Every organization – be it industrial or service-oriented – that seeks to develop, to compete effectively, and to create value needs to systemically generate and implement innovations across all its areas of operation. In economically developed countries, innovation is treated as a driving force (Hilmersson & Hilmersson, 2021, pp. 43‒49; Latif, 2024) that enables:

1) improved organizational economics,
2) opening up of new markets,
3) enriched knowledge resources and their creative application,
4) renewed industrial structures,
5) effective achievement of developmental goals,
6) expansion and diversification of products, services, and related markets,
7) implementation of new production, supply, and distribution methods,
8) the introduction of new methods of management and work organization, as well as changes in working conditions and staff qualifications,
9) staff integration and stronger relationships with customers,
10) improved quality of work, production standards, workplace health and safety, and environmental protection,
11) enhanced teamwork and collaboration with customers,
12) value creation,
13) increased living standards of societies, etc.

Therefore, it should be a guiding principle of management to systematically enhance the innovativeness of the organizations managed, continually striving to transform them into truly innovative enterprises. However, these issues are often marginalized in business operations. One hallmark of innovative organizations is the active involvement of managers and employees in fostering innovative activity, while remaining guided by shared values (Peters & Waterman, 2000, p. 47). This is supported by the strong correlation that has been found between the introduction of new products and the success of organizations (Tidd & Bessant, 2013, p. 26). Moreover, every manager needs to remember that any market advantage attained through innovation will inevitably diminish over time, due to innovative efforts on the part of other organizations. Therefore, successful organizations have to establish systematic, methodical, and organized processes to ensure the continued creation and practical implementation of innovations.

Innovation is of great economic and social importance, for organizations and societies alike. However, the various processes involved in creating, implementing, and managing innovations often encounter significant challenges. Numerous technical, technological, legal, economic, social and organizational barriers can hinder operational and development activities. These barriers, as highlighted in the literature, can be categorized into three groups (Ordoñez-Gutiérrez et al., 2023, pp. 1–22): 1) cost-related barriers (involving insufficient internal or external financial resources), 2) knowledge-related barriers (a lack of employment opportunities for employees with appropriate qualifications, limited knowledge of market rules, inadequate information about the company’s innovation needs), and 3) market knowledge related barriers (an inability to introduce innovations to the market effectively, making it impossible to recover the costs of their development).

Other scholars have proposed other classifications. Indrawati et al. (2020, p. 555) identified the following barriers: 1) those related to the financing of innovation in enterprises (high costs of innovation, difficulties in obtaining credit from financial institutions, high interest rates), 2) barriers related to government support (minimum financial assistance from the government, a lack of training from the government in the field of innovation, non-targeted government aid for innovative equipment), 3) those related to business partners (no suppliers as business partners, no marketing agencies as business partners), 4) those related to the quality of human resources (difficulties in recruiting high-quality employees, a lack of employee competence, resistance of employees to innovative changes, relatively high resistance of business owners to innovative changes, a lack of knowledge of business owners about innovation), 5) economic conditions (difficulty in obtaining innovative equipment, unstable economy, low purchasing power). Das et al. (2018, p. 99), in turn, have classified barriers into 1) internal (organizational strategy, organizational architecture, leadership, organizational culture, R&D organization, motivational incentives, negative attitude, inadequate innovative competences, unfavorable organizational structure); and 2) external (market dynamics, competitor behavior, market and technological turbulence, customer resistance, ecosystem dynamics, underdeveloped information network).

Recognizing such barriers can support rational decision-making and enhance innovation processes. One way to reduce the negative effects of these barriers to innovative activity is to engage in organized and rationally-managed collaboration among enterprises in the field of creating and implementing innovations.

The research problem addressed herein can be framed as follows: To what extent is collaboration in innovative activity prevalent among Polish enterprises? How dynamic is this collaboration, and is it an element of rational management? To address these questions, this study examines: 1) the proportion of innovative enterprises among the total number of companies, 2) the percentage of innovatively active enterprises, 3) the percentage of enterprises engaging in innovation-related collaboration, 4) the structure of collaborative partners, 5) the percentage of enterprises collaborating within cluster initiatives.

Via these issues, this study explores the role of managerial involvement in overcoming innovation barriers. By addressing these challenges, organizations can improve innovation management, enhancing competitiveness, value creation, knowledge expansion, and market growth.

A key assumption underlying this study is that the relatively low percentage of innovatively active organizations in Poland that decide to collaborate in the field of innovative activity is a consequence of a certain gap between theoretical advancements in innovative management and the willingness of managers to adopt and implement these concepts in practice.

Therefore, the objective of this publication is to assess the prevalence and dynamics of collaboration in innovation among Polish industrial and service enterprises and to demonstrate that such cooperation is not yet a common component of managerial decision-making. This state of affairs stands in contrast to the model solutions presented in the literature.

The article is structured into an introduction, followed by a critical literature review, research methodology, presentation of research findings and their analysis; and summary of the findings as well as suggestions for further research.

2. Literature review

Due to its high importance for the development of organizations, regions and entire economies – as well as in value creation – innovation has been extensively explored in the research literature, from a variety of technical, economic, management, organizational, sociological and psychological perspectives (Brzeziński, 2001; Sosnowska et al. 2000; Świtalski, 2005; Janasz & Kozioł-Nadolna, 2011; Zangara & Filice, 2024, pp. 360–383; Ullah et al., 2024, pp. 1967–1985). Authors have focused their attention on explaining the essence of innovation, classifying innovations, identifying innovation’s role in the development of organizations, increasing their competitiveness, improving management efficiency, improving management and the qualifications of employees, creating innovations as a team and organizing the national innovation system, etc. (Baruk, 2009, pp. 93–103; Świadek, 2021; Kozioł-Nadolna, 2022). Note that despite the extent of this literature, no uniform, universally applicable definition of innovation has yet been developed. The vagueness and diversity of definitions presented in the literature makes it difficult to understand the essence of innovation and hinders communication between theoreticians and practitioners, contributing to interpretative confusion (Baruk, 2022, pp. 10–23; Baregheh et al., 2009, p. 1334).

Since innovation activity faces various types of external and internal obstacles, some authors have attempted to identify such obstacles and their impact on the universality of creating and implementing innovations, as well as on the effectiveness of innovative activity. As noted above, three groups of barriers to innovative activity are most often indicated (Das et al., 2018, p. 99; Carvache-Franco et al., 2022, p. 1–17; Martínez-Azúa & Sama-Berrocal, 2022, p. 1–25): (a) cost and financial barriers, (b) knowledge barriers, (c) market barriers. Social barriers are also significant – managerial resistance, especially among middle management, and lack of employee engagement (Alshwayat et al., 2023, pp. 159–170).

Given the negative impact of these barriers on the efficiency of innovative activities, it is crucial to seek ways to eliminate or at least mitigate them. One such strategy widely discussed in the literature involves fostering collaboration with other business entities / research centers. Well-organized cooperation of this sort has been shown to have numerous advantages (Hardwick et al., 2013, pp. 4–21): reduced risk of failure, lower costs of innovation activities, improved effectiveness, rational use of knowledge possessed by cooperating organizations, expanding and enriching this knowledge, and shortened innovation development cycles, etc.

In general, cooperation in innovation can adopt four broad forms: distant, translated, definite and developed (Lind et al. 2013, pp. 70–91; Wong et al., 2018, pp. 316–332; Yunus, 2018, pp. 350–370). Collaboration is recognized as one of the four key elements of innovation – alongside ideas, implementation and value creation (Cowan et al., 2009; Watkins, 2024).

Since innovation relies on knowledge, numerous authors have explored the relationship between knowledge creation, innovation, and knowledge management (Baruk, 2023, pp. 43–55; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2000; Kowalczyk & Nogalski, 2007; Baruk, 2009; Baruk, 2018, pp. 83–110; Baruk, 2011, pp.113–127). The function linking knowledge creation to innovation is undoubtedly the efficient management of knowledge and innovation within a single system. However, how to best achieve such a systemic approach remains an open problem challenge in the literature. Theoretical and empirical research on knowledge and innovation management continues to offer valuable insights, especially for leaders managing modern enterprises (Baruk, 2021, pp. 14–21; Baruk, 2022, pp. 10–23; Tidd & Bessant, 2013; Baruk, 2015, pp. 121–145).

5. Research methodology

This study is based on empirical research conducted by Poland’s Central Statistical Office (GUS) on the innovative activity of enterprises in Poland in 2014–2022. These surveys covered all industrial and service enterprises with 10 or more employees and were conducted as part of the international research program Community Innovation Survey (CIS), using the standardized PNT–02 questionnaire. The results of these studies were presented in the publications GUS (2017, 2019, 2020, 2023).

Numerical data taken from these publications enabled a detailed interpretation of the studied phenomenon in terms of its universality and dynamics. Additionally, they also allowed for the verification of the following detailed research questions:

1) Was innovation-related collaboration an element of rational decision-making processes in Polish industrial and service organizations?
2) How prevalent was collaboration in innovative activities?
3) What were the dynamics of such cooperation?
4) Who were the collaborating partners?
5) Was a cluster participation a significant form of cooperation?

The following research methods were employed in this study: 1) critical and cognitive analysis of selected literature on the subject, 2) descriptive and comparative methods, 3) statistical analysis, 4) the projective method. These methods facilitated the interpretation of key concepts, an overview of the current knowledge base, barriers accompanying innovative activity, as well as the universality and dynamics of the use of cooperation in Polish industrial and service organizations. Additionally, the projective method was used to outline potential strategies for improving the management of collaborative innovative activities.

Research results and discussion

1) The level of innovation at Polish enterprises and its dynamics in 2016–2022

The level of innovation can be assessed using various indicators, one of which is the proportion of innovative enterprises among the total number of business entities. As Table 1 shows, in 2016–2022, the share of innovative industrial enterprises in the total number of Polish enterprises in this sector was at an average level of 23.7%. This measure notably fluctuated over subsequent years, reaching its highest value in 2022 – over 32%. Compared to 2016, this represents an increase of 13.5 percentage point.

A key finding is the low percentage of industrial enterprises engaging in innovation cooperation, which remained below 10% throughout the study period (peaking at 9.1% in 2022). Additionally, industrial enterprises that were active in innovation undertook cooperation within the framework of cluster initiatives, with a participation rate of 14%. The highest values were observed in 2018 (21%) and 2019 (20.5%).

In the service sector, the average proportion of innovative enterprises was 19.7% – 4 percentage points less than for the industrial sector. Throughout the analyzed period, the percentage of innovative enterprises in services was consistently lower than in industry, with the largest gap coming in 2017, at 8.1 percentage points.

Engagement in collaborative innovation is typically influenced by the overall level of innovative activity within business entities. As shown in Table 2, the average percentage of innovatively active enterprises was 26% in the industrial sector and 20.8% in the services sector. A positive trend was the growing percentage of innovatively active entities in both sectors and within individual categories of enterprises. However, a decline was observed in the services sector in 2017–2019, where the share of innovatively active enterprises decreased by 0.8 percentage points compared to the previous period. A similar trend occurred among small enterprises, where in the corresponding period the proportion of innovatively active companies decreased by 1 percentage points.

A key characteristic of innovative activity is its correlation with enterprise size, measured by the number of employees. As shown in Table 2, the prevalence of innovatively active companies increases with enterprise size in both the industrial and service sectors. The lowest percentage of innovatively active firms was recorded among small enterprises, while the highest was observed among large enterprises. Notably, on average, in the European Union (2018–2020), 52.7% of enterprises engaged in innovative activities, whereas in Poland, the figure was only 34.9%, reflecting a 17.8 percentage point (p.p.) gap (EUROSTAT).

2) Prevalence of innovation-related collaboration among innovatively active enterprises

One of the key questions for this study is: What percentage of innovatively active enterprises engage in innovation-related cooperation? As Table 3 shows, in 2014–2016, almost one-third of innovatively active enterprises engaged in cooperation. However, this percentage declined by 9.4 p.p. in 2017–2019 and further by 8.1 p.p. in 2020–2022. Small enterprises were the least likely to cooperate, with only one in four firms engaging in collaborative innovation in 2014–2016. This figure further declined by 10.2 p.p. in 2017–2019 and by 8.3 p.p. in 2020–2022. The likelihood of cooperation increased with enterprise size. Among large enterprises, nearly 51% engaged in innovation cooperation in 2014–2016. However, this figure declined by 7.4 p.p. in 2017–2019 and by 0.5 p.p. in 2020–2022.

Similar trends in innovation-related collaboration were observed in the services sector. The most favorable period was between 2014 and 2016, when nearly 27% of innovatively active service companies engaged in cooperation. However, in the following years, this share declined by 8.4 percentage points and then by an additional 4.7 percentage points. A similar pattern was evident across service enterprises of different sizes, with small companies showing the lowest levels of collaboration and large enterprises the highest.

Between 2014 and 2016, in the industrial sector, companies that were actively engaged in innovation and cooperated with business entities in this field exhibited varying levels of collaboration depending on their industry. The highest levels of cooperation were seen among enterprises producing tobacco products, other transport equipment, and coke and refined petroleum products, where collaboration rates reached 60.0%, 59.3%, and 57.1%, respectively. In contrast, companies involved in furniture production, leather and leather products, and clothing manufacturing had the lowest levels of innovation-related cooperation, with rates of 16.1%, 15.4%, and 4.9% (GUS, 2017, pp. 87–88). A similar distribution was observed in the services sector during the same period 2014–2016, where enterprises in air transport, film and TV production, and scientific research and development demonstrated the highest levels of cooperation. In these industries, all air transport enterprises participated in innovation-related collaboration, while 66.7% of film and TV production companies and 59.6% of research and development firms engaged in such activities. On the other end of the spectrum, businesses involved in publishing, postal and courier services, and land and pipeline transport had the lowest levels of collaboration, with rates of 17.7%, 9.1%, and 8.0%, respectively (GUS, 2017, pp. 87–88).

Between 2017 and 2019, industrial enterprises exhibited significant variation in their engagement in innovation-related collaboration. The highest levels of cooperation were recorded in metal ore mining, where all innovatively active companies collaborated with other enterprises or institutions. Similarly, in the mining of hard coal and lignite, 60% of companies engaged in innovation-related cooperation, while 44.4% of enterprises producing coke and refined petroleum products did the same. The lowest levels of collaboration were observed in food product manufacturing, where only 14.2% of businesses participated, as well as in water collection, treatment, and supply at 13.8%, and furniture production at 13.5% (GUS, 2020, pp. 77–78). In the services sector during the same period, 2017–2019, scientific research and development remained the area with the highest prevalence of innovation cooperation, with nearly 59.7% of firms in this field engaging in such activities. Companies in architecture and engineering, as well as those involved in technical research and analysis, also showed significant collaboration, with 32.3% participating in innovation-related partnerships. Telecommunications companies followed, with 29.2% engaging in cooperation. In contrast, businesses in postal and courier services, warehousing, and transport support services demonstrated the lowest levels of participation, with cooperation rates of 5.6%, 4.2%, and 2.2%, respectively (GUS, 2020, pp. 77–78).

During the 2020–2022 period, in turn, innovation cooperation among industrial enterprises was most common in tobacco product manufacturing and the mining of hard coal and lignite, where 66.7% of innovatively active companies engaged in collaboration. The production of other transport equipment also exhibited a high level of cooperation, with 49.7% of enterprises in this sector participating. However, cooperation was much less common in industries such as wood, cork, straw, and wicker product manufacturing, where only 13.1% of firms engaged in collaborative innovation efforts. Similarly, clothing production had a cooperation rate of 12.5%, while reclamation activities showed the lowest level of engagement at just 10.0% (GUS, 2023, p. 77). In the services sector during the same period, scientific research and development remained the dominant area for innovation-related collaboration, with 65.6% of innovatively active organizations participating. Other sectors also demonstrated considerable cooperation, including insurance, reinsurance, and pension funds, where 41.1% of companies engaged in innovation partnerships, as well as architecture and engineering, where 33.6% collaborated. On the lower end of the spectrum, postal and courier services had a cooperation rate of 17.2%, land and pipeline transport had 12.9%, and water transport had the lowest level of participation at just 11.1% (GUS, 2023, p. 78).

In terms of geographical distribution, between 2014 and 2016 the highest percentage of industrial enterprises engaged in innovation cooperation was recorded in the Podkarpackie (41.4% of innovatively active companies), Śląskie (38.5%), and Małopolskie (38.1%) provinces. In contrast, the lowest levels of cooperation were observed in the Wielkopolskie (29.2%), Zachodniopomorskie (28.6%), and Lubuskie (27.1%) provinces. In the services sector during the same period, innovation-related collaboration was most common among enterprises in the Podkarpackie (73.4%), Warmińsko-Mazurskie (46.2%), and Świętokrzyskie (40.7%) provinces. On the other end of the spectrum, the lowest levels of cooperation were recorded in Łódzkie (14.9%), Opolskie (8.3%), and Lubelskie (7.3%) (GUS, 2017, p. 89).

In the 2017–2019 period, in turn, the pattern changed slightly for industrial enterprises, with the highest levels of innovation cooperation occurring in Lubelskie (29.2%), Śląskie (28.2%), and Opolskie (27.7%). The lowest rates were observed in Podlaskie (19.0%), Zachodniopomorskie (18.9%), and Warmińsko-Mazurskie (13.7%). For service enterprises during the same period, the highest levels of collaboration were recorded in Podkarpackie (39.7%), Łódzkie (31.8%), and Lubuskie (26.7%). In contrast, the lowest levels of cooperation were found in Podlaskie (10.0%), Wielkopolskie (7.4%), and Zachodniopomorskie (2.7%) (GUS, 2020, p. 79).

During 2020–2022, the territorial distribution of innovation cooperation changed once again. Among industrial enterprises, the highest prevalence was recorded in Kujawsko-Pomorskie (34.5%), Opolskie (30.1%), and Podlaskie (29.2%), while the lowest rates were seen in Łódzkie (18.8%), Świętokrzyskie (18.2%), and Warmińsko-Mazurskie (17.8%). In the services sector during the same period, the highest levels of cooperation in innovation were found in Zachodniopomorskie (48.5%), Podkarpackie (40.8%), and Lubuskie (35.5%), whereas the lowest levels were recorded in Opolskie (8.3%), Podlaskie (8.2%), and Kujawsko-Pomorskie (7.1%) (GUS, 2023, p. 79).

Analyzing innovation cooperation by technological level, it is evident that in the industrial processing sector, high-tech enterprises were the most engaged in collaboration, while low-tech enterprises showed the lowest participation. Between 2014 and 2016, innovation cooperation was undertaken by 46.7% of high-tech companies, compared to just 2.2% of low-tech firms (GUS, 2017, p. 90). A similar pattern persisted in 2017–2019, with 33.9% of high-tech enterprises engaging in cooperation, while low-tech firms exhibited a significantly lower rate of 14.6% (GUS, 2020, p. 80). Between 2020 and 2022, the trend remained consistent, with 36.4% of high-tech enterprises participating in innovation-related collaboration, compared to 20.2% of low-tech firms (GUS, 2023, p. 80).

3) Cooperation partners of enterprises in the field of innovative activities

Now that we know that Polish enterprises engaged in innovation-related collaboration, the next important question arises: Who were their key cooperation partners? Table 4 provides a detailed breakdown of these partnerships.

Among industrially active enterprises, collaboration with Polish universities was the most common. Between 2016 and 2018, nearly 48% of industrial enterprises cooperated with universities in Poland. This percentage increased to 56% between 2017 and 2019, before declining to 39% in 2020–2022. Collaboration with foreign universities was significantly less frequent. On average, 3.2% of industrial enterprises cooperated with universities in the EU and EFTA countries, while only 0.5% partnered with universities outside these regions.

Industrial enterprises also collaborated with public research institutes (including those of the Polish Academy of Sciences). Most often these were domestic Polish institutes. In the years 2016–2022, on average, less than 31% of innovatively active companies engaged in such cooperation. There were also cases, albeit rare, of cooperation with foreign institutes. On average, about 2.2% of industrial enterprises cooperated with institutes from the EU and EFTA countries in the analyzed period. On the other hand, about 0.5% of companies in the industrial sector undertook such cooperation with institutes in other countries.

Another common type of cooperation partner was companies belonging to the same group of companies. Most often these were domestic Polish companies, with which almost 26% of enterprises cooperated on average. Some enterprises also collaborated with affiliates from the EU and EFTA countries (16.2%) and from other countries (5.2%).

Industrial enterprises also cooperated with companies from outside their own group of enterprises. In this respect, domestic companies were preferred, with about 54% of industrial enterprises choosing Polish firms as cooperation partners. Meanwhile, 23.1% of partnerships involved EU and EFTA-based firms, and 9.5% involved companies from other countries.

Public sector entities also played a role in innovation cooperation, though at a smaller scale. On average, 11% of industrial enterprises collaborated with Polish public sector units, while partnerships with public sector entities from EU and EFTA countries involved only 0.83% of companies. Cooperation with public sector organizations outside these regions was rare, with only 0.33% of industrial enterprises reporting such collaborations.

Non-profit organizations accounted for a small share of innovation cooperation. In 6.1% of cases, Polish non-profits were cooperation partners for industrial enterprises. Cooperation with EU and EFTA-based organizations was recorded in 0.46% of cases, while 0.56% of partnerships involved non-profits from other countries.

In the service sector, the prevalence patterns of collaboration followed a similar trend. As seen in Table 5, service enterprises most frequently partnered with Polish firms from outside their corporate group. Between 2016 and 2018, only one in four innovatively active service enterprises engaged in such cooperation. However, this figure rose significantly in the following years, exceeding 70% in the 2020–2022 period.

A significant percentage of innovatively active service companies engaged in collaboration with Polish universities. However, this collaboration declined over time, decreasing from 46.4% in 2016–2018 to 43.1% in 2017–2019, and further dropping to 25.9% in 2020–2022. Cooperation with foreign universities remained limited, with only a small percentage of service enterprises establishing partnerships outside Poland. Service enterprises also collaborated with companies within their own corporate group, particularly those based in Poland. On average, 27.6% of service enterprises partnered with domestic companies from within their group, while 17.9% collaborated with firms from EU and EFTA countries, and 8.4% engaged in partnerships with companies from other regions. Collaboration with public research institutes, including those affiliated with the Polish Academy of Sciences, was another avenue for innovation-related cooperation. On average, 21.6% of service enterprises worked with Polish public research institutes, though partnerships with foreign institutions remained minimal. A smaller proportion of service enterprises partnered with public sector entities and non-profit organizations. On average, 11.1% of service enterprises collaborated with Polish public sector institutions, while 7.7% partnered with non-profits in the field of innovation.

4) Companies cooperating within the cluster initiative

One form that innovation-related collaboration among enterprises my take is participation in cluster initiatives. A cluster is a network that harnesses the innovative and organizational potential of a regional environment, supporting intellectual capital accumulation and its efficient utilization. (Encyclopedia.com, n.d.). This structure fits well into the modern innovation paradigm, emphasizing systematicity, holism, and interactivity. Clusters combine the flexibility of small businesses with the innovation and global reach of large enterprises, creating a network where businesses collaborate with the local community cooperates with the companies: state institutions, R&D centers, standardization bodies, quality control laboratories and universities, and even industry, political and cultural organizations.

The key question here is: To what extent did Polish companies take advantage of these opportunities? As shown in Table 6, between 2016 and 2018, only 3.5% of industrial enterprises participated in cluster initiatives. This figure declined to 3.2% in 2017–2019 and further dropped to 2.8% in 2020–2022.

In terms of enterprise size, large industrial companies demonstrated the greatest interest in cluster-based cooperation, with an average participation rate of 10.87% over the analyzed period. This figure showed an upward trend, indicating increasing involvement. In contrast, small industrial enterprises were far less engaged, with their participation rate averaging only 1.9%. Among service enterprises, in turn, only 2.2% of companies, on average, engaged in cluster cooperation. Large service enterprises participated the most, while small enterprises showed the least interest in this form of collaboration.

In terms of geographical distribution, in 2016–2018, the highest levels of industrial cluster cooperation were observed for industrial companies in the Lubelskie (8.1%) and Podkarpackie (7.6%) provinces. Meanwhile, the lowest levels were recorded in Opolskie (1.1%) and Wielkopolskie (2.0%). For service enterprises, the highest rates of participation were in Świętokrzyskie (6.6%) and Lubelskie (4.1%), whereas in Opolskie, no companies were recorded as participating in cluster initiatives during this period (GUS, 2019, p. 84).

By 2020–2022, the highest levels of cluster cooperation among industrial enterprises were in Podlaskie (6.3%) and Lubelskie (4.9%), while the lowest levels were recorded in Łódzkie (1.0%) and Lubuskie (1.6%). Among service enterprises, Lower Silesia (3.1%) and West Pomeranian (2.5%) recorded the highest levels of cooperation in this period, whereas Świętokrzyskie (0.5%) and Opolskie (0.6%) had the lowest (GUS, 2023, pp. 83–84).

Broken down by industry, between 2016 and 2018, cluster participation was highest among industrial companies engaged in hard coal and lignite mining (18.2%) and metal ore mining (16.7%). On the other hand, industries such as paper and paper product manufacturing and textile production had the lowest rates of participation, at only 1.2% each (GUS, 2019, pp. 86–87). By 2020–2022, the highest cluster participation in the industrial sector was recorded in the production of other transport equipment (12.5%), while no companies in the tobacco or clothing manufacturing sectors participated in cluster initiatives.

In the service sector, the highest level of cluster participation between 2016 and 2018 was found in scientific R&D (17.1%) and air transport (13.6%). In contrast, wholesale trade (1.5%) and land and pipeline transport (0.9%) had the lowest levels of participation. By 2020–2022, the research and development sector remained the most active in cluster initiatives, with 21.7% of enterprises engaged. However, in the water transport sector, no companies were recorded as participating in cluster cooperation (GUS, 2023, pp. 83–84).

More broadly, the statistical data presented in this paper indicate a certain regularity: industrial enterprises engaged in high-technology activities were the most likely to participate in cluster initiatives, with an average participation rate of 10.8%. Conversely, companies operating in low-technology industries had the lowest participation rate, at only 1.2% (GUS, 2023, p. 87).

4. Conclusions

The primary aims of this study were: 1) to analyze the prevalence of innovative activity among Polish industrial and service enterprises and, in this context, the prevalence of their innovation-related collaboration with other business entities, 2) to critically assess the extent of Polish enterprises’ innovation-related collaboration, demonstrating that such collaboration has occupied only a rather marginal place the managerial decision-making processes.

To achieve these goals, key measures were used to assess both innovation activity and innovation-related collaboration. These measures, outlined in six tables, were critically analyzed, resulting in the following key conclusions:

1. The share of innovative enterprises in the total number of businesses, both industrial and service-based, fluctuated across the years analyzed, without showing a clear upward trend.
2. The percentage of industrial enterprises engaged in innovation-related cooperation varied randomly over time and never exceeded 9.1% during the analyzed period.
3. Although the share of industrial enterprises participating in formalized cooperation structures was slightly higher, it remained inconsistent over time.
4. The percentage of innovatively active enterprises was slightly higher in the industrial sector than in the service sector. In both sectors, larger enterprises exhibited higher levels of innovative activity compared to smaller ones.
5. Cooperation in innovation activities was slightly more common in the industrial sector than in the service sector. Even during the most favorable period (2014–2016), cooperation rates did not exceed 33% in industry and 27% in services, and in subsequent periods, they were even lower. This suggests that decision-making processes related to innovation cooperation were highly inconsistent. Larger enterprises had a significantly higher level of participation, while small enterprises remained the least engaged.
6. When comparing innovation cooperation rates in Poland with those in other European countries, Poland ranked relatively low. In 2018–2020, 23.6% of industrial enterprises in Poland cooperated in innovation, whereas in Norway, this rate was 53.8%. Similarly, in the services sector, the Polish cooperation rate was 20.9%, compared to 43.2% in Cyprus (GUS, 2023, p. 87). Earlier data from 2016–2018 showed similarly unfavorable trends (GUS, 2020, p. 86). In 2020, the EU average for innovation cooperation stood at 25.7%, while in Poland, it was 22.4%, 3.3 percentage points lower (EUROSTAT 2020a, 2020b).
7. Both industrial and service companies undertook limited innovation-related collaboration with various partners. Most often these were: enterprises from outside their own group of enterprises; undertakings belonging to its own group of companies; higher education institutions; public research institutes; public sector entities and non-profit organizations. Collaboration was mainly with domestic partners from Poland, much less often with those from other countries. The low level of strategic organization in these collaborations suggests that cooperation was often ad hoc than systematically managed.
8. Cluster initiatives remained an underutilized form of innovation cooperation. The average participation rate was 3.16% for industrial enterprises and 2.16% for service enterprises, with a downward trend in later periods.

The relatively low level of innovation among Polish enterprises appears to stem from a lack of understanding of innovation’s role, its impact on business development, and weak innovation management practices that are not grounded in knowledge-based, research-driven models (Baruk, 2022, pp. 10–23; Baruk, 2021, pp. 14–27). Consequently, innovation activity and innovation-related collaboration remain limited.

Often, employees within companies lack the necessary knowledge to develop systematic or radical innovations. In such cases, it is crucial to access external knowledge through structured collaboration with scientific and economic institutions that possess the necessary expertise or can help co-create it. Therefore, managers must develop competencies in key areas related to innovation, such as knowledge management, strategy, organizational culture, systemic learning, teamwork, and cooperation with business partners and clients.

Effective innovation management should be based on a deep understanding of the impact of innovation on businesses, their employees, and end users. As a result, managers should strive to transform their organizations into leading innovators (Peters & Waterman, 2000, pp. 45–48). Achieving this goal requires implementing structured, research-backed innovation management strategies, as outlined in relevant scientific literature (Baruk, 2022, pp. 10–23; Baruk, 2021, pp. 14–27; Baruk, 2009; Baruk, 2015, pp. 121–145; Tidd & Bessant, 2013).

5. Suggestions for further research

Given the levels of enterprise innovation analyzed in this study, further theoretical and empirical research is warranted to assess the stability or variability of these measures over time. Conducting such an analysis would provide valuable insights into several key questions, including:

1. Are trends in enterprise innovation activity consistent over time, and if so, what patterns emerge?
2. What are the long-term tendencies in innovation-related cooperation?
3. How do these trends evolve dynamically across different periods?
4. Which scientific and economic entities are most commonly involved in innovation cooperation?
5. How widespread and dynamic is such cooperation across industries and sectors?
6. What tangible effects does innovation collaboration have on business performance?
7. How do information-sharing and decision-making processes influence the initiation of cooperation?
8. Do managers systematically analyze and evaluate innovation activity and collaboration trends?
9. Are the findings from these analyses effectively used to improve management processes and decision-making within enterprises?

Addressing these questions would deepen our understanding of innovation ecosystems, help identify barriers and facilitators of collaboration, and provide practical recommendations for improving innovation management strategies in business environments.

References

Alshwayat, D., Elrehail, H., Shehadeh, E., Alsalhi, N., Shamout, M. D., & Ur Rehman, S. (2023). An exploratory examination of the barriers to innovation and change as perceived by senior management. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 7(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2022.12.005

Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision, 4(8), 1334. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910984578

Baruk, J. (2009). Zarządzanie wiedzą i innowacjami [Management of knowledge and innovations]. Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek w Toruniu.

Baruk, J. (2011). Wiedza w procesach tworzenia innowacji [Knowledge in the processes of creating innovations]. Organizacja i Kierowanie (4), 113–127.

Baruk, J. (2015). Zarządzanie działalnością innowacyjną w organizacjach naukowych i badawczo-rozwojowych [Managing innovative activities in scientific and research and development organizations]. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych, 17(3), 121–145; https://doi.org/10.14611/ minib.17.03.2015.04

Baruk, J. (2018). Wiedza i innowacje jako czynniki rozwoju organizacji – Podejście zintegrowane [Knowledge and innovation as factors of organizational development – An integrated approach]. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych, 29(3), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.14611/minib.29.09.2018.05

Baruk, J. (2021). Wspieranie zarządzania innowacjami rozwiązaniami modelowymi [Supporting innovation management with model solutions]. Marketing i Rynek, XXVIII(3), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.33226/1231-7853.2021.3.2

Baruk, J. (2022). Racjonalizacja zarządzania innowacjami – koncepcje modelowe [Rationalization of innovation management – Model concepts]. Marketing i Rynek, XXIX(5), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.33226/1231-7853.2022.5.2

Baruk, J. (2023). Znaczenie wiedzy w podnoszeniu sprawności działalności innowacyjnej przedsiębiorstw [The importance of knowledge in improving the efficiency of innovative activities of enterprises]. Marketing i Rynek, XXX(6), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.33226/1231-7853.2023.6.5

Brzeziński, M. (ed.). (2001). Zarządzanie innowacjami technicznymi i organizacyjnymi [Management of technical and organizational innovations]. Warszawa, Difin.

Carvache-Franco, O., Carvache-Franco, M., & Carvache-Franco, W. (2022). Barriers to Innovations and Innovative Performance of Companies: A Study from Ecuador. MDPI. Social Science, 11(2), 1–17.

Cowan, K. M., Haralson, L.E., & Weekly, F. (2009). The Four Key Elements of Innovation: Collaboration, Ideation, Implementation and Value Creation. Retrieved July 24, 2024, from https://www.stlouisfed.org/ publications/bridges/summer-2009/the-four-key-elements-of-innovation-collaboration-ideation-implementation-and-value-creation

Das, P., Verburg, R., Verbraeck, A., & Bonebakker, L. (2018). Barriers to innovation within large financial services firms: An in-depth study into disruptive and radical innovation projects at a bank. European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(1), 96–112. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2017-0028

Encyclopedia.com. (n.d.). Clusters. Retrieved July 28, 2024, from https://www.encyclopedia.com/ entrepreneurs/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/clusters

EUROSTAT. (2020a) Enterprises with innovation activities during 2018 and 2020 by NACE Rev. 2 activity and size class (2020). Retrieved July 26, 2024, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/ view/inn_cis12_inact/default/table?lang=en&category=scitech.inn.inn_cis12.inn_cis12_inno

EUROSTAT. (2020b). Innovative enterprises that co-operated on R&D and other innovation activities with other enterprises or organisations, by kind and location of co-operation partner, NACE Rev. 2 activity and size class (2020). Retrieved July 26, 2024, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/ view/inn_cis12_coop/default/table?lang=en&category=scitech.inn.inn_cis12.inn_cis12_inno

GUS. (2017). Działalność innowacyjna przedsiębiorstw w latach 2014-2016 [Innovative activity of enterprises in the years 2014-2016]. Central Statistical Office (GUS). Warszawa, Szczecin.

GUS. (2019). Działalność innowacyjna przedsiębiorstw w latach 2016-2018 [Innovative activity of enterprises in the years 2016-2018]. Central Statistical Office (GUS). Warszawa, Szczecin.

GUS. (2020). Działalność innowacyjna przedsiębiorstw w latach 2017-2019 [Innovative activity of enterprises in the years 2017-2019]. Central Statistical Office (GUS). Warszawa, Szczecin.

GUS. (2023). Działalność innowacyjna przedsiębiorstw w latach 2020-2022 [Innovative activity of enterprises in the years 2020-2022]. Central Statistical Office (GUS). Warszawa, Szczecin.

Hardwick, J., Anderson, A. R., & Cruickshank, D. (2013). Trust formation processes in innovative collaborations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14601061311292832

Hilmersson F.P. & Hilmersson M. (2021). Networking to accelerate the pace of SME innovations. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 6(1), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061311292832

Indrawati H., Caska, & Suarman. (2020), Barriers to technological innovations of SMEs: how to solve them?, International Journal of Innovation Science, 12(5), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-04-2020-0049

Janasz, W. & Kozioł-Nadolna, K. (2011). Innowacje w Organizacji [Innovations in the Organization]. Warszawa, PWE Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.

Kowalczyk, A. & Nogalski, B. (2007). Zarządzanie wiedzą. Koncepcje i narzędzia [Managing Knowledge: Concepts and Tools]. Warszawa, Difin.

Kozioł-Nadolna, K. (2022). Przywództwo a innowacyjność organizacji. Perspektywa teoretyczna i praktyczna [Leadership and Organizational Innovativeness: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives]. Warszawa, Difin.

Latif, Y. (2024). Importance of innovation. Retrieved July 26, 2024, from https://www.linkedin.com/ pulse/importance-innovation-yasir-latif-cipm-cipc-v0ed

Lind, F., Styhre, A., & Aaboen, L. (2013). Exploring university-industry collaboration in research centres. European Journal of Innovation Management. 16(1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061311292869

Martínez-Azúa, B. C. & Sama-Berrocal, C. (2022). Objectives of and Barriers to Innovation: How Do They Influence the Decision to Innovate? Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(134), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030134

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (2000). Kreowanie wiedzy w organizacji [Generating Knowledge in the Organization]. Warszawa, Poltext.

Ordoñez-Gutiérrez A.V., Mendez-Morales A., & Herrera M.M. (2023). Barriers to Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review. Trilogia, Ciencia Tecnología Socieda, 29(15), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.22430/21457778.2614

Peters, T.J. & Waterman, R.H. (2000). Poszukiwanie doskonałości w biznesie [Seeking Excellence in Business]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo MEDIUM. Polish edition of Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. Harper & Row.

Sosnowska, A., Łobejko, S., & Kłopotek, A. (2000). Zarządzanie firmą innowacyjną [Managing an Innovative Firm]. Warszawa, Difin.

Świadek, A. (2021). Krajowy system innowacji 2.0 [The National Innovation System 2.0]. Warszawa, CeDeWu.

Świtalski, W. (2005). Innowacje i konkurencyjność [Innovations and Competitiveness], Warszawa, WUW.

Tidd, J. & Bessant, J. (2013). Zarządzanie innowacjami. Integracja zmian technologicznych, rynkowych i organizacyjnych. Warszawa. Oficyna a Wolters Kluwer Business. Polish edition of Tidd, J. & Bessant, J. (1997), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change.

Ullah, I., Hameed, R.M., Mahmood, A. (2024). The impact of proactive personality and psychological capital on innovative work behavior: evidence from software houses of Pakistan, European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(6), 1967–1985. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2022-0022

Watkins, M. (2024). The Power of Collaboration: How an Open Innovation Platform Fuels Your Company’s Success. Retrieved July 25, 2024, from https://www.wazoku.com/blog/open-innovation-crowdsourcing-external-innovation-collaboration/

Wong, J.-Y., Wan, T.-H., & Chen, H.-C. (2018). The innovative grant of university–industry–research cooperation: A case study for Taiwan’s technology development programs. International Journal of Innovation Science, 10(3), 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-01-2017-0004

Yunus, E. N. (2018). Leveraging supply chain collaboration in pursuing radical innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 10(6), 350–370. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-05-2017-0039

Zangara, G. & Filice, L. (2024). Innovating the management of supply chains for social sustainability: from the state of the art to an integrated Framework. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(9), 360–383. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2024-0120

Entrepreneurs running a business strive to achieve success, and the basic measure of their success is not only their remaining on the market but, most of all, achieving a positive financial result of their business activity. In order to enable entrepreneurs to make a profit, the products and services offered by them should have characteristics that consumers perceive as desirable and satisfactory to them. It is connected with the necessity of recognising the needs, preferences and awareness of consumers as precisely as possible, while at the same time searching for innovative

solutions that allow entrepreneurs to stay ahead of competitors (Zimon & Gawron-Zimon, 2014). Additionally, it should be remembered that entrepreneurs striving to modernise their offer should take care of closer relations with clients who have new ideas and willingly share their observations, treating it as a source of innovation and development (Dobiegała-Korona, 2012, p. 68).

Pérez-Luno, Valle Cabrer and Wiklund (2007, p. 80) indicate that of the two possible paths-imitation and innovation-only the latter leads to a competitive advantage in the market. In turn, according to Dereli (2015, p. 1367), in order to survive in a competitive market, companies must carefully follow and implement innovations or must be innovative themselves. Only enterprises that offer innovations can achieve a competitive advantage (Adegbesan, 2009; Dereli, 2015, p. 1367; AnningDorson, 2018, p. 580). Grzegorczyk (2011, p. 26) emphasises that the possibility of achieving a competitive advantage is closely related to the competitive situation on the market and the company’s resources, especially with its product offer. An entrepreneur creates an opportunity to obtain the opinion of an innovator and achieve a dominant position on the market by introducing a new or significantly improved product to the market. It should be highlighted, that how long this dominance in the market will last largely depends on the behaviour of competitors and their innovative activities. Friar (1995, p. 33) notes that the product innovation alone may not be enough to keep a company in a dominant position. The success in the field of product innovation decreases with the increase of the intensity of market competition. This may result from the inability of customers to distinguish products based on, for example, their functional performance.

Therefore, in order to keep pace with the competition, it is necessary to constantly implement not only product innovations, but also non-product innovations and appropriate innovation management (Friar, 1995; Dereli, 2015, p. 1369), which allows the enterprise to choose the appropriate protection method for the innovative solutions being developed or implemented in the enterprise.

The article primarily aimed to present selected aspects of the innovative activity of Polish enterprises. To achieve it, we attempted to answer the following research questions:

1. What is the share of enterprises implementing innovations in the total number of enterprises? Do the profile and size of the enterprise affect their innovative activities?
2. Did the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 have a positive impact on innovative activities in Polish enterprises?
3. What are the sources of finances for innovative activities in Polish enterprises?
4. What kind of innovations do entrepreneurs finance from outlays on innovative activities?
5. How do entrepreneurs protect innovative solutions?

Materials and Method

The study is based on a critical literature review, which is based on a query of selected scientific publications on innovation and innovativeness as a source of competitive advantage in enterprises, as well as statistical analyses of secondary data, including structure and chain index.

To calculate the chain index, a modified formula was used (Major & Niezgoda, 2003, pp. 96–97), in which 100% was subtracted for easier interpretation of the obtained results:

where: i represents dynamics, t the current year, t–1 the previous year, yt the value in the current year and y_t–1 the value in the previous year.

We analysed data published by Statistics Poland (previously: the Central Statistical Office of Poland) and the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland (PORP) for 2016–2020. The indicators of the structure made it possible to observe the changes that took place in the analysed period, while the chain index analysis made it possible to determine the intensity of changes that took place over the observed years.

Analyses presented in this article cover small enterprises (employing 10–49 people), medium-sized enterprises (employing 50–249 people) and large enterprises (employing ≥250 people), because Statistics Poland collects and publishes data on innovations based on the Oslo Manual 2018 methodology only within these groups of enterprises.

Innovations in the Enterprise

The term ‘innovation’ can be understood in many ways, but there is no doubt that it derives from the Latin word ‘innovatio’, meaning renewal or ‘innovare’, indicating renewal, refreshing, changing (Kopaliński, 2006). The literature includes numerous, very different approaches to defining the essence of innovation, as well as its terminological interpretation or functions (Montoya-Weiss & Calantone, 1994; Drucker 1998). It results in the lack of a single definition of innovation in economics and management (Table 1).

In the short review of definitions of innovation presented above, we can see both a narrow (i.e. the first introduction of a solution in the world) and a broad (i.e. the first use of a solution in a specific enterprise) understanding of innovation. Most often, however, they are equated with a novelty, a change, and refer to new products or new technologies (Sikora & Uziębło, 2013, p. 351). However, attention should be paid to the fact that these definitions usually contain some regular elements determining the essence of innovation and defining its character. They include: subject (enterprise, human), object (technology, organisation, market), novelty (originality), economics or positive evaluation of changes and the fact of their implementation, assimilation (Kamiński, 2018).

The large diversity of definitions resulted in the introduction of many different types of classifications to the theory, allowing
researchers to divide innovations by the subject, the effects, the originality of changes or the nature of innovations and their
significance in terms of changes for the commercial sector (Sławińska, 2015).

Until 2018 the division of innovation according to the subject indicating its technological (product and process innovation) or non-technological nature (organisational and marketing innovations) (Oslo Manual, 2005) was the most basic and most frequently used classification. It was replaced by product innovations and business process innovations after publication of the new Oslo Manual (2018). The new definitions specify more precisely what conditions must be met to consider a product, a service or a process to be an innovation. It is indicated that the innovations must significantly differ from the products or services already existing on the market or they must significantly differ from the company’s business processes already used by the enterprise.

Analysing the data of Statistics Poland (Table 2) for 2016–2018, it can be noticed that the share of enterprises implementing innovations in the total number of enterprises, both industrial and service ones, was systematically increasing. After this period, a temporary decrease in the share of enterprises implementing innovations was observed in 2019, and in 2020 the innovative activity of enterprises in Poland increased again. It is worth noting that in 2020 the indicators of the share of innovative enterprises in the total number of enterprises were the highest and amounted to 31.4% in the case of industrial enterprises and 30.8% in the case of service enterprises.

Over the analysed time the largest number of innovations in both industrial and service enterprises resulted from the implementation of innovations in business processes. The share of innovative industrial enterprises increased from 15.2% in 2016 to 26.3% in 2020 and the share of innovative service enterprises increased from 10.4% in 2016 to 39% in 2020.

In 2018–2020 (Figure 1), industrial enterprises innovating business processes most often implemented new methods of manufacturing products or providing services (including the development of new products or services), assigning tasks and managing decision-making powers (including their effective delegation) and human resources, and changed principles of operation extant within the company and/or those governing the entity’s external relations. In turn, service enterprises changed mainly the rules of operation extant within the company and/or those governing the entity’s external relations, as well as the rules laying down the modus operandi for the assignment of tasks, management of decision-making powers (including their effective delegation) and human resources, and development and implementation of solutions for information-processing and communication requirements.

When analysing the data on product innovations in 2016–2020 (Table 2), it should be noted that the share of enterprises implementing them was much lower than that of enterprises implementing innovations in the business process. However, the growing share of enterprises implementing product innovations in the total number of enterprises should be assessed positively (in the case of industrial enterprises, the share of enterprises implementing innovations increased from 12.4% in 2016 to 18.4% in 2020, while in the case of service enterprises the share almost doubled: from 6.9% in 2016 to 12.1% in 2020). It may indicate the introduction of newer or significantly improved products that can meet the expectations of the contemporary consumer.

The data from Statistics Poland also show that large enterprises were most innovative in 2020 (they constituted 66.7% in the case of industrial enterprises and 60.5% in service enterprises). It might have resulted from the need to ensure the sufficient outlays financing innovative activities of enterprises, which large enterprises planned and included in the long-term development of their organisations (Figure 2).

Impact of COVID-19 on Innovative Activities of Enterprises

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 changed the rules of functioning of enterprises all over the world. In Poland, a number of restrictions were introduced (Ministry of Health Regulation, 2020), which forced entrepreneurs to take measures to adapt their businesses to the new situation.

Results of the survey carried out by Statistics Poland indicate no noticeable impact of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 3) on the functioning of enterprises. Such effect was declared by over 66% of industrial enterprises and over 71% of service enterprises. On the other hand, almost a third of industrial companies and 26% of service companies believed that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on the company’s operations. Positive influence of COVID-19 was recorded in 1.6% of industrial enterprises and 2.4% of service enterprises.

Due to the situation related to COVID-19, in 2020, 10.6% of industrial enterprises implemented new or significantly changed products, whereas 18.2% implemented new or significantly changed business processes (Figure 4).

Among service enterprises that, in 2020, implemented changes in their functioning forced by the situation related to COVID-19, 9.2% introduced new or significantly improved products, whereas 37.0% introduced new or significantly changed business processes.

Types of Support for Innovative Enterprises

Hu, Yu, Jin, Pray and Deng (2022, p. 709) note that governments use some incentives to make enterprises create and develop innovation. These incentives include, among others, specific funds for enterprise innovation, promotion of cooperation between the enterprise sector and public research sectors and institutes, strengthening protection of intellectual property rights, reforms of state-owned enterprises and establishing research and development institutes.

In Poland, support for innovative entrepreneurs may take the form of (i.e. Journal of Laws of 2021, item 706, as amended):

(1) granting a technological loan by commercial banks and a technological premium by Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego;
(2) granting the entrepreneur the status of a research and development centre;
(3) aid granted under programmes in the field of innovation of the economy, established by the minister competent for the economy.

This act also explains the terms ‘investment activity’ and ‘technological investment’. Innovative activity is ‘the development of a new technology and launching on its basis the production of new or significantly improved goods, processes or services’ (Journal of Laws of 2021, item 706, as amended). A technological investment, on the other hand, means:

(a) purchase of a new technology, its implementation and launching on its basis the production of new or significantly improved products, processes or services and providing conditions for the production of these products, processes or services, or
(b) implementation of own new technology and launching on its basis the production of new or significantly improved products and providing conditions for the production of these products, processes or services.

When analysing the sources of outlays financing innovative activities in Polish enterprises, it should be noted that the vast majority of them are financed from domestic funds (in the structure of the distribution of outlays, their value in the analysed years was around 90%). This situation was caused by the distribution of public aid for the development of innovation from the internal funds of enterprises, as well as from those of government institutions and local governments. In 2016–2020, the annual value of outlays on innovative activities from this source (Table 3) remained at the level of around 35%.

In 2016, the total value of outlays was over PLAN 19 billion, and in 2020 it increased to a level exceeding PLN 35 billion. It resulted in an increase in the value of outlays from both domestic and foreign funds and budget funds co-financed from the EU funds. Findings on the dynamics of changes in the value of outlays on innovative activities show a large increase in outlays between 2017 and 2018. It may indirectly be related to the introduction of the 2016 amendment to the R&D tax relief into the Polish tax system, which replaced the technology relief. From 2018, this relief allowed entities that do not have the status of a research and development centre to deduct 100% of eligible costs, and in the case of research and development centres, even 150% of eligible costs (except for the costs of patents, protection rights for utility models, and rights from registration of industrial designs incurred by research and development centres being large entrepreneurs; for these entities, these costs could be deducted up to 100%) (Goyke, 2018, p. 31).

It should also be noted that in 2018–2020, only 6.2% of Polish enterprises (3.7% industrial and 2.5% service) benefitted from the R&D relief, and only 7% of enterprises (4.2% of industrial and 2.8% of services) benefitted from the reliefs or incentives for other operating activities (GUS, 2021).

The Use of Funds for Innovative Activity

The implementation of innovative activities in enterprises is closely related to research and development (R&D), which, as Wiśniewska aptly notes (2017, p. 308), covers both basic research and applied research, as well as development works. The author also emphasises that the above-mentioned activities constitute one of the main conditions for innovation.

Taking into account the dominant share of internal outlays financing innovative activities in Polish enterprises in 2016–2020. Table 4 presents the use of these funds. In the analysed period, the value of total internal outlays on R&D increased from PLN 9.6 billion in 2016 to PLN 16.5 billion in 2020, which was influenced by the increase in the value of outlays in the subsequent years of the analysed period.

It is worth noting that the largest share of internal outlays was allocated by entrepreneurs to the implementation of development works (approx. 50%) and basic research (approx. 33%). Taking into account the dynamics of changes in the use of internal outlays, the highest increase in the value of funds allocated to the financing of basic research was observed between 2019 and 2018, in the case of applied research between 2017 and 2016; and when analysing the data on financing development works, the largest increase in funds was between 2018 and 2017.

By the outlays on innovative activities in 2020 (Figure 5), entrepreneurs of the industrial and service sector most often financed purchases of fixed assets (63.4% and 67.1% of all innovation-active enterprises, respectively) and employee training (38.6% and 41.4% of all innovation-active enterprises, respectively), and invested in building the brand and marketing activities (31.8% and 36% of all innovation-active enterprises, respectively).

The lowest value of outlays was spent by entrepreneurs representing both industrial and service enterprises on the acquisition or obtaining of intellectual property rights from other entities and registration of their own intellectual property rights (4.3% and 4.1% of the total number of innovatively active enterprises, respectively).

Protection of Innovations in Enterprises

Inventions, utility and industrial models, trademarks, topographic signs or topographies of integrated circuits, and works as well as knowhow may be created as a result of the innovative involvement of enterprises. It should therefore be remembered that entrepreneurs may use various types of protection, which in the case of a single item may indicate the need to choose from among the provisions on combating unfair competition, including trade confidentiality (Journal of Laws of 2022, item 1233), industrial property rights (Journal of Laws of 2021, item 324) or copyright (i.e. Journal of Laws of 2021, item 1062, as amended).

J. Schumpeter (p. 19) clearly separated the meaning of the term ‘innovation’ from the term ‘invention’. In practice, many inventions never become innovations because they are not put into production, and not all innovations meet the conditions of patentability to be classified as inventions. In addition, Schumpeter focussed only on technical innovations and their importance in achieving positive economic effects.

From the point of view of products and services created in enterprises, the most important thing is the appropriate management of innovations, enabling, inter alia, the selection of appropriate protection for upcoming innovations.

The data of Statistics Poland and the PORP for 2018–2020 show that entrepreneurs running a business in Poland, both in the industrial and service sectors, most often chose business confidentiality as a form of protection for innovative solutions (20.2% in the case of industrial enterprises and 18.1% of service enterprises). Copyright protection was chosen by 12.6% of industrial enterprises and the same share of service enterprises (Table 5).

The least innovative enterprises decided to be protected in the form of industrial property rights by submitting their innovative solutions for protection to the PORP or another entity granting a wider scope of territorial protection, i.e. the European Patent Office (EPO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

It should be noted, that a large group of both industrial and service enterprises engaged in innovative activities decided to protect their trademarks (4.3% of industrial enterprises and 3.6% of service enterprises) and inventions (2.9% of industrial and 0.8% of service enterprises).

It is worth emphasising that resources or competences difficult to imitate are the basis of the company’s competitive advantage (Grzegorczyk, 2020, pp. 198–199). Preventing imitation is, in turn, a fundamental role of intellectual property rights (World Intellectual Property Office; O’Donoghue, Scotchmer, & Thisse 1998; Maurer & Scotchmer, 2002; Anton & Yao, 2004; Granstrand, 2006; Mokyr, 2009; Holgersson, 2013; Muça, Pomianek, & Peneva, 2022). These rights give a sense of security and certainty to innovators, inventors and entrepreneurs. Their time, financial outlays and knowhow used to develop a new solution will have a chance to pay for themselves (Saha & Bhattacharya, 2011, p. 88), as long as the law will remain in force.

A patent granted for an invention (in Poland-for a maximum of 20 years counted from the date of submitting the application to the PORP) is not limited in its purpose to obtaining a document authorising the exclusive use of the patent by the inventor (entrepreneur), e.g. for manufacturing a unique product using modern technology and thus competing effectively in the market. A patent is a component of the company’s assets, increasing its market value. It also improves the image of the company-as innovative, profitable and with development prospects-in the eyes of investors and contractors. It should be emphasised that the novelty of the invention is tested on a global scale, and thus even if the patent is valid in a limited area-e.g. a national patent in a given country in which an application was made for protection, or a European patent in states that are parties to the European Patent Convention of 1973 (The European Patent Convention, 17th edition 2020) — this is still a clear signal for competitors and business partners that the company was the first to apply this innovative technical solution on a global scale. As Czub (2021, p. 197) notes, the invention consists in using matter in a new way to satisfy various human needs (individual or collective), and the speciality of the innovator’s contribution is that the presence of such needs might have been reported by society not long before the invention is made or created for the first time by the innovator developing the invention, thus making the invention a particularly timely contribution. Especially, the latter situation gives the entrepreneur a chance to gain a competitive advantage-and even, to some extent, a monopoly on the market (Long, 1991, p. 846). As Wiśniewska rightly points out (2017, p. 316), patent protection does not guarantee its successful commercialisation, but resignation from such protection may deprive the entity of the possibility of benefitting from this right. The protection of intellectual property is also intended to promote fair competition (Al-Aali & Teece, 2013, p. 17; Komor, 2022, p. 13). As
emphasised by Sojkin (2012, p. 132), it should also be remembered that one of the key issues in the process of commercialisation of innovations is the assessment of the impact of innovation on the existing product portfolio, in particular the risk of ‘cannibalism’ within the portfolio. Financial opportunities that guarantee the implementation of the tasks provided for in the adopted strategy for introducing a new product to the market are an important element of commercialisation. This is especially important when it is necessary to make a decision to introduce innovation in an investment.

Conclusions

The role of innovation is extremely important in the process of social and economic development and progress, because innovation is an inherent condition for the development of not only enterprises but also the entire economy (Firlej, 2012). Innovations are combined with innovativeness, where the latter is understood as a tendency to create new or improve existing products, technological processes and systems of organisation, management or marketing, whose outcome is typically expected to be creative changes that lead to the emergence of new solutions in enterprises and adaptation of external scientific and technical achievements to the needs of the enterprise.

Based on the literature review and analyses of secondary data provided by Statistics Poland (GUS) and the PORP for 2016–2020, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The share of innovatively active industrial and service enterprises in Poland is growing systematically. In 2020, in both groups of enterprises, approximately one-third of small-sized, 40% of medium-sized and 60% of large enterprises introduced innovations.
2. A high frequency of implementation of innovations in business processes was observed in both industrial and service enterprises. Industrial companies implemented mainly changes in the processes of manufacturing products, while service companies changed the methods of internal and external communication.
3. The majority of entrepreneurs did not feel a significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their operations in 2020, while nearly one-third described this impact as negative, and only about 2% as positive. In the latter two groups, the outbreak of the pandemic determined enterprises to introduce innovations both in their business processes (approximately 20% of industrial enterprises and approximately 40% of service enterprises) and in products (approximately 11% of industrial enterprises and approximately 9% of service enterprises).
4. The main source of outlays on innovative activities in enterprises were domestic funds, the value of which slightly decreased to 92% in 2020, because of the increased absorption of funds from abroad, including EU funds. These funds were primarily used by entrepreneurs for the implementation of development works. Acquired outlays on innovative activities allowed industrial and service entrepreneurs to finance, among others, the purchase of fixed assets, employee training, building the brand and marketing activities.
5. The implementation of innovative activities in enterprises is one of the areas that may constitute a source of competitive advantage; however, it is necessary to remember about appropriate protection for the innovations being developed. In the analysed period, among the forms of protection for innovative solutions, entrepreneurs most often chose business confidentiality and legal and copyright protection. They rarely applied for industrial property rights granted by the PORP or other entities granting such exclusive rights. Among industrial property rights, entrepreneurs most often protected trademarks and inventions.

Summing up the considerations presented in the paper, it should be stated that the conducted preliminary analyses based on GUS data show a great research potential, which should undoubtedly be explored in further studies. At the same time, it should also be emphasised that the
introduction of the new Oslo Manual 2018 guidelines influenced methodological changes in the study of innovativeness of enterprises in Poland, which allowed, on the one hand, the introduction of new research areas to the analyses carried out so far, and on the other, also limited the possibility of comparing the variability of some determinants in the long term.

References

1. Adegbesan, J. A. (2009). On the origins of competitive advantage: Strategic factor markets and heterogeneous Resource complementarity. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 40632465. doi: 10.5465/amr.2009.40632465
2. Al-Aali, A. Y., & Teece, D. J. (2013). Towards the (strategic) management of intellectual property: Retrospective and prospective. California Management Review, 55(4), 15–30. doi: 10.1525/cmr.2013.55.4.15
3. Anning-Dorson, T. (2018). Innovation and competitive advantage creation: The role of organisational leadership in service firms from emerging markets. International Marketing Review, 35(4), 580–600. doi: 10.1108/IMR-11-2015-0262
4. Anton, J. J., & Yao, D. A. (2004). Little patents and big secrets: Managing intellectual property. The RAND Journal of Economics, 35(1), 1–22. doi: 10.2307/1593727
5. Baruk, J. (2001). Wiedza i innowacje jako źródło przewagi konkurencyjnej. Gospodarka Narodowa, (167)4, 20–34. doi: 10.33119/GN/113895
6. Białoń, L. Janczewska, D. (2006). Menedżer marketingu w firmie przyszłości. [W], L. Białoń (red.) Metody oceny kształcenia specjalistów w zakresie zarządzania, 105–117. Warszawa, Poland: Oficyna Wydawnicza WSM.
7. Czub, K. (2021). Prawo własności intelektualnej. Warszawa, Poland: Wolters Kluwer.
8. Dereli, D. D. (2015). Innovation management in global competition and competitive advantage. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1365–1370. doi: 10.1016/ j.sbspro.2015.06.323
9. Dobiegała-Korona, B. (2012). Nowa rola marketingu w budowie wartości przedsiębiorstwa. Kwartalnik Nauk o Przedsiębiorstwie, 23(2), 64–75.
10. Drucker, P. F. (1998). On the Profession of Management. Boston, USA: Harvard Business Scholl Press.
11. Drucker, P. (2002). Innowacje i przedsiębiorczość. Praktyka i zasady. Warszawa: PWE.
12. Firlej, K. A. (2012). Innowacyjność polskiej gospodarki jako wyzwanie rozwojowe w warunkach integracji europejskiej. [W] A. Prusek (red.), Wyzwania rozwoju społeczno-ekonomicznego Polski 143–144. Kraków–Mielec, Poland: Katedra Polityki Ekonomicznej
i Programowania Rozwoju Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie.
13. Freeman, Ch. (1982). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. London, UK: Cassell.
14. Friar, J. H. (1995). Competitive advantage through product performance innovation in a competitive market. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(1), 33–42. doi: 10.1016/0737-6782(94)00026-C
15. Gomułka, S. (1998). Teoria innowacji i wzrostu gospodarczego. Warszawa, Poland: CASE.
16. Goyke, K. (2018). Ulga na działalność badawczo-rozwojową jako podatkowa zachęta do ponoszenia nakładów w obszarze B+R. Europa Regionum, 3, 23–36. doi: 10.18276/ er.2018.36-02
17. Granstrand, O. (2006). Innovation and intellectual property rights. [W] J. Fagerberg., & D. C. Mowery (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, 266–290. Oxford, UK: Oxford Academic. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0010
18. Grudzewski, W. M., & Hejduk, I. K. (2004). Metody projektowania systemów zarządzania. Warszawa, Poland: Difin.
19. Grzegorczyk, W. (2011). Strategie marketingowe przedsiębiorstw na rynku międzynarodowym. Łódź, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
20. Grzegorczyk, T. (2020). Strategie zarządzania własnością intelektualną. [W] R. Śliwiński (red.), Strategiczne zarządzanie przedsiębiorstwem międzynarodowym, 173–203. Warszawa, Poland: Difin.
21. Grzywacz, W. (1995). Metodyka polityki gospodarczej. Szczecin, Poland: Wydawnictwo PTE.
22. GUS. Działalność innowacyjna przedsiębiorstw w latach 2018–2020. Pobrano 10 sierpnia 2022. Retrieved from https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/nauka-i-technika-spoleczenstwo-informacyjne/nauka-i-technika/dzialalnosc-innowacyjna-przedsiebiorstw-w-latach-2018-2020,2,20.html
23. Hildreth, P., Kimble, Ch. (2004). Knowledge networks: Innovation through communities of practice. Hershey, USA and London, UK: Idea Group Publishing.
24. Holgersson, M. (2013). Patent management in entrepreneurial SMEs. R&D Manage, 43, 21–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2012.00700.x
25. Hu, R., Yu, C., Jin, Y., Pray, C., & Deng, H. (2022). Impact of government policies on research and development (R&D) investment, innovation, and productivity: Evidence from pesticide firms in China. Agriculture, 12(5), 709. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12050709
26. Janasz, W., Kozioł-Nadolna, K. (2011). Innowacje w organizacji. Warszawa, Poland: Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.
27. Kamiński, R. (2018). Istota innowacji (definicje, wyznaczniki i rodzaje). [W] R. Kamiński (red.), Innowacje gospodarcze. Wybrane aspekty ekonomiczne i prawne, 13–24. Poznań, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
28. Kasprzyk, S. (1980). Innowacje od koncepcji do produkcji. Warszawa, Poland: CRZZ
29. Koch, J. (2004). Innowacje siłą napędową rozwoju. [W] J. Gawlik, S. Szelest, M. Trompeteur (red.) Materiały Konferencji Naukowo-Technicznej, Jakość, innowacyjność i transfer technologii w rozwoju przedsiębiorstw INTELTRANS 2006, 91–102, Kraków, Poland: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Krakowskiej.
30. Komor, M. (2022). Political and legal conditions of marketing activity of businesses in the European market. Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, 44(2), 1–20.
31. Kotler, Ph. (2004). Marketing od A do Z. Warszawa, Poland: PWE.
32. Kopaliński, W. (2006). Podręczny słownik wyrazów obcych, Warszawa, Poland: Oficyna Wydawnicza Rytm.
33. Lange, O. (1961). Pisma ekonomiczne i społeczne 1930–1960. Warszawa, Poland: PWN.
34. Long, P. O. (1991). Invention, authorship, “Intellectual Property,” and the origin of patents: Notes toward a conceptual history. Technology and Culture, 32(4), 846–884. doi: 10.2307/3106154
35. Major, M., & Niezgoda, J. (2003). Elementy Statystyki Część I. Statystyka opisowa. Kraków: Krakowskie Towarzystwo Edukacyjne Sp. z o.o. na zlecenie Krakowskiej Szkoły Wyższej im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego.
36. Marciniak, S. (2010). Innowacyjność i konkurencyjność gospodarki. Warszawa, Poland: Wydawnictwo C.H. BECK.
37. Maurer, S. M., & Scotchmer, S. (2002). The independent invention defence in intellectual property. Economica, 69, 535–547. doi: 10.1111/1468–0335.00299
38. Mokyr, J. (2009). Intellectual property rights, the industrial revolution, and the beginnings of modern economic growth. American Economic Review, 99(2), 349–355.
39. Montoya-Weiss M. M., & Calantone, R. (1994). Determinants of new product performance: A review and meta-analysis, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 397–417.
40. Muça, E., Pomianek, I., & Peneva, M. (2022). The role of GI products or local products in the environment-consumer awareness and preferences in Albania, Bulgaria and Poland. Sustainability, 14(4). doi: 10.3390/su14010004
41. O’Donoghue, T., Scotchmer, S., & Thisse, J. F. (1998). Patent breadth, patent life, and the pace of technological progress. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 7, 1–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1430-9134.1998.00001.x
42. Oslo Manual. (2005). Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. Pobrano 10 sierpnia 2022. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/5889925/OSLO-EN.PDF
43. Oslo Manual. (2018). Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and using Data on Innovation, 4th ed, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, by OECD/Eurostat za: Podręcznik Oslo 2018, Zalecenia dotyczące pozyskiwania, prezentowania i wykorzystywania danych z zakresu innowacji, Pomiar działalności naukowo-technicznej i innowacyjnej, GUS, 2020. Pobrano 20 września 2022. Retrieved from https://stat.gov.pl/files/gfx/portalinformacyjny/pl/defaultaktualnosci/5496/18/1/1/podrecznik_oslo_2018_internet.pdf
44. Penc, J. (1999). Innowacje i zmiany w firmie. Transformacja i sterowanie rozwojem przedsiębiorstwa. Warszawa, Poland: Agencja Wydawnicza Placet.
45. Pérez-Luno, A., Valle Cabrera, R., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Innovation and imitation as sources of sustainable competitive advantage. Management Research, 5(2), 71–82. doi: 10.2753/JMR1536-5433050201
46. Pietrasiński, Z. (1970). Ogólne i psychologiczne zagadnienia innowacji. Warszawa, Poland: PWN.
47. Pomykalski, A. (2001). Zarządzanie innowacjami. Warszawa, Poland: PWN.
48. Rozporządzenie Ministra Zdrowia z dnia 20 marca 2020 r. w sprawie ogłoszenia na obszarze Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej stanu epidemii, Dz.U. 2020, poz. 491.
49. Saha, C. N., & Bhattacharya, S. (2011). Intellectual property rights: An overview and implications in pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research, 2(2), 88–93. doi: 10.4103/2231-4040.82952
50. Schumpeter, J. (1911). The theory of economic development. New Brunswick, USA and London, UK: Transaction Publishers.
51. Schumpeter, J. (1949). Economic Theory and Entrepreneurial History. [W] R. R. Wohl (Ed.), Change and the Entrepreneur. Postulates and the Patterns for Entrepreneurial History, 131–142. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.
52. Schumpeter, J. Clemence, R. V. (1989). Essays on entrepreneurs, innovations, business cycles and the evolution of capitalism. New Brunswick, USA: Transaction Publishers.
53. Sikora, J., & Uziębło, A. (2013). Innowacja w przedsiębiorstwie — próba zdefiniowania. Zarządzanie i Finanse, 2(2), 351–376.
54. Simpson, P. M., Siguaw, J. A., & Enz, C. A. (2006). Innovation orientation outcomes: The Good and the Bad. Journal of Business Research, 59. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.08.001
55. Sławińska, M. (2015). Innowacje marketingowe w działalności przedsiębiorstw handlowych. Annales, Sectio H, XLIX(1), 157–167.
56. Sojkin, B. (2012). Informacyjne podstawy decyzji marketingowych w procesie komercjalizacji produktu. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych, 222, 125–133.
57. Świtalski, W. (2005). Innowacje i konkurencyjność. Warszawa, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
58. Ustawa z dnia 16 kwietnia 1993 r. o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji. Tekst jedn. Dz.U. z 2022 r. poz. 1233.
59. Ustawa z dnia 30 czerwca 2000 r. Prawo własności przemysłowej, Tekst jedn.: Dz.U. z 2021 r. poz. 324.
60. Ustawa z dnia 30 maja 2008 r. o niektórych formach wspierania działalności innowacyjnej. Tekst jedn.: Dz.U. z 2021 r. poz. 706 z późn. zm.
61. Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. Tekst jedn. Dz.U. z 2021 r. poz. 1062 z późn. zm.
62. Ustawa z dnia 6 marca 2018 r. Prawo przedsiębiorców. Tekst jedn.: Dz.U. z 2022 r. poz. 24 z późn. zm.
63. Whitfield, P. R. (1979). Innowacje w przemyśle. Warszawa, Poland: PWE.
64. Wiśniewska, J. (2017). Ochrona wynalazku w procesie zarządzania działalnością badawczo-rozwojową. Studia i Prace WNEIZ US, 48(3), 307–318. doi:10.18276/ sip.2017.48/3-25
65. Zimon, D., & Gawron-Zimon, Ł. (2014). Wykorzystanie metody QFD do doskonalenia logistycznej obsługi klienta. [W] R. Knosala (red.) Innowacje w zarządzaniu i inżynierii produkcji, Konferencja IZiP, 1077–1084, Opole, Poland: Oficyna Wydawnicza Polskiego Towarzystwa Zarządzania Produkcją.

The strategic goal of every enterprise, both industrial and service, is to systematically introduce new products and services to the market or improve already manufactured products. Achieving such a goal may lead to the more rapid meeting of changing customer needs compared to competitors and the shaping of new needs in a competitive way, conducive to acquiring the economic value necessary for the further functioning and development of business entities (Ri, Wang & Zhan 2018, p. 38; Dieter & Schmitt, 2018, p. 64). One of the basic conditions for achieving this goal is the ability of management to acquire, deploy, update and use the resources necessary for the efficient design of new products that would arouse the interest of buyers (Areri, Kipchumba & Kamau, 2020, p. 48). We can talk about material, energy, financial, human resources (employees), information, knowledge, and so on. Rational use of such resources requires their proper organization in a static and dynamic sense, and efficient resource management, resulting in the design of new products or services arising in the pre-production sphere (see Figure 1).

New or improved designs for products/services are transferred to the production sphere, where they become materialized in manufacturing (operational) processes. The resulting products (innovations), through the post-production sphere, reach the market to provide customers with the expected value. In return, the company acquires economic value, information and knowledge from its customers (Peng, Lawrence & Koo, 2009, pp. 146–147). Management according to such a model is focused on the systemic link between research and development (R&D) activities and marketing research (Szopik-Depczyńska, 2018).

As can be seen from the model above, the management process covers all spheres that make up the company’s activity (Arandah, 2021, p. 47). One of these is the pre-production sphere, which fulfills the very important function of creating knowledge and processing it into specific projects for products or services (innovations) satisfying the current and future needs of real and potential customers (Emilyokwemba, 2018, pp. 16, 20; Kelemu, 2019, p. 35). Therefore, the systematic acquisition of information and knowledge from customers, combined with information and internal knowledge, can facilitate the creation of successful projects on the one hand, and on the other shape an environment conducive to interaction between customers and the company, resulting in the co-creation of the expected value in accordance with the principle: new knowledge enables the creation of new value (Baruk, 2017, pp. 20–28; Jasiński, 2020, p. 5).

The key elements of the co-creation process are as follows (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2005, pp. 31–39):

1) Dialog leading to loyal cooperation between customers and the company and its maintenance. Dialog inspires the sharing of information and knowledge, and shapes a new quality of mutual understanding and trust between enterprises and customers, as well as facilitating the introduction of the personal views of customers on the essence of value into the process of co-creation of value. Consequently, it leads to customer satisfaction, which is a key indicator of the level of customer service (Shete, 2021, p. 34);

2) Access to data, information, experiences, and services creates new opportunities for cooperation in new or existing markets, gives grounds to change the existing belief that only ownership allows customers to use value (offering customers access to new forms of services);

3) Risk assessment to ensure that customers have full access to information on the risks and benefits of engaging in the value co-creation process, facilitating trade-offs between risks and benefits. If customers are to be cocreators of value, they should be provided with more information about the potential dangers that may arise in the products and services they design, which requires greater customer responsibility for these risks;

4) Transparency resulting from the increasing availability of information about the products, indicators and operating systems of enterprises. Transparency of activities and market transactions promotes the growth of customer involvement in the co-creation of value, enables the establishment of a dialog with customers leading to the initiation or deepening of cooperation and leads to the formation of strong trust between customers and enterprises.

The role of managers of enterprises focused on co-creating value as part of R&D activities is to rationally shape the aforementioned components of value co-creation and give them the character of system solutions (Kolomiiets, Krzyżanowska & Mazurek, 2018, p. 31). This is a difficult task, requiring mental changes, new management knowledge, social innovation, the ability to shape rational policies (research and development, innovative, production, marketing, social), strategic thinking, the abandonment of traditional thinking from the perspective of the enterprise in favor of strategic, innovative thinking from the perspective of customers and new incentive instruments, etc. (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2005, pp. 45–48; Janasz & Kozioł, 2007, p. 81). The introduction of the concept of cocreation of value at the research and development (R&D) stage requires management to innovate in management, which helps to alleviate the tensions between the company and customers, manifested at the points of interaction (Heij, Volberda, Van den Bosch & Hollen, 2020, p. 278; Barbieri & Alvares, 2016, pp. 122–124).

The development of R&D activities in enterprises requires specific financial outlays, which are an instrument of R&D and innovation policy. Meanwhile, the lack or shortage of financial resources is one of the basic barriers to the dynamic development of R&D and innovation activities in enterprises, which translates into limiting or omitting this issue in decision-making processes (Matejun, 2015, p. 40; Jasiński, 2005, p. 39; Poznańska, 2017, p. 199; IDEA Institute, 2021, p. 112).

This article is organized based on the following concept: the implementation of each function in the enterprise requires incurring certain expenditures. One of such functions is the function of R&D activity. It is a source of knowledge materialized in innovation. Decisions on the amount of expenditure on R&D are made by the company’s management. These decisions result from a specific R&D policy, which is why the level, dynamics and structure of actual expenditures incurred reflect the quality of R&D policy.

The following measures were used to analyse the level, dynamics and structure of R&D expenditures: 1) the amount of gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD); 2) the share of gross domestic expenditure on R&D in gross domestic product (GDP); 3) the number of entities conducting R&D activities; 4) the number of research employees per 1,000 employees; 5) the sum of internal expenditure on R&D activities in total, by executive sectors, by number of employees in enterprises, by ownership sector and by type of R&D activity.

Research problem: The essence of the research problem is therefore contained in the following questions: 1) what is the level of financing of R&D activities in Poland and in Polish enterprises? 2) what are the dynamics of R&D expenditures? 3) what is the structure of these expenditures in terms of the type of research, the size of enterprises and the ownership sector?

Undoubtedly, these are basic and current issues in academic considerations on the identification of enterprise policy in the field of finansing R&D activities. The results may be the basis for changing this policy and directing it towards increasing the rationality of R&D management, treated as sources of knowledge for innovative activities. The importance of this research problem is particularly great in the light of the relatively low percentage of enterprises conducting R&D activities. According to research conducted in 2016 by Kantar Millward Brown, only 40% of Polish enterprises conducted R&D activities. This percentage rose to 55% in 2018 (Ayming Report, 2018, p. 16). In a similar study from October 2016, it was found that 60% of the surveyed companies in Poland did not conduct R&D activities. R&D activity was declared by only 16% of small companies, 50% of medium-sized companies and 64% of large companies (Ayming Report 2016, pp. 5, 17).

Purpose: The purpose of the publication is to identify the level, dynamics and structure of expenditures on R&D activities in Poland and in Polish enterprises. These parameters define the nature of the R&D policy pursued by managerial staff. At the same time, they form the basis for proposing improvements (in the form of model solutions) in this area.

Research methods: The following research methods were used to develop this paper: a cognitive-critical analysis of the literature to identify the research problem; the descriptive and comparative method for the presentation of the problem; the statistical method for calculating percentages of the level, dynamics and structure of R&D expenditures; and the projection method for proposing model solutions.

Results: The level of measures of R&D activity analyzed indicates that the enterprise sector played a leading role in the sectoral system. The priority for this sector was development work in all the cross-sections considered. The lowest expenditures were spent on basic research. Compared to the average results in the European Union, Poland and Polish enterprises achieved lower indicators in terms of finansing R&D activities. The relatively low level and diversified nature of the measures in the period under investigation indicates relatively low R&D activity among enterprises. One of the reasons for this is the random and ad hoc nature of R&D policy, which is aimed more at solving current problems.

Practical implications: Becoming aware of the real results in terms of R&D expenditure may serve as the basis for rationalising R&D policy and giving it a strategic dimension. The use of the proposed model solutions in this policy may lead to an increase in this rationality, and thus an increase in the integration of R&D work with innovative activities and the market. The consequence may be an improvement in the competitive position of enterprises, their economics and customer relations.

Social implications: Rationalization and strategic orientation of R&D management is conducive to the socialization of R&D processes, and the inclusion of the company’s own employees, institutional and individual clients in this activity. Because of changes in management and R&D policy, healthy relations between the company and individuals and institutions in the environment may be formed, as well as the willingness of employees to learn and share knowledge.

Originality: This article makes an empirical contribution in terms of the level, dynamics and structure of R&D expenditures in Poland and in the enterprise sector. It also makes a conceptual contribution in the form of organizing knowledge on the essence of R&D activity, R&D policy and model solutions facilitating the management of the R&D sphere and its integration with production and post-production activities. Scope of the study: The time range of the research covers the years 2015–2019 (or 2017–2019 in the case of the analysis of the enterprise sector). The scope concerns the financial aspects of R&D activity on a national scale and in the Polish enterprise sector. The scope of the survey covers the country and the enterprise sector that complete the annual PNT reports on R&D activities and send them to the Central Statistical Office (GUS), where aggregate results are prepared, edited in publications entitled “Science and technology in the years of…” and “Research and development activities in Poland in the years…”. It is the data contained in these studies that constitute the basic source of analysis of R&D expenditures.

The essence of R&D activity and R&D policy

R&D activity has become an integral part of modern economies, treated as a source of knowledge necessary for the dynamic and systemic pursuit of innovative activities, conditioning the increase in the competitiveness of enterprises and their ability to co-create value for customers (Jasiński, A.H. 2020, p. 6; Mate & Molero, 2021, p. 2; Kelemu, 2019, p. 36). R&D activities consist of creative work carried out in a methodical manner to acquire new knowledge resources — especially knowledge about humanity, culture and society — as well as to search for new applications for knowledge hitherto gained. This activity is aimed at new discoveries based on original concepts and their interpretations or hypotheses. Its aim is to achieve results that would be freely transferable and tradeable on the market (GUS, 2018b, p. 47; OECD, 2015, p. 44). R&D activity may be characterized by: innovativeness, creativity, unpredictability, methodicality, possibility of reproduction or transfer (GUS, 2018b, p. 47; OECD, 2015, p. 45).

R&D activities include the following three sets of activities (Witness, 2021, p. 89):

1) basic research, which is experimental or theoretical work carried out with a view to acquiring new knowledge about specific phenomena governing nature and specific facts without indicating specific applications;

2) applied research, also undertaken to acquire new knowledge but focused on a specific practical goal or intention. The results of such research are usually trial models of products, processes or methods;

3) development work, which is is methodically carried out activity based on knowledge obtained as a result of basic and applied research, practical experience and generating additional knowledge aimed at the production of new products or processes, or at improving already manufactured products and processes, including the preparation of prototypes or pilot installations. Usually, development work includes construction, structural, design-technological and experimental work (Baruk, 2014, p. 57).

R&D activities are carried out by organizations and cooperating natural persons whose work is creative and is undertaken in order to increase knowledge resources, as well as to create new possibilities for its application. In particular, the contractors of R&D work are statistical units established to conduct R&D activities in the following sectors (GUS, 2018b, p422; OECD, 2015, p. 98): enterprises, government, higher education and private non-commercial institutions. Innovation is a manifestation of such successful work. It should be realized that the development of innovations that can have a radical impact on the development of a company, increase its competitiveness, and increase the ability to originally meet the current and future needs of individual customers requires the generation of new knowledge. It is therefore necessary to conduct a rational R&D policy including: 1) organizing their own sphere of R&D, 2) systemic use of external knowledge arising in scientific and research organizations, in other enterprises, 3) acquiring knowledge and experience of individual customers or joint use of internal and external knowledge acquired as part of systemic cooperation or purchasing, 4) systemic shaping of the culture of learning and sharing knowledge, 5) creating an environment of experience, creating structural and process conditions for generating knowledge and materializing it in innovations, etc. (see Figure 2).

Since enterprises operate and develop in a dynamic environment, it becomes a natural necessity to systematically renew the resources of internal and external knowledge, multiply it, store it, as well as sharing silent knowledge and transforming it into knowledge commonly available to enterprises (Swaty & Kumar, 2021, p. 56; Probst, Raub & Romhardt, 2004, p. 143). The role of management is therefore to create a climate and culture conducive to creative behavior (social innovations), to organize teamwork integrating all categories of knowledge, experience, thinking styles, to stimulate knowledge employees to reveal it, share it with other people, etc. (Suvaci, 2018, p. 4). We should be aware that innovative activity is based on various categories of knowledge: technological, organizational, market, commercial, economic, managerial, social and methodological knowledge.

Skilful management of knowledge, i.e., its creation, acquisition, storage, processing, distribution, transformation (from hidden knowledge to available knowledge) and use, is becoming increasingly more important in today’s conditions of enterprise functioning than the mere transformation of raw materials into finished products in accordance with known manufacturing technologies and supplying customers with them. Particular attention should be paid to the creation of the company competences, i.e., those areas of knowledge that are (Baruk, 2007, p. 140):

1) key competences, determining the identity of the company, dynamizing its market position. An example of this type of competence is R&D. Key competences can be shaped through the implementation of social innovations, rational HR policy, employment, training, learning, knowledge management, rationally organized R&D and innovation activities and cooperation policy with scientific and research organizations,

2) unique competences, constituting the basis for the company to achieve an advantage over competitors in terms of originality, modernity, quality and compliance with customer expectations of all technical, technological, organizational and managerial solutions. This requires activity by management staff in the field of rational management of R&D work, hiring researchers and specialists from various scientific disciplines, providing them with significant freedom to choose research directions, unlimited contact with customers, innovative experience environment, etc.

In the processes of systemic creation of knowledge and its materialization in innovation, it is necessary to convince managers that: 1) the diffusion of knowledge through the innovation system is a key element in the effectiveness of any innovation process, which is why it should be rationally managed, 2) systematic expansion of the knowledge base in enterprises through organized R&D activities, cooperation with external entities and individual customers or acquisition of new knowledge through purchases, becoming a necessity today, 3) the most important role in R&D activities and innovation processes is played by people of knowledge, which is why they should be rationally managed, conditions for learning should be created, employees should be encouraged to share knowledge, as part of a systemic R&D and innovation policy (Janasz & Kozioł, 2007, pp. 78–79).

The term R&D policy and innovative enterprise should be understood as a specific set of managerial, economic, social, organizational, financial and technical decisions leading to the integration of science — technology — production — distribution, focused on the systemic acquisition of external and internal knowledge, materialized in innovations providing customers with the expected value faster than competitors. In other words, R&D policy and innovation policy are a series of rational decisions and actions resulting in the organization of efficient structures (in a static and dynamic sense), stimulating research resulting in the generation of knowledge, indicating ways to materialize it in product and business process innovations, solving an enterprises technological and financial problems, as well as satisfying individual and the institutional needs of customers (Baruk, 2020, p. 7). These policies include the creation of R&D and innovation objectives, as well as the selection of means and methods to achieve these goals (Janasz & Kozioł, 2007, p. 96). Primarily, this is about the economic, social, organizational, human resources, and financial solutions necessary for the efficient course of research work (acquiring knowledge, indicating the possibilities of its application) and development, as well as innovation creation processes.

Undoubtedly, rational answers to the following questions can facilitate the creation of an R&D policy for an enterprise: 1) what problems (internal, market) the company may encounter in the short, medium and long terms? 2) what innovations can be conducive to solving these problems? 3) what knowledge is necessary or will be required to generate innovation and solve these problems? 4) from what sources (internal, external, mixed) should this knowledge be acquired? 5) what material, financial and human resources will determine the smooth course of R&D and innovation processes? 6) what role can and should individual customers play in these processes? 7) what organizational (structural and process), technical and social changes should be introduced to ensure high efficiency of R&D and innovative processes? In general, R&D and innovation policies should be based on the following mechanism (see Figure 3):

When above considerations are compared to economic practice, two questions arise: 1) what are the level and dynamics of expenditures on R&D activity in Poland, treated as an instrument of R&D policy? 2) what are the level and dynamics of expenditures on R&D activity in the Polish enterprise sector, treated as an instrument of R&D policy?

Possible answers to these questions are presented in the following sections of the article.

Expenditures on R&D activities in Poland in 2015–2019

R&D activities require specific financial outlays. One of the basic measures of this activity is gross domestic inputs (GERD index). They constitute the amount of total internal expenditures on R&D activities carried out on the territory of a given country in the indicated reporting period (GUS, 2020a:19). The level of these expenditures in the years 2015–2019 is presented in Table 1. In 2015, they amounted to PLN 18.1 billion. In the following year, a decrease in this metric by 0.7% was recorded. In the following years, these expenditures increased compared to 2015 by 13.9% in 2017, by 42.0% in 2018 and by 67.7% in 2019, respectively, which should be considered a positive phenomenon, even after accounting for the inflation rate.

The ratio of gross domestic inputs to gross domestic product (GDP) was also used to analyse the dynamics of R&D activity. In the period analyzed, this indicator was characterized by a slight increase, except for 2016, when this ratio was 0.96%. In subsequent years, this rate exceeded 1% and in 2019 it amounted to 1.32%.

The universality of R&D activity may be measured by the number of entities that engage in it. In 2015, there were 4,427 such entities. Compared to 2015, their number increased by 444 in 2016, by 675 in 2017, by 1,352 in 2017 and by 1,436 in 2019. As in any job, people with appropriate professional training must also be involved in R&D activities. In this activity, one of the most important groups of employees are scientific and research workers. In the analyzed period, there was an average of from 5.1 research workers per 1,000 employees in 2015 up to 6.1 in 2019. Year on year, this measure slightly but successively increased by 0.5 in 2016 and in 2017, by 0.1 in 2018 and 2019.

Involvement in R&D activities can also be assessed on the basis of the internal expenditures, defined as all current expenditures and gross capital expenditures on fixed assets related to R&D activities, carried out in the entity (GUS, 2020a, p. 19). In total, these expenditures increased from PLN 18.1 billion in 2015 to PLN 30.3 billion in 2019. The exception was 2016, when compared to 2015, the sum of these expenditures decreased by PLN 118 million.

The basic classification used in the analysis of data on R&D activities is the classification of institutional sectors developed by the OECD, including: the corporate sector, the government sector, the higher education sector, the sector of private non-commercial institutions and abroad. According to the classification of executive sectors, entities conducting research and development activities are divided into four categories: the enterprise sector, the government sector, the higher education sector and the sector of private non-commercial institutions (GUS, 2020a , pp. 25–26).

As shown in Table 1, during the period considered, the largest expenditure on R&D was incurred by companies. In 2015, they amounted to PLN 8.4 billion, which accounted for 46.6% of gross domestic expenditures on R&D activities. Year on year, expenditures on R&D in enterprises increased by PLN 3.4 billion in 2016, by PLN 1.5 billion in 2017, by PLN 3.7 billion in 2018 and by PLN 2.1 billion in 2019. In the last year, enterprises spent PLN 19 billion on R&D activities. This amount represented 62.8% of gross domestic expenditure for this purpose. In other years, this indicator was: 65.7% in 2016, 64.5% in 2017, and 66.1% in 2018. In other executive sectors, these shares were: 1) in the government sector: 24.4% in 2015, 2.5% in 2016, 2.3% in 2017, 1.9% in 2018, and 1.3% in 2019; 2) in the higher education sector: 28.9% in 2015, 31.4% in 2016, 32.9% in 2017, 31.7% in 2018 and 35.6% in 2019; 3) in the sector of private non-profit institutions: 0.2% in 2015, 0.4% in 2016, 0.3% in 2017, 0.3% in 2018 and 0.3% in 2019.

The level of the measures of R&D activity above in individual executive sectors indicates the leading role of the enterprise sector. This sector was characterized by the highest internal expenditures on R&D, growing in successive years, and the largest share of these expenditures in gross domestic expenditures. This was followed by the ministries of higher education, government and private non-profit institutions. The latter sector was characterized by a marginal involvement in financing R&D activities.

Expenditures on R&D activities in the sector of Polish enterprises in 2017–2019

Since the enterprise sector was characterized by the greatest involvement in R&D activities, it is worth analyzing the development of internal expenditures in this sector depending on the size of enterprises and their sectoral affiliation. The development of this indicator in 2017–2019 is presented in Table 2.

The analysis of internal expenditures incurred on R&D indicates an increasing absolute value in all cross-sections, i.e., in total in the country, in total in enterprises and in individual categories of enterprises. Compared to 2017, in 2019 the total amount of these expenditures increased by PLN 9,706.3 million, i.e., by 47.2%. In the corporate sector, this increase was 30.3%. In the case of micro enterprises, expenditures increased by 44.9%, in small enterprises by 45.2%, in medium-sized enterprises by 34.3%, in large enterprises by 30.4%, and in great enterprises — by 52.1%. In private enterprises, an increase in expenditures by 47.5% was recorded, while in public enterprises by 22.7%.

Based on the sum of internal expenditures on R&D activities in 2017–2019, it can be concluded that R&D policy in Poland was first focused on development work, then on basic research and finally on applied research. This conclusion is confirmed not only by the absolute values of expenditures allocated to individual types of R&D activities, but also by the percentage shares of these expenditures in total expenditures. In 2017, these shares were 29% for basic research, 17.6% for applied research and 53.4% for development. In 2018, the ratios were 32.5%, 13.2% and 54.2%, respectively. Finally, in 2019, the share of expenditure on basic research in total expenditures accounted for 40.1%, for applied research — 13.4%, and for development work — 46.5%.

In the corporate sector, the priority for R&D policy was development work, which absorbed the most cash in the period analyzed. In 2017, they accounted for 76.4% of total expenditures. In the case of applied research, this share was 18.9%, and in the case of basic research — 4.6%. In 2018, these relations were at the level of: 11.0% in the case of basic research, 12.9% in the case of applied research, and 76.1% in the case of development work. In the next year of the analysis (2019), expenditures on basic research accounted for 17.5% of total expenditures, in the case of applied research — 14.0%, and 68.5% — in the case of development work. The level of these measures indicates that the priority of R&D policy in enterprises in general was development work, followed by applied research and finally basic research, with the exception of 2019, when the share of expenditure on basic research was slightly higher (by 3.5 percentage points) than on applied research.

Taking into account the size of enterprises expressed in the number of employees, it should be stated that the priority of R&D policy in the period under investigation was development work in all groups of company sizes. This is evidenced by the shares of expenditures on individual types of R&D activities in total expenditures. In the case of micro-enterprises, these shares amounted to: in 2017 for basic research, 8.8%, for applied research 27.8%, and for development work 63.3%. In 2018, these relations were as follows: 21.7% for basic research, 17.4% for applied research and 60.9% for development work. Finally, in 2019, these measures took the following values: 30.3% for basic research, 20.6% for applied research, and 49.1% for development work.

In small enterprises, R&D policy was also focused mainly on finansing development work. In 2017, the share of expenditure on development work in total expenditures was 64.1%, in the case of applied research — 25.6%, and in the case of basic research — 9.8%. In 2018, these indicators reached the following values: 67.4% for development work, 16.6% for applied research and 16.0% for basic research. In 2019, the share of expenditures on development works in total expenditures was 58.8%, in the case of applied research — 17.3%, and in the case of basic research — 23.8%.

Similar phenomena occurred in medium-sized enterprises, where R&D policy focused mainly on development work. This is evidenced by the indicators of the share of expenditures of individual types of research in total expenditures. In 2017, they amounted to: 67.5% for development work, 24.4% for applied research and 8.1% for basic research. The situation was similar in 2018: 71.4% of total expenditure was allocated to development, 16.7% to applied research and 11.8% to basic research. In 2019, these relations were at the level of: 63.0% for development work, 20.7% for basic research and 16.3% for applied research.

A similar structure of expenditure characterized large enterprises, in which in 2017 70.5% of total expenditures were allocated to financing development work, 24.0% to applied research and only 5.5% to basic research. In 2018, the percentages of these expenses were at the level of 71.7% for development work, 18.2% for applied research and 10.0% for basic research. In 2019, the structure of expenditure was similar. The largest amount of funding was allocated to development work — 65.3% of total expenditures, 17.1% to applied research and 17.5% to basic research.

The R&D policy of large enterprises was also dominated by development work. In 2017, 86.0% of total expenditure was allocated to it, with only 12.5% for applied research and 1.4% for basic research. A similar distribution of these indicators took place in 2018, when development work was mainly financed. It accounted for 82.1% of total expenditure, for applied research only 8.5% and for basic research — 9.4% of all funds. In 2019, a similar structure of expenditure was recorded. 74.8% of total expenditures on development work, 11.0% on applied research and 14.1% on basic research.

In general, the R&D policy of the enterprise sector was dominated by development work, to a much lesser extent was it decided to finance basic and applied research. There were years when slightly more money was spent on basic research than on applied research, e.g., 2019 (enterprises in general), 2018 and 2019 in micro-enterprises, 2019 in small, medium, large and great companies, and 2018 in large companies.

The last cross-section of the analysis is the distribution of internal expenditures on R&D in enterprises depending on the sector of their ownership. In both sectors, total expenditures increased in individual years of the analysis. The absolute amount was higher in the private sector by PLN 8.9 billion in 2017, i.e., by 80.2%; by PLN 11.9 billion in 2018, i.e., by 82.6% and by PLN 13.6 billion in 2019, i.e., by 83.5%. In each of these sectors, R&D policy was mainly focused on financing development work. This conclusion is confirmed by the shares of expenditures on individual types of activities in total expenditures. In 2017, the private sector accounted for 81.4% of total investment, for applied research for 15.3% and for basic research for 3.3%. In the following year, the level of the metric was: 79.2% for development work; 9.9% for applied research and 10.8% for basic research. In 2019, it was at the level of: 71.2% for development work, 11.3% for applied research and 17.5% for basic research.

In 2017, public sector enterprises accounted for 51.0% of total expenditure on development, 37.4% on applied research and 11.6% on basic research. In 2018, funds for development work accounted for 57.8% of total expenditure, 30.2% for applied research and 11.9% for basic research. In the last year of the period investigated, i.e., in 2019, 52.0% of the total financial resources were allocated to development work, while 17.4% and 30.6% of the expenditures incurred were allocated to basic and applied research respectively.

Summary

The assessment of the position of the Polish and the business sector in terms of its commitment to R&D finansing will be more objective if the results are compared with those obtained in the European Union (EU). Compared to the average values achieved in the EU, the share of domestic expenditures on R&D in the gross domestic product in Poland was lower by 0.82 p.p. in 2019, 0.9 p.p. in 2018, 1.05 p.p. in 2017, 1.08 p.p. in 2016 and 1.04 p.p. in 2015, in the years 2015–2019, the average value of this indicator in Poland was lower than its average value in the EU by 0.98 p.p.

It should be emphasized that in the enterprise sector, the share of internal expenditures on research and development in gross domestic expenditure on R&D activities in 2019 amounted to 62.8% (with a 66.6% share in the EU) and was much higher than such shares in other sectors: government by 61.5 percentage points, higher education by 27.2 percentage points. and private non-commercial institutions by 62.5 percentage points.

The ratio of internal expenditures on R&D activities to GDP, defined as the intensity of R&D work, in 2019 amounted to 1.32% and was lower than the value of this indicator for the EU by 0.82 p.p., which placed Poland 16th among member states. In 2019, the index increased by 0.11 p.p. compared to 2018 and by 0.32 p.p. compared to 2015 (GUS, 2021, p. 25). Thus, we can talk about the relative backwardness of the Polish and the corporate sector in relation to the EU in terms of the amount of expenditures on R&D and their share in the gross domestic product.

A valuable source of information about R&D policy is indicators of the share of expenditures on individual types of R&D activities. It turns out that in 2017–2019 this policy was focused mainly on finansing development work, to a lesser extent on finansing basic research and to the smallest extent — applied research. Interesting conclusions emerge from the analysis of the measure studied in the cross-section of types of R&D activities and executive sectors. In the analyzed period, the expenditures incurred on development work dominated in all executive sectors, i.e., in micro, small, medium, large and great enterprises, as well as in companies from the private and public sectors. This situation indicates the short-term nature of R&D policy.

The level and dynamics of expenditures on R&D activities in the sector of Polish enterprises indicate that: 1) R&D activity in the analyzed sector was relatively low, as evidenced by relatively low and diversified expenditures on R&D; 2) R&D activity, treated as a source of knowledge for innovative processes, was not a priority in the information and decisionmaking processes of the management of most companies, especially micro and small, as well as in the R&D policy; 3) in the sector of Polish enterprises, R&D policy had a more ad hoc, random character, to a small extent focused on the systemic creation of knowledge and its use in innovative processes; 4) in all cross-sections of the analysis, the real R&D policy of the enterprise sector was clearly focused on finansing development work consuming knowledge. Less importance was attached to the development of basic and applied research, aimed at creating knowledge and searching for the possibility of its practical use as part of development work, 5) R&D policy in the sector of Polish enterprises was more determined by current needs, to a lesser extent by the vision of development and the resulting strategy. This policy was not sufficiently focused on systemic cooperation with national and international organisations leading to rational results in R&D and innovation (Chen et al., 2021, p. 244).

The passive nature of R&D policies in the sector of Polish enterprises may be the result of the following factors:

1) insufficient involvement of company managers in identifying current and future problems (internal and external), the solution of which requires the creation of new knowledge, sharing silent knowledge and transforming it into organizational knowledge;

2) the dominance in management information and decision-making processes of thinking from the perspective of solving the current needs of the company and individual units, an organizational instead of a systemic approach to the implementation of the organization’s development goals through the integration of R&D, marketing and innovative activities. This entails a comprehensive combination of the concepts of research, development, innovative activity and marketing research (R&D+I+M) into one cycle of the research system (Jasiński, 2020, p. 5; Mate & Molero, 2021, p. :2);

3) a prevalence of managers thinking in terms of past successes instead of creating the future based on information systematically obtained from the market, from individual customers and offensive strategies for the development of the organization;

4) low ability and inclination of the management staff to introduce social innovations and innovations in management (Heij et al., 2020, p. 278);

5) limited financial, organizational, social capabilities, technical and managerial enterprises;

6) insufficient capacity and propensity to systematic learning and management of knowledge and innovation according to model indications, especially network models (Baruk, 2021, pp. 14–27);

7) lack of inclination in management to create an innovative experience environment, conducive to employee interaction with individual customers, aimed at co-creating knowledge, innovation and values (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2005, p. 62; Baruk, 2020, p. 5);

8) a relatively low level of organizational culture, limited interest among management in creating an organizational culture aimed at creating knowledge and materializing it in innovation;

9) an excessive preference for traditional organizational solutions and favoring them to the creation of changes based on the characteristics of excellent innovative companies, such as (Peters & Waterman, 2000, pp. 45–48): willingness to act; proximity to the customer (learning from people); autonomy and entrepreneurship; development in the stage of progress, efficiency thanks to employees and individual customers; active involvement, guided by values; remaining with what you know; simple form, less administration; a combination of slackness and rigidity;

10) the limited tendency of managers to systematically shape technical and social architecture supporting a culture of knowledge creation and innovation, learning and knowledge sharing (Prahalad & Krishnan, 2010, p. 66).

If there are weaknesses in R&D policies and management processes, systemic actions are necessary to eliminate these weaknesses and optimize existing solutions. Such action may involve the integration of R&D, innovative, production and market relations functions, achieved as a result of creating and implementing innovations in management, treated as a contextual variable, affecting the effectiveness of R&D work and innovative activities from the point of view of effective identification and solving an enterprise’s own problems, as well as customer problems. It should be realized that innovations in management dynamize R&D work, which in turn promotes an increase in the level of innovative activity that translates into the company’s economic results and customer satisfaction. Innovations in management are conducive to the effective creation of all categories of knowledge, which is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of innovative processes (Heij et al., 2020, p. 287).

R&D policy should therefore be aimed at increasing the dynamics of internal R&D activities based on the optimal use of internal resources with full openness to the acquisition and use of external resources, especially financial and human resources, in accordance with the open innovation model (Baruk, 2021, pp. 21–22; Mate and Molero, 2021, p. 8) and the models presented in Figures 1 and 2.

Proposals for further research

In the context of the results of the research presented in this article, further empirical research should be done on the methodology of shaping R&D and innovative policy in Polish enterprises and translating it into everyday activities. The following questions should be addresed:

1) Will these policies support the systemic, prospective development of enterprises, based on the use of various sources of knowledge materialized in innovation?

2) What is the culture of shaping and implementing R&D and innovation policy in enterprises?

3) What is the role of customers in R&D and innovation policy?

4) Are managers substantively and mentally prepared to create such a policy based on model solutions?

5) Are enterprises able to raise the funds necessary for the systemic development of R&D and innovation activities?

References

1. Arandah, W.M.M.A. (2021). Applying Value Management & Market-Oriented Economic Land Value Assessment as a Managerial Decision-Making Tool: Case Study. IOSR Journal of Engineering, Vol. 11(6).

2. Areri, D., Kipchumba, S., Kamau, G. (2020). Strategic Innovation and Growth of Public Universities in Kenya. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 22(10).

3. Ayming Raport (2016): Ulga B+R. Wyzwania, szanse, rozwiązania [R&D Relief: Challenges, Opportunities, Solutions]. https://www.ayming.pl/analizy-i-aktualnosci/ raporty/raport-2016-ulga-br-wyzwania-szanse-rozwiazania/ (accessed 16.07.2021).

4. Ayming Raport (2018): Ulga B+R. Krok milowy w rozwoju innowacyjności przedsiębiorstw [R&D Relief: A milestone in the development of the innovation of companies]. https://www.ayming.pl/analizy-i-aktualnosci/raporty/raport-2018-ulgabr-krok-milowy-w-rozwoju-innowacyjnosci-przedsiebiorstw/ (accessed 18.07.2021)

5. Barbieri, J.C., Alvares, A.C.T. (2016). Sixth generation innovation model: description of a success model. Innovation & Management Review, Vol. 13(2).

6. Baruk, J. (2007). Poziom innowacyjności przedsiębiorstw jako skutek luki kompetencyjnej [The level of innovation at companies a s consequence of the competence gap]. W: A. Sitko-Lutek (ed.), Polskie firmy wobec globalizacji. Luka kompetencyjna (12, 140). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

7. Baruk, J. (2014). Zarządzanie wiedzą i innowacjami. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek w Toruniu.

8. Baruk A. (2017). Zakres aktywności prosumpcyjnej nabywców a specyfika ich zachowań zakupowych [Scope of prosumer activity by purchasers and the nature of their purchase behaviors]. Przegląd Organizacji, 6.

9. Baruk J. (2020). Zarządzanie innowacjami ukierunkowane na współtworzenie wartości w ramach partnerskich relacji [Innovation management targeted towards co-creating value under the framework of partnership relations]. Marketing i Rynek, vol. XXVII (5).

10. Baruk J. (2021). Wspieranie zarządzania innowacjami rozwiązaniami modelowymi [Supporting innovation management with model solutions]. Marketing i Rynek, vol. XXVIII(3).

11. Chen, J., Di Minin, A., Minshall, T., Su, Y., Xue, L., Zhou, Y. (2021). The New Silk Road: R&D networks, knowledge diffusions, and open innovation. R&D Management, Vol. 51 (3).

12. Dieter, W., Schmitt, W. (2018). A Literature Review on Innovation Process. East African Scholars Journal of Economics, Business and Management, Vol. 1(3).

13. Eurostat. (2021). https://appasso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/print.do (accessed 29.06.2021)

14. GUS (2017). Działalność badawcza i rozwojowa w Polsce w 2016 r. Warszawa, Szczecin: GUS.

15. GUS (2018a). Działalność badawcza i rozwojowa w Polsce w 2017 r. Warszawa, Szczecin: GUS.

16. GUS (2018b). Podręcznik Frascati 2015. Zalecenia dotyczące pozyskiwania i prezentowania danych z zakresu działalności badawczej i rozwojowej. Warszawa: Główny Urząd Statystyczny.

17. GUS (2019a). Działalność badawcza i rozwojowa w Polsce w 2018 r. Warszawa, Szczecin: GUS. GUS (2019b). Nauka i technika w 2017 r. Warszawa, Szczecin: GUS.

18. GUS (2020a). Działalność badawcza i rozwojowa w Polsce w 2019 r. Warszawa, Szczecin: GUS.GUS (2020b). Nauka i technika w 2018 r. Warszawa, Szczecin: GUS.

19. GUS (2021). Nauka i technika w 2019 r. Warszawa, Szczecin: GUS. Heij C.V., Volberda H.W., Van den Bosch F.A.J., & Hollen R.M.A. (2020). How to leverage the impact of R&D on product innovation? The moderating effect of management innovation. R&D Management, Vol. 50(2).

20. IDEA Institute (2021). Wpływ wsparcia działalności badawczo-rozwojowej w polityce spójności 2014–2020 na konkurencyjność i innowacyjność gospodarki — I etap: badanie w trakcie wdrażania [Influence of support for R&D activity in the 2014–2020 cohesion policy on economic competitiveness and innovation]. Warszawa: IDEA Instytut sp. z o.o.

21. Janasz, W. & Kozioł, K. (2007). Determinanty działalności innowacyjnej przedsiębiorstw [Determinants of the innovative activity of companies]. Warszawa: Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.

22. Jasiński, A.H. (2005). Bariery transferu techniki na rynku dóbr zaopatrzeniowoinwestycyjnych [Barriers to the transfer of technology to the market of supply and investment goods]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania Uniwersytet Warszawski.

23. Jasiński, A.H. (2020). Łączniki między innowacją i marketingiem [Links between innovation and marketing]. Przegląd Organizacji, 11.

24. Kelemu, N. (2019). A Survey on New Product Development, Market Orientation on Organizational Financial Performance: A Case Study on Selected Beer Factories in Ethiopia. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, Vol. 8(12).

25. Kolomiiets, O., Krzyżanowska, M., & Mazurek, G. (2018). Customer Disposition to Value Co-Creation Activities: The Case of the Clothing Industry. Journal of Management and Business Administration — Central Europe, Vol. 26(3).

26. Kumar, M. (2021). Knowledge Management: Process and Challenges. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 23(5).

27. Mate, M. & Molero, J. (2021). The Impact of Public and Private Internal R&D Investments on Spanish Business Performance During the Period of Crisis 2008–2012. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering & Management, Vol. 7(2).

28. Matejun, M. (2015). Absorpcja wsparcia w zarządzaniu rozwojem mikro, małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw — podejście strategiczne [Absoption of support in managing the development of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises — a strategic approach]. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Łódzkiej.

29. OECD (2015), Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris.

30. Okwemba, E. (2018). Influence of Knowledge Management Capabilities on Performance of Telecommunication Companies in Kenya. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, Vol. 7(6).

31. Peng, J., Lawrence, A., & Koo, T. (2009). Customer knowledge management in international project: a case study. Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 4 (2).

32. Peters, Th.J. & Waterman, R.H. (2000). Poszukiwanie doskonałości w biznesie [Seeking Excellence in Business]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo MEDIUM.

33. Poznańska, K. (2017). Ograniczenia działalności innowacyjnej przedsiębiorstw przemysłowych w Polsce [Limitations on the innovative activity of industrial enterprises in Poland]. Studia I prace Wydziału Nauk Ekonomicznych i Zarządzania. Nr 48/3. Uniwersytet Szczeciński.

34. Prahalad, C.K. & Ramaswamy, V. (2005). Przyszłość konkurencji [The future of competition]. Warszawa: Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.

35. Prahalad, C.K., & Krishnan, M.S. (2010). Nowa era innowacji [The new era of innovation]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Profesjonalne PWN.

36. Probst, G., Raub, S., & Romhardt, K. (2004). Zarządzanie wiedzą w organizacji [Knowledge management in the organization]. Kraków: Oficyna Ekonomiczna.

37. Ri, K., Wang, Y., & Zhang, X. (2018). Innovator’s Innovate Genetic Model: From Biological to Social Perspective. Science Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6(2).

38. Shete, M. (2021). A research paper on Customer Satisfaction Evaluation Process. Journal of Research in Business and Management, Vol. 9(1).

39. Szopik-Depczyńska, K. (2018). Koncepcja innowacji kreowanej przez użytkownika w działalności badawczo-rozwojowej przedsiębiorstw [The concept of user-created innovation in the R&D activity of companies], Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego.

40. Suvaci, B. (2018). The Impact of Organizational Culture on Employees’ Protean and Boundaryless Career Attitudes: An Empirical Study of the Banking Sector in Turkey. Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 24(1).

41. Świadek, A. (2021). Krajowy system INNOWACJI 2.0 [The domestic system Innovation 2.0]. Warszawa: CEDEWU.