SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Research Journal / 2025 / Volume: 7 Issue: 4

OPEN INNOVATION AND INTRAPRENEURSHIP: A TURKISH TEXTILE CASE AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR EURASIAN ECONOMIES

Mehmet Emirhan Kula(ERZURUM TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-4564-0170
Gül Buket Aktepe(ERZURUM TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY)0009-0008-6753-2024
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-10-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that outside-in open innovation enhances innovation, while inside-out open innovation has stronger effects on risk-taking, proactiveness, and autonomy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Sustainability challenges in a globalized world have driven businesses, particularly in the Eurasian textile sector, to adopt open innovation for competitive advantage.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Survey data from 244 participants were analyzed using Pearson correlation, multiple regression, t-test, and ANOVA.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that outside-in open innovation enhances innovation, while inside-out open innovation has stronger effects on risk-taking, proactiveness, and autonomy.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Entrepreneurship · Intrapreneurship · Open innovation

Abstract

Sustainability challenges in a globalized world have driven businesses, particularly in the Eurasian textile sector, to adopt open innovation for competitive advantage. This study examines the effects of inside-out and outside-in open innovation on intrapreneurship (innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, autonomy) in garment and apparel manufacturing in Erzurum, offering broader insights for Eurasian economies. Survey data from 244 participants were analyzed using Pearson correlation, multiple regression, t-test, and ANOVA. The findings reveal that outside-in open innovation enhances innovation, while inside-out open innovation has stronger effects on risk-taking, proactiveness, and autonomy. This suggests that external knowledge integration fosters creativity, while knowledge sharing strengthens entrepreneurial behavior. Beyond Erzurum, the study highlights policy implications for Türkiye, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan, emphasizing the need for stronger R&D collaboration, cross-border innovation networks, and supportive policies to drive innovation-led growth in the textile sector. Businesses are encouraged to adopt open innovation strategies to enhance employee creativity, competitiveness, and regional economic development.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kula, M. E., Aktepe, G. B. (2025). OPEN INNOVATION AND INTRAPRENEURSHIP: A TURKISH TEXTILE CASE AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR EURASIAN ECONOMIES. Eurasian Research Journal, Volume: 7 Issue: 4. https://ajindex.com/articles/1483109

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (56)

  1. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth. Springer.
  2. Ağca, V. (2005). İç girişimcilik yapısı ve firma performansına etkileri: Denizli tekstil sektöründeki firmalarda bir araştırma (Doctoral dissertation, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü).
  3. Ağca, V., & Kurt, M. (2007). İç girişimcilik ve temel belirleyicileri: Kavramsal bir çerçeve. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (29), 83–112.
  4. Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00054-3
  5. Braunerhjelm, P. (2010). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Past experiences, current knowledge and policy implications (CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series No. 224). Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
  6. Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392619
  7. Carrier, C. (1994). Intrapreneurship in large firms and SMEs: A comparative study. International Small Business Journal, 12(3), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242694123005
  8. Chesbrough, H. (2003a). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.
  9. Chesbrough, H. (2003b). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35–42.
  10. Chesbrough, H. (2004). Managing open innovation. Research-Technology Management, 47(1), 23–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2004.11671604
  11. Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm (pp. 1–15). Oxford University Press.
  12. Chesbrough, H. W., & Garman, A. R. (2009). How open innovation can help you cope in lean times. Harvard Business Review, 87(12), 68–76.
  13. Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), New frontiers in open innovation (pp. 3–28). Oxford University Press.
  14. Çetinkaya, A. F., & Demirel, N. (2023). Analyzing the impact of the Organization of Turkic States on the foreign trade of member countries. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285461
  15. Creative Research Systems. (n.d.). Sample size calculator. https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
  16. Daştan, H., & Mola, H. (2020). Türkiye’de kayıt dışı istihdama etki eden mikro faktörlerin analizi: Bölgeler arası bir karşılaştırma. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 34(3), 789–808.
  17. Deliormanlı, M. Ö. (2013). Türkiye’de açık inovasyon ekosisteminin oluşmasının önündeki engeller ve çözüm önerileri. TÜSİAD Araştırma Raporu.
  18. Diedre, E. E., Joe, J. M., & Sadri, G. (1997). An empirical comparison of entrepreneurs and employees: Implications for innovation. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1001_6
  19. Duman, B. (2015). İnovasyon performansı ve örgütsel destek algısı ilişkisi: Sivas ilinde bir araştırma (Master’s thesis, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü).
  20. European Commission. (2016). General report on the activities of the European Union. Publications Office of the European Union.
  21. European Commission. (2024). Horizon Europe and open innovation initiatives. https://ec.europa.eu
  22. Feyzbakhsh, A., Sadeghi, R., & Shoraka, S. (2008). A case study of intrapreneurship obstacles: The RAJA Passenger Train Company. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 21(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2008.10593421
  23. Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2004, July). Toward a theory of open innovation: Three core process archetypes. Paper presented at the R&D Management Conference, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.
  24. Gül, Ö. (2017). Türkiye’deki firmalarda açık inovasyonu kolaylaştırıcı iç ve dış mekanizmalar (Doctoral dissertation, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü).
  25. Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00059-8
  26. Kılıç, A. (2019). İnovasyon süreçlerinde stratejik yaklaşımlar. Yönetim ve Organizasyon Çalışmaları, 7(2), 98–120.
  27. Kierulff, H. E. (1979). Finding and keeping corporate entrepreneurs. Business Horizons, 22(1), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(79)90024-6
  28. Koçoğlu, M. (2012). Çalışanların örgütlerine yönelik girişimcilik yönelimi algıları, örgüt desteği, kariyer tatminleri ve işten ayrılma niyetleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi: Otomotiv sektöründe bir araştırma (Doctoral dissertation, İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü).
  29. Kula, M. E. (2022). Does competition intensity of SMEs moderate the environmental turbulence–organizational agility relationship? Journal of Organisational Studies & Innovation, 9(4), 59–75.
  30. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507
  31. Lee, S., Olson, D. L., & Trimi, S. (2012). Co-innovation: Convergenomics, collaboration, and co-creation for organizational values. Management Decision, 50(5), 817–831. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211227528
  32. Lenart-Gansiniec, R. (2016). Relational capital and open innovation: In search of interdependencies. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 220, 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.498
  33. Luchsinger, V., & Bagby, D. R. (1987). Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship: Behaviors, comparisons, and contrasts. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 52(3), 10–13.
  34. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568
  35. Manion, J. (2001). Enhancing career marketability through intrapreneurship. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 25(2), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006216-200101000-00003
  36. Maranville, S. (1992). Entrepreneurship in the business curriculum. Journal of Education for Business, 68(1), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1992.10117598
  37. Naktiyok, A. (2004). İç girişimcilik (1st ed.). Beta.
  38. Naktiyok, A., & Bayrak Kök, S. (2006). Çevresel faktörlerin iç girişimcilik üzerine etkileri. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2), 77–96.*
  39. OECD. (2023). Innovation and economic development in Central Asia: Policy insights. https://www.oecd.org
  40. Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. John Wiley & Sons.
  41. Parker, S. (2009). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.003
  42. Pearce, J. W., & Carland, J. W. (1996). Intrapreneurship and innovation in manufacturing firms: An empirical study of performance implications. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(2), 87–96.
  43. Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why you don’t have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur. Harper & Row.
  44. Saguy, S., & Taoukis, P. (2017). From open innovation to enginomics: Paradigm shifts. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 60, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.10.020
  45. Salavou, H. (2005). Do customer and technology orientations influence product innovativeness in SMEs? Some new evidence from Greece. Journal of Marketing Management, 21(3–4), 307–338. https://doi.org/10.1362/0267257053779082
  46. Sayın, B. (2019). İnovasyon kültürü ile örgüt içi girişimcilik etkileşiminin inovasyon yeteneği üzerine etkisi (Doctoral dissertation, Hasan Kalyoncu Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü).
  47. Schroll, A., & Mild, A. (2011). Open innovation modes and the role of internal R&D: An empirical study on open innovation adoption in Europe. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(4), 475–495. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061111174925
  48. Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902300302
  49. Şen, N. (2017). İnovasyon ve girişimcilik: Kamuda inovasyon ile ilgili bir uygulama (Master’s thesis, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Selçuk Üniversitesi).
  50. Tunç, A. Ö., & Zincir, O. (2019). Örgütler arası ilişki bağlamında açık inovasyonu anlamak: Kavramsal bir değerlendirme. Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(2), 209–226.
  51. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2022). Supporting SMEs in the digital economy: Open innovation strategies for developing nations. https://www.undp.org
  52. Vesper, K. H. (1990). New venture strategies (2nd ed.). Pearson.
  53. West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00436.x
  54. World Bank. (2023). Innovation policy in emerging economies: Case studies from Eurasia. https://www.worldbank.org
  55. Yıldırım, F., Trout, I. Y., & Hartzell, S. (2019). How are entrepreneurial intentions affected by emotional intelligence and creativity? Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 27(1), 59–65.
  56. Yuzbashiyeva, G., Abasova, S., & Yuzbashiyev, I. (2024). The role of innovation in economy strengthening of Azerbaijan in the conditions of transition to Industry 5.0: On the example of a comparative analysis of indicators of some Eurasian countries. Technology Audit and Production Reserves, 6(4(80)), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.15587/2706-5448.2024.320369