCEPTO VEHÍCULOS AUTOMOTORES Y MOTOCICLETAS 4,2% B07: EXTRACCIÓN DE MINERALES METALÍFEROS 5,3% C31: FABRICACIÓN DE MUEBLES 5,4% C21: FAB. DE PROD. FARM., SUST. Q. MEDICINALES Y PROD. BOTÁNICOS DE USO FARM. 5,9% C10: ELABORACIÓN DE PRODUCTOS ALIMENTICIOS 6,0% M72: INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y DESARROLLO 16,7% N77: ACTIVIDADES DE ALQUILER Y ARRENDAMIENTO 17,4% H49: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA TERRESTRE Y POR TUBERÍAS 18,1% L68: ACTIVIDADES INMOBILIARIAS 18,4% M69: ACTIVIDADES JURÍDICAS Y DE CONTABILIDAD 20,2% Más C24: FABRICACIÓN DE METALES COMUNES 21,4% K66: ACTIVIDADES AUXILIARES DE LAS ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS 21,4% H53: ACTIVIDADES POSTALES Y DE MENSAJERÍA 22,2% B08: EXPLOTACIÓN DE OTRAS MINAS Y CANTERAS 26,3% H51: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA AÉREA 33,3% 15 Barrera para la innovación: Falta demanda innovaciones B07: EXTRACCIÓN DE MINERALES METALÍFEROS 0,0% C16: PROD. DE MADERA Y FAB. DE PROD. DE MADERA Y CORCHO, EXCEPTO MUEBLES 0,0% C24: FABRICACIÓN DE METALES COMUNES 0,0% C28: FABRICACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO NCP 0,0% Menos H50: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA ACUÁTICA 0,0% H51: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA AÉREA 0,0% J62+J63: PROG. INFORMÁTICA, CONSULTORÍA DE INFORMÁTICA Y ACT. CONEXAS 0,0% M72: INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y DESARROLLO 0,0% N79+N80+N81: AG. DE VIAJES Y CONEXAS, SEG. E INVESTIGACIÓN, 0,0% K64: ACT. DE SERV. FINANCIEROS, EXCEPTO LAS DE SEGUROS Y FONDOS DE PENSIONES 0,9% C26+C27: FABRICACIÓN DE EQ. INFORMÁTICO, ÓPTICO Y ELÉCTRICO 11,1% C33: REPARACIÓN E INSTALACIÓN DE MAQUINARIA Y EQUIPO 11,1% H53: ACTIVIDADES POSTALES Y DE MENSAJERÍA 11,1% M74: OTRAS ACTIVIDADES PROFESIONALES, CIENTÍFICAS Y TÉCNICAS 12,5% C23: FABRICACIÓN DE OTROS PRODUCTOS MINERALES NO METÁLICOS 13,0% Más K66: ACTIVIDADES AUXILIARES DE LAS ACTIVIDADES DE SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS 14,3% M69: ACTIVIDADES JURÍDICAS Y DE CONTABILIDAD 14,9% F43: ACTIVIDADES ESPECIALIZADAS DE LA CONSTRUCCIÓN 15,8% B05+B06: EXTRACCIÓN DE CARBÓN, PETRÓLEO CRUDO Y GAS NATURAL 16,7% H49: TRANSPORTE POR VÍA TERRESTRE Y POR TUBERÍAS 17,2% 16