World economy and international economic relations

Asset and cost management for innovation activity

Economic Annals-XXI

Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 165, Issue 5-6, Pages: 13-18

Citation information:
Labunska, S., Petrova, M., & Prokopishyna, O. (2017). Asset and cost management for innovation activity. Economic Annals-XXI (2017), 165(5-6), 13-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V165-03

View Full-TextDownload PDF

Svitlana Labunska
D.Sc. (Economics),
Professor,
Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics
9-A Nauky Ave., Kharkiv, 61166, Ukraine
svetlana.lab@gmail.com
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0989-6806

Mariana Petrova
PhD (Economics),
Professor,
St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Turnovo
2 T. Turnovski Str., Veliko Turnovo, 5000 Bulgaria
m.petrova@uni-vt.bg
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1531-4312

Olena Prokopishyna
PhD (Economics),
Associate Professor,
Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics
9-A Nauky Ave., Kharkiv, 61166, Ukraine
elena_prokopishin@ukr.net
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5513-5629

Asset and cost management for innovation activity

Abstract. The paper provides results of a comparative analysis of the level of innovation activity in European countries based on official statistics. A cluster analysis of R&D expenditure share in GDP allowed the authors to identify five groups of countries with very high (Denmark, Finland, Germany), high (Belgium, France, Slovenia), middle (the United Kingdom, Ireland, Estonia), low (Portugal, Spain, Bulgaria) and very low (Malta, Serbia, Ukraine) level of innovation activity. The paper grounds cluster borders, discusses common features of the countries within each cluster and their changes for past decade and proves the need for borrowing the best practices of the EU member countries to increase efficiency of innovation management for countries with low and very low level of innovation activity.

The authors have made the proposals related to the ways of enhancing innovation management. The paper grounds the proposed approaches to the identification and accurate assessment of companies’ expenses and intangible assets arising from commercialization of innovative implementations. The paper discloses the authors’ position upon recognition of cost and expenses in financial accounting and management system, grounds benefits and suggests justified solutions for different cases depending on the nature of innovation process and requirements of the standards of accounting and financial statements.

Keywords: Cost Management; Innovation; Cluster; Internally Generated Goodwill; Intangible Assets

JEL Classіfіcatіon: M21; M41

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V165-03

References

  1. Brunswicker, S., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2015). Open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): External knowledge sourcing strategies and internal organizational facilitators. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 1241-1263.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12120
  2. Burmeister, Ch., Luettgens, D., & Piller, F. T. (2016). Business Model Innovation for Industrie 4.0: Why the «Industrial Internet» Mandates a New Perspective on Innovation, Die Unternehmung. Swiss Journal of Business Research, 2(72), 124-152.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2571033
  3. Hrytsay, O. (2010). Directions of enhancing of accounting of innovation process cost. Problemy economiky ta menedzhmentu (Problems of Economics and Management), 3, 253-256.
    Retreived from http://ena.lp.edu.ua:8080/bitstream/ntb/20285/1/40-198-201.pdf (in Ukr.).
  4. Steedman, I., & Metcalfe, S. (2013). Exploring Schumpeterian dynamics: innovation, adaptation and growth. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 10(2), 149-178.
    Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.14441/eier.A2013009
  5. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
  6. Fedulova, L. (2012). Conceptual model of innovation strategy of Ukraine. Ekonomika i prohnozuvannya (Economy and forecasting), 1, 87-100.
    Retrieved from http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/econprog_2012_1_9
  7. Kuznets, S. (1973). Modern Economic Growth: Findings and Reflections. American Economic Review, American Economic Association, 63(3), 247-258.
    Retreived from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914358
  8. Labunska, S., & Prokopishyna, O. (2016). Innovation as driver for conflict and harmony in social and economic interests. Ekonomika rozvytku (Economics of Development), 80(4), 103-110.
  9. Labunska, S. (2014). Management of enterprise innovation expenses: methodology and practice. Kharkiv: INJEK (in Russ.).
  10. World Economic Forum (2016). The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017.
    Retrieved from  http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2016-2017/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdf
  11. State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2017). Official web-site.
    Retrieved from http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua (in Ukr.)
  12. Statistics of European Commission (2017). Official web-site.
    Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
  13. Labunska, S. (2015). Methodological bases of enterprise innovation cost management: aspects of economic safety. Sumy: Sumy State Univeersity (in Russ.).
  14. Cammarano, A., Caputo, M., Lamberti, E., & Michelino, F. (2017). Open innovation and intellectual property: A knowledge-based approach. Management Decision, 55(6), 1182-1208.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2016-0203
  15. Haifen Lin, & Jingqin Su (2014). A case study on adoptive management innovation in China. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(1), 83-114.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2012-0112

Received 3.06.2017

View Full-TextDownload PDF
In, , , ,

More Papers