The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1750-614X.htm

Strategic
Impact of strategic human human
resource management on open resource
management
innovation: a chain mediation
analysis of intellectual capital and
supply chain integration Received 15 January 2023
Revised 6 July 2023
Accepted 18 September 2023
Dian Song and Pengfei Zhang
School of Political Science and Public Administration, Soochow University,
Suzhou, China
Rongrong Shi
Business School, Soochow University, Suzhou, China, and
Yishuai Yin
School of Political Science and Public Administration, Soochow University,
Suzhou, China

Abstract
Purpose – In the pursuit of competitive advantage, an increasing number of firms are adopting open
innovation (OI) strategies. However, previous studies have often overlooked the role of strategic human
resource management (SHRM) in promoting OI. This study aims to fill this gap by examining how SHRM
impacts OI through the mediating factors of intellectual capital (IC) and supply chain integration (SCI). This
research sheds light on the critical interplay between SHRM, IC and SCI in driving OI success. The findings
underscore the importance of adopting a comprehensive and integrated approach to OI that encompasses
both resources and dynamic capabilities.
Design/methodology/approach – By integrating resource-based view with the dynamic capability
perspective, the hypotheses were tested with a survey sample of 136 Chinese manufacture firms using
hierarchical regression and bootstrap method.
Findings – The results show that SHRM has a positive effect on OI, and both IC and SCI are partial
mediators of the relationship between SHRM and OI. In addition, the chain mediation effect of “SHRM-IC-SCI-
OI” has further been verified.
Originality/value – This study uncovers the “black box” between SHRM and OI, and responds to the call
for strengthening research on the relationship between SHRM and OI. The study indicates that firms should
implement HR practices, including extensive training, team reward and internal promotion to promote the
implementation of OI strategy.
Keywords Strategic human resource management, Intellectual capital, Supply chain integration,
Open innovation, Chain mediation
Paper type Research paper

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [grant
number 71972074], National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) Youth Project [grant
number 72002084], and Humanities and Social Science Project of The Ministry of Education of China Chinese Management Studies
[grant number 20YJC630194]. © Emerald Publishing Limited
1750-614X
Funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China. DOI 10.1108/CMS-01-2023-0023
CMS 1. Introduction
Over the past few decades, the implementation of open innovation (OI) strategies has gained
recognition as an emerging trend in response to the dynamic business environment (Randhawa
et al., 2016; Bogers et al., 2018a). An increasing number of firms are relying on OI to attain
competitive advantage and enhance their performance (Gimenez-Fernandez et al., 2023; Zubielqui
et al., 2019). Consequently, understanding the antecedents of OI has become a focal point of
research (Ogink et al., 2023). While previous studies have identified numerous factors
contributing to OI, such as technological innovation typologies (Hervas-Oliver et al., 2021) and
innovation climate (Popa et al., 2017), the role of strategic human resource management (SHRM)
in OI has received limited attention (Flor et al., 2021). This is surprising considering that human
resources are widely recognized as a key asset for enhancing a firm’s competitive advantage
(Barney, 1991). Some studies have emphasized the importance of human resource management
(HRM) practices in OI through conceptual analysis (Hong et al., 2019) and case studies (Wikhamn
et al., 2023). Recently, SHRM has been proposed as an antecedent to individuals’ OI performance
(Engelsberger et al., 2022). However, there is a lack of research on how SHRM influences OI at the
organizational level of analysis. Since SHRM focuses on organizational outcomes and the
synergistic effect of a bundle of HRM practices (Boon et al., 2018), it is imperative to explore how
SHRM influences OI at the organizational level. Furthermore, the underlying mechanisms
through which SHRM influences OI remain largely unknown.
To address the limitations in the previous literature, this study integrates the resource-
based view (RBV; Barney, 1991) with the dynamic capabilities perspective (Teece, 2007) to
propose that IC and supply chain integration (SCI) mediate the effect of SHRM on OI.
Compared to conventional innovation paradigms, OI requires firms to possess robust
resources and dynamic capabilities to integrate internal and external resources in a
constantly changing environment (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, 2009). We argue that
intellectual capital (IC), which represents the intangible knowledge resources within an
organization, plays a pivotal role as a foundation for OI. Previous literature on SHRM has
established that SHRM is a crucial driver of IC (Sokolov and Zavyalova, 2021). In addition,
OI involves multiple stakeholders (Urbinati et al., 2020), and engaging with suppliers and
customers can provide valuable external resources for OI (Randhawa et al., 2016; Song et al.,
2019). SCI encompasses the coordination of external and internal resources and activities
with suppliers and customers to create value. SCI is viewed as a dynamic capability as it
integrates, builds and reconfigures internal and external resources to address the rapidly
changing environment (Huo et al., 2016; Song et al., 2019). According to the dynamic
capability perspective, resources are necessary but not sufficient conditions to achieve
competitive advantage. It is the dynamic capabilities that transform the potential of
resources into firm success. In other words, resources serve as a distal enabler while
dynamic capabilities act as a proximal antecedent to desired firm outcomes, such as OI.
Therefore, this paper considers IC and SCI as sequential mediators between SHRM and OI.
This study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, while the relationship
between SHRM and innovation has been extensively explored given the importance of
innovation in building competitive advantage (Shipton et al., 2017; Li et al., 2017), our
research delves into the multiple mediating mechanisms of SHRM on OI. This deepens our
understanding of the complex relationship between SHRM and innovation and unveils the
“black box” between them. Second, we extend the antecedents of OI from a supply chain
management (SCM) perspective. Although the combination and integration of various
external and internal resources are recognized prerequisites for OI, few studies have
explored how SCI can promote OI (Dahlander and Gann, 2010). This study indicates that SCI
is an effective tool for enhancing OI (Groen and Linton, 2010). Third, by integrating RBV
with the dynamic capabilities’ perspective, this study proposes and tests a serial mediating Strategic
effect of IC (as a resource) and SCI (as a dynamic capability) on the relationship between human
SHRM and OI. In doing so, this study contributes to the literature on how firms’ resources
and dynamic capabilities interact to achieve competitive advantage.
resource
management
2. Literature review and theoretical background
2.1 Strategic human resource management
SHRM encompasses the HR policies, processes and practices devised and implemented by
organizations to attain strategic goals (Kang et al., 2007). While there may be theoretical debates
regarding the specific functions encompassed by SHRM, it is widely acknowledged that SHRM
includes a range of HR practices such as selective hiring, comprehensive training and
development, internal promotion, ensuring employment security, implementing team-based pay
structures, promoting employee participation, fostering information sharing and other related
practices (Paauwe, 2009). Distinguishing itself from traditional HRM, SHRM places greater
emphasis on organizational performance rather than individual performance and highlights the
systematic role played by HRM activities (Boon et al., 2018).
The relationship between SHRM and firm performance has been extensively explored
from various perspectives (Boon et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2012). Within the RBV) framework,
SHRM is believed to achieve optimal allocation of the labor force by attracting, acquiring
and accumulating human capital that is scarce, valuable, irreplaceable and difficult to
imitate, thereby enhancing a firm’s competitive advantages (Wright et al., 2001). From the
perspective of the ability–motivation–opportunity model, SHRM plays a crucial role in
fostering employees’ organizational commitment, thus, enabling the achievement of the
firm’s strategic goals (Jiang et al., 2012). Moreover, from a behavioral standpoint, SHRM is
considered the most direct means through which firms can motivate and sustain desired
employee behaviors, including task-related behaviors and organizational citizenship
behaviors (Delery and Roumpi, 2018). As organizational boundaries become more
permeable and knowledge flows more freely, the topic of OI continues to garner significant
attention in management studies. Consequently, the relationship between SHRM and OI
warrants further exploration (Hong et al., 2019), particularly in terms of the mediating
mechanisms within the “black box” of SHRM performance.

2.2 Open innovation

OI, a concept pioneered by Chesbrough, refers to the utilization of both internal and external
valuable knowledge to accelerate internal innovation and leverage external innovation to
expand the market (Chesbrough, 2003). Unlike traditional closed innovation, OI extends the
boundaries of firms to encompass the entire society, enabling firms to tap into diverse social
resources for collaborative innovation.
Since the inception of OI, numerous scholars have been attracted to explore how OI
contributes to firm performance, including product performance, revenue growth,
innovative sales and innovation performance (Rauter et al., 2019; West and Bogers, 2014;
West et al., 2014). In recent years, increasing attention has been devoted to the internal
organization, particularly the role of HRM practices in OI literature (Zubielqui et al., 2019).
However, studies investigating the role of HRM in OI are still relatively nascent (Hong et al.,
2019). Hong et al. (2019) conceptualized the role of collaborative-based HRM practices in
supporting OI, while Wikhamn et al. (2023) proposed a framework for firms’ use of HRM
when engaging in OI. Therefore, there is a need for further research on how SHRM affects OI
and the underlying mediating mechanisms involved.
CMS 2.3 Intellectual capital
IC refers to the collective sum of all intangible knowledge resources within an organization,
including human capital, organizational capital and social capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal,
1998). Social capital encompasses the knowledge embedded in individual relationships and
interactive networks, which can be further categorized as external social capital (related to
the degree of interaction and recognition between an organization and external entities,
emphasizing the role of bridging) and internal social capital (related to the degree of
interaction and recognition among units within an organization, emphasizing the role of
bonding) (Adler and Kwon, 2002). Organizational capital, on the other hand, refers to the
experience and knowledge that are institutionalized and encoded in a firm’s databases,
manuals, culture, systems, structures and processes (Youndt et al., 2004).
The accumulation and utilization of IC are vital to IC, and its direct impact on financial
performance has been demonstrated empirically (Reed et al., 2006). IC represents a
continuous input that drives organizational activities, necessitating not only internal human
capital but also the extraction of structural capital and relational capital from
interorganizational relationships (Kang et al., 2007). Numerous empirical analyses have
revealed the significant role of IC in creating corporate value and obtaining and sustaining
competitive advantage (Cabrilo and Dahms, 2018; Kusi-Sarpong et al., 2022).

2.4 Supply chain integration

SCI refers to the collaborative process in which organizations and supply chain partners jointly
manage internal and external processes to achieve high efficiency in product, service,
information, capital and decision flows during strategic cooperation (Flynn et al., 2010). SCI can
be categorized into three dimensions: customer integration, supplier integration and internal
integration (Huo et al., 2016). Swink et al. (2007) proposed that SCI involves information sharing
and knowledge building aimed at achieving coordination among customers, suppliers and
internal organizations. As a dynamic capability, SCI enables firms to create value and achieve
superior performance, such as enhanced customer service performance and innovation
performance (Michalski et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2018), thereby establishing a sustainable
competitive advantage in highly competitive markets (Feng et al., 2017). Although the role of
human capital has received attention in the SCI literature (Huo et al., 2016), the mediating role of
SCI in the relationship between SHRM and OI has yet to be studied.

2.5 Resource-based view and the dynamic capability perspective

This study draws upon the RBV and the dynamic capability perspective to develop
hypotheses. According to RBV, resources that contribute to competitive advantages possess
characteristics such as being valuable, rare, difficult to imitate and nonsubstitutable
(Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). IC is considered valuable and rare for firms, as it
encompasses a combination of general and specific knowledge and interpersonal
relationships. Moreover, it is challenging to imitate and substitute, as it requires time,
unique processes related to organizational culture and training and individual experiences
for its development. Consequently, firms with robust IC tend to achieve better performance.
Building upon RBV, the dynamic capability perspective emphasizes that resources, as
conceptualized in RBV, are static and insufficient for explaining firms’ competitive
advantage in dynamic environments (Teece et al., 1997). Instead, dynamic capabilities are
regarded as crucial for organizational adaptation and sustainable development in rapidly
changing contexts. Dynamic capabilities involve the firm’s ability to integrate, build and
reconfigure internal and external competencies to address evolving environmental
conditions (Teece et al., 1997). They highlight the significance of resource synthesis and
reconfiguration (Teece, 2007). Effective and efficient deployment, allocation and Strategic
transformation of resources enable firms to adapt to changing environments (Teece et al., human
1997). SCI reflects how firms can acquire, deploy and reconfigure resources within the
organization and the supply chain, thus, serving as a key dynamic capability (Newbert,
resource
2007; Rajaguru and Matanda, 2013). management

3. Hypothesis development
3.1 Strategic human resource management and open innovation
Employees play a pivotal role in the implementation of OI initiatives (Bogers et al., 2018b).
Their support, abilities, motivation and skills are crucial for the success of OI. SHRM serves
as a communication channel between employees and the organization, effectively conveying
vital information such as organizational management philosophy, organizational spirit and
strategic direction to employees (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). SHRM exerts an influence on OI
by shaping employees’ attitudes, abilities and motivations.
First, SHRM operates as a management model that emphasizes significant investments
in employees. Drawing from social exchange theory, when firms invest significantly in their
employees, employees develop a heightened sense of responsibility and commitment toward
the organization (Sanders and Yang, 2016). Consequently, when firms embrace OI,
employees exhibit unwavering dedication and support in executing the OI strategy. This
commitment helps firms overcome challenges associated with implementing OI, such as the
introduction of nonlocal inventions.
Second, SHRM places great emphasis on training and development. Unless facing
exceptional operational difficulties, firms generally adopt a long-term employment perspective,
avoiding employee dismissals. These practices foster the growth of employees’ knowledge and
skills, enabling them to contribute to the firm’s OI strategy (Laursen and Foss, 2003).
Third, during the implementation of OI strategies, employees, acting as the primary
interface with the external environment, assume the roles of supporters and guardians. It is
crucial to motivate employees to actively engage in information search and collaborative
activities (Antikainen et al., 2010; Chiaroni et al., 2011). SHRM plays a pivotal role in
enhancing the motivation to exhibit innovative behaviors, which form the foundation of OI
(Mortara and Minshall, 2011). SHRM practices such as participation, information sharing,
internal promotion, team-oriented reward systems and employment security serve as
catalysts to motivate employees to share knowledge (Bianchi et al., 2011). These practices
also ensure the stability of internal research and development teams, reduce the loss of
internal creativity and promote cross-departmental collaboration (Nedon, 2015).
Based on the aforementioned analysis, SHRM enables employees to better comprehend
and embrace OI strategies, fosters their information-seeking behaviors and provides
incentives for them to engage in OI activities. Consequently, we propose that:

H1. SHRM is positively related to OI.

3.2 Mediating role of intellectual capital

IC encompasses the knowledge that is stored and exchanged within the realms of human,
social and organizational capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). According to the RBV,
SHRM can foster the development of IC through the following three mechanisms.
First, selective hiring enables firms to attract and recruit high-quality talents, thus,
creating a knowledge reservoir for the organization. Extensive training and development
initiatives facilitate employees in updating their knowledge, enhancing their skills and
CMS improving their capabilities. Internal promotion and employment security contribute to the
cultivation of a high-quality workforce that can effectively retain and use knowledge within
the organization. These practices collectively strengthen the organization’s human capital.
Second, employment security cultivates long-term collaboration among employees,
leading to increased trust and enhanced social capital. Employee participation provides a
platform for communication and knowledge exchange, fostering the development of diverse
knowledge and enriching the organization’s knowledge base (Collins and Smith, 2006).
Team-based pay systems incentivize employees to reduce knowledge hoarding and actively
engage in knowledge sharing and effective collaboration, thereby fostering the formation of
internal social capital. Moreover, extensive training programs encourage employees to
develop a shared understanding of organizational objectives, management processes and
other aspects, enabling the creation of a knowledge transactive memory system and
enhancing the organization’s internal social capital. In addition, through their participation
in various training initiatives, such as seminars and industry associations, employees have
the opportunity to interact with diverse talents and organizations, thereby expanding the
firm’s external network and improving its external social capital.
Third, training, employment security and internal promotion foster employees’ deep
understanding of organizational rules and regulations over time, promoting their
comprehension of the underlying business philosophy, organizational culture and
declarative and procedural knowledge embedded within these rules, and enabling their
application in daily work. Information sharing facilitates the dissemination of employees’
individual knowledge and ideas, which can be codified and further enhance the
organization’s organizational capital.
Overall, SHRM practices contribute to the development of IC through the cultivation of
human capital, social capital and organizational capital, thereby providing a foundation for
organizational knowledge and innovation.
OI, as a value-enhancing strategy, revolves around the flow of knowledge across
organizational boundaries (Bogers et al., 2019). IC encompasses the knowledge embedded
within human, social and organizational capital (Reed et al., 2006). OI, being a socialized
process, acknowledges that knowledge is widely distributed beyond the boundaries of any
single firm. Even the most knowledgeable firm cannot independently develop all significant
technologies. Consequently, firms must possess strong capabilities for building external
networks and absorbing external knowledge (Spithoven et al., 2011). Drawing on RBV, IC
can enhance the capability of OI for the following reasons:
First, a high-quality talent team can effectively identify specific external knowledge that
is valuable and ensure that firms can process, use, integrate and innovate external
knowledge to develop products or services beneficial to the organization. A high-quality
workforce can also generate valuable knowledge and creativity internally, pushing it to the
market through appropriate channels. Podmetina et al. (2013) found that human capital is a
significant factor influencing the internal and external openness of firms.
Second, OI requires firms to possess the ability to engage externally and internally process
and integrate resources. External connectivity entails extensive contact with diverse external
market partners, such as research institutes, universities, competitors and laboratories, enabling
the timely acquisition of various information and ongoing communication with these external
partners. Internal processing refers to the ability of employees within a firm to collaborate, trust
one another and rapidly transform external information into valuable products or services. These
two abilities correspond to the external and internal social capital of a firm. External social capital
aids firms in discovering new technologies and markets, while internal social capital facilitates the
effective utilization of existing knowledge and resources (Lazzarotti et al., 2015). In summary,
internal and external social capital foster firms to transcend organizational boundaries, construct Strategic
boundaryless organizations and develop dynamic capabilities that establish the foundation for OI. human
Third, organizational capital encompasses the construction and management of an
organization’s knowledge base, knowledge map, cultural development, information
resource
management systems and corporate reputation. It provides employees with a rich, management
institutionalized and reliable knowledge base that serves as a prototype for their own
knowledge, thereby effectively reducing problem-solving time and improving learning
efficiency (Ataseven et al., 2018). The greater the abundance of organizational capital within
a firm, the stronger the learning references and learning abilities of its employees, resulting
in higher OI capabilities and efficiency. Hence, each dimension of IC serves as a core driver
for implementing an OI strategy. Human capital represents the talent foundation,
organizational capital forms the internal systemic foundation and social capital serves as the
coordination foundation (Reed et al., 2006).
Based on the impacts of SHRM on OI and IC, as well as the impact of IC on the OI of
firms, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2. IC is the mediating variable between SHRM and OI.

3.3 Mediating role of supply chain integration

SHRM has been established as a precursor to a firm’s dynamic capabilities (Apascaritei and
Elvira, 2022; Ataseven et al., 2018). Within this context, SCI is a dynamic capability that is
expected to be strengthened by SHRM. SCI involves a multitude of cross-boundary
activities, necessitating employees to possess diverse abilities and skills to fulfill their
responsibilities (Huo et al., 2016; Alfalla-Luque et al., 2015). Moreover, as SCI involves
collaborative work, interpersonal relationships and long-term partnership loyalty are crucial
for its success. In this regard, SHRM can enhance employees’ abilities, skills and loyalty to
effectively implement SCI.
To begin with, extensive training can empower employees to promptly acquire new
knowledge and assist firms in resolving technical challenges that arise during SCI (Ellinger and
Ellinger, 2014). Training programs can also enhance employees’ understanding of customers’ and
suppliers’ business processes, enabling them to better meet the expectations and requirements of
their supply chain partners. This facilitates the seamless coordination of cross-functional
operational processes and enhances external integration (Huo et al., 2014). Furthermore, selective
hiring practices can aid firms in attracting high-quality talent, thereby laying the foundation for
SCI. Internal promotion and employment security initiatives encourage employees to remain with
the organization for an extended period, fostering a sense of loyalty to the firm and promoting
SCI (Turkulainen et al., 2017; Song et al., 2019). Several studies have demonstrated the positive
impact of SHRM on SCI. For instance, Huo et al. (2014) found that a high-performance work
system has a beneficial effect on SCI.
In summary, SHRM plays a vital role in enhancing the capabilities, skills and loyalty of
employees, thereby facilitating the implementation of SCI. Through extensive training,
selective hiring, internal promotion and employment security, SHRM contributes to the
development of dynamic capabilities that promote effective SCI.
There are indeed similarities between SCI and OI as both emphasize the importance of
external partners. However, OI encompasses a broader range of external partners compared
to SCI. Some scholars argue that coordination with customers and suppliers serves as the
starting point for OI (Bretn and Joetidd, 2014). In the future, OI can be further explored from
the perspective of supplier integration. This is because in the process of implementing an OI
strategy, many ideas originate from external sources, and valuable knowledge flows along
CMS the value chain from customers to suppliers. To promote OI effectively, firms must organize
and construct a comprehensive value network (Lansitiand and Levien, 2006). Firms with a
high level of SCI have a broader and deeper external network, which provides more sources
of innovation for OI (Groen and Linton, 2010). Therefore, SCI can facilitate communication
between firms and potential idea providers, serving as a tool to promote OI. Randhawa et al.
(2016) demonstrate that suppliers and customers are the main sources of external knowledge
acquisition in OI, with customer integration being a key driving force.
Based on the impact of SHRM on SCI and OI, as well as the influence of SCI on OI, we
propose the following:

H3. SCI is the mediating variable between SHRM and OI.

3.4 Chain mediating role of intellectual capital and supply chain integration
According to the dynamic capabilities perspective, dynamic capabilities originate from a
firm’s resource base and transform these resources into innovation and profit (Teece, 2007).
Dynamic capabilities link a firm’s resources to competitive advantages in a volatile
environment. Therefore, it is expected that IC not only directly influences OI but also
indirectly affects OI through SCI.
Specifically, first, SCI involves activities across multiple boundaries and sectors,
requiring employees to possess diverse skills. Thus, high-quality human capital is crucial
for successful SCI. Jin et al. (2010) demonstrated that human capital has a positive impact on
supplier flexibility. Huo et al. (2016) showed that in the process of SCI, human capital plays a
vital role in a firm’s strategic transformation from hostility to partnership.
Second, external social capital can facilitate cross-boundary contact between firms, customers
and suppliers, enhancing the ability to search for external knowledge and information. Internal
social capital effectively promotes the dissemination, integration and application of knowledge
within firms. The combined effect of internal and external social capital enables firms to build
knowledge and information bases through multiple channels and methods, develop
organizational memory, coordinate with suppliers and customers, address challenges swiftly and
achieve SCI. For example, Chen et al. (2018) demonstrated that top managers’ external
relationships (business and political relationships) have a positive effect on SCI, while
Turkulainen et al. (2017) showed that internal relationships within firms effectively promote SCI.
Third, organizational capital encodes and stores the organization’s prior knowledge
through manuals and databases, emphasizing the mining and application of previous
knowledge through the establishment of organizational structures, processes and norms.
Organizational capital provides the knowledge foundation for SCI. Scholars have discussed
the impact of IC on SCI. Shou et al. (2018) revealed that human capital and relational capital
directly impact SCI, while structural capital influences SCI by improving relational capital,
highlighting that IC is a driving factor for supplier integration. Ataseven et al. (2018)
demonstrated that IC has a promoting effect on SCI. Therefore, we proposed that:

H4. IC and SCI play a chain mediating role in the relationship between SHRM and OI.
Figure 1 presents the conceptual model with hypotheses on SHRM, IC, SCI and OI.

4. Research methodology
4.1 Sampling and data collection
To test our hypotheses, the data were collected through a questionnaire survey in the
Yangtze River Delta. The Yangtze River Delta, which includes Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang
and Anhui provinces, is one of the most innovative regions in China. We selected Strategic
manufacturing firms from the Chinese Enterprise Yellow Page in the areas of the Yangtze human
River Delta as research sample. Since it is standard practice in the literature of organizations
resource
research to use senior executives as data sources (Liu et al., 2010), senior managers with
significant organizational authority were contacted to complete our questionnaire. management
Given the lag of influence between variables in our research model, data collection is
divided into three stages. Questionnaire collection interval is about two weeks for each
stage, which can not only improve the causality between variables, but also effectively
alleviate the common method biases (CMB) (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The questionnaire in
each stage consists of two parts: demographic characteristics of the respondents and
measurement of variables. In the first phase, the variable data collected is of SHRM. After
explaining the purpose of the survey and confirming confidentiality, numbered
questionnaires were sent to 300 firms’ senior managers who were willing to participate by
online or offline channels. One hundred sixty-three valid questionnaires were sorted out
after removing incomplete responses and invalid questionnaires with obvious rules and
errors. Two weeks later, 163 firms who responded in Phase 1 were asked to report IC and
SCI and 145 valid questionnaires were received. Two more weeks later, 145 firms who
respond in Phase 2 were invited to report firm OI. After collating and matching the data, we
obtained 136 usable surveys, representing a 45.3% response rate. The profiles of the
respondents and their firms’ characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

4.2 Measures
Our questionnaires in Chinese were originally constructed in English. To construct reliable
and effective measurements, we first conducted a comprehensive review of the literature to
determine the measurements of related constructs. Next, one researcher translated the
measures to English. To further verify the accuracy of the translation, another researcher
translated it back to Chinese. Five professors in the field of management were invited to
discuss and adjust the questionnaire items. Then, a pilot study was conducted to validate
the measures. The measures were further revised to be more understandable and valid. All
measures were anchored with a five-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating strongly disagree
and 5 indicating strongly agree. The final version of the measures is shown in Table 2.

Figure 1.
Conceptual model
CMS Characteristics %

Respondent’s gender
Men 44.1
Women 55.9
Respondent’s age
<25 3.8
25–35 45.2
36–45 43.6
>45 7.4
Respondent’s education
Master degree or above 33.2
Bachelor degree 60.9
Junior college degree 5.9
Number of employees in the firm
<100 16.9
100–299 19.1
300–2,999 44.9
>3,000 19.1
Ownership of the firm
State owned 25.4
Local private 29.4
Joint venture 32.1
Foreign 13.1
Operating years of the firm
<5 5.4
5–9 21.3
10–15 36.9
16–20 18.7
>20 17.7
Annual sales of the firms (million RMB yuan)
<5 4.9
5–9 10.8
10–49 12.3
50–100 18.8
Table 1. >100 53.2
Characteristics of
respondents Source: Table created by authors

The scale of SHRM was adapted from Sun et al. (2007), Chuang et al. (2016) and Kehoe
and Wright (2013). Seventeen items were used to measure seven dimensions of SHRM:
selective hiring, extensive training, internal promotion, employment security, results-
oriented appraisal, team-based reward and employee participation. The scale of IC were
adapted from Parra-Requena et al. (2015), Hsu and Sabherwal (2012) and Gallego et al.
(2020). Fourteen items were used to measure three dimensions of IC: human capital,
social capital and organizational capital. The scale of SCI were derived from Huo et al.
(2016) and Flynn et al. (2010). Twelve items were used to measure three dimensions of
SCI: supplier integration, customer integration and internal integration. The scale of OI
was derived from Hung and Chou (2013) and Singh et al. (2021). Seven items were used
 Strategic
First-order
Variable construct Item Measurement items
human
resource
Strategic Selective hiring STA1 A great deal of effort goes into selecting the right staff
human STA2 Long-term potential of employees is a key consideration in
management
resources selection
management STA3 The staff recruitment process is very strict
Extensive training TRA1 Extensive training programs are provided for employees
TRA2 Formal training programs are offered to teach new hires the
skills they need to do their jobs
TRA3 Formal training programs are provided for employees to
increase the probability of promotion
Internal promotion MOB1 Most employees in the department have clear career paths
MOB2 Employees have more than one potential position that they
could be promoted to
Employment SEC1 Employees can be expected to stay with the organization for
security as long as they wish
SEC2 Job security can be guaranteed, so employees rarely have to
worry about being fired
Results-oriented APP1 Performance appraisals are often based on objective
appraisal quantitative indicators
APP2 The group-based achievement and long-term performance are
often taken into performance appraisals
Team-based REW1 The bonuses of employees are tied to the organizations profit
reward REW2 The salary is closely linked to individual or team performance
Employee PAR1 Employees are often asked to participate in decision-making
participation PAR2 Employees are encouraged to suggest improvements to their
work
PAR3 Maintain open communication between supervisors and
employees
Intellectual Human capital HC1 Compared with competitors, the quality of department staff is
capital very good
HC2 Most employees in the firm are experts in their jobs
HC3 Employees in the firm are highly skilled
HC4 Employees in the firm are constantly learning and acquiring
new knowledge
Social capital SC1 Employees in the firm trust each other and maintain open
communication
SC2 Employees in the firm are skilled at collaborating with each
other to diagnose and solve problems
SC3 Employees in the firm are in constant contact with external
collaborators
SC4 There is mutual trust between employees in the firm and
external collaborators
SC5 Maintain a mutually beneficial relationship between the
employees and external collaborators
SC6 Employees and external collaborators understand each other’s
strategies and goals
Organizational OC1 The management of the firm regards employees as a source of
capital value creation, so employees are highly valued Table 2.
OC2 An effective business model and values are embedded in a Operational
firm’s organizational culture measurement scale
OC3 The firm has efficient management process for the second-order
(continued) construct
CMS
First-order
Variable construct Item Measurement items

OC4 The firm has a large number of well-developed manuals and

knowledge management systems to provide guidance to
employees
Open External ETA1 We often acquire technical knowledge from outside and use it
innovation technology to our advantage
acquisition ETA2 We have a well-established system for searching for external
technology and/or intellectual property
ETA3 To acquire better technical knowledge and products, we
actively contact external parties (such as universities)
ETA4 We tend to build close ties with outside parties and rely on
their innovation
External ETE1 Knowledge within the organization is encouraged to be made
technology available to other businesses or organizations for use
exploitation ETE2 We will make profits by selling our technical knowledge and
intellectual property in the market
ETE3 We rarely share a technology with other organizations.
(reverse-coded)
Supply chain Supplier SI1 The firm has established strategic partnerships with suppliers
integration integration SI2 Information is shared between the firm and its suppliers
SI3 The firm works with suppliers to improve its internal supply
chain management processes
SI4 We have long-term relationships with our suppliers
Customer CI1 The firm has established strategic partnerships with
integration customers
CI2 The firm will work with customers to improve internal supply
chain management processes
CI3 We often collect customer feedback to improve the quality of
our products or services
CI4 Information is shared between the firm and its customers
Internal II1 Departments can collaborate effectively with each other in the
integration firm
II2 The firm has a relatively perfect inventory management
system
II3 There are data sharing and integration systems among the
various departments of the firm
II4 There is an information contact system for real-time
communication between departments of the firm, such as raw
material purchasing, manufacturing, storage and
transportation and sales departments

Table 2. Source: Table created by authors

to measure two dimensions of OI: external technology acquisition and external

technology exploitation.
Three organizational characteristics served as control variables: firm size, firm age and
ownership. Firm size was controlled by grouping firms into four categories: (i) 1–99, (ii) 100–
299, (iii) 300–2,999 and (iv) greater than 2,999. Firm age was controlled by grouping firms
into five categories: (i) < 5 years, (ii) 5–9 years, (iii) 10–15 years, (iv) 16–20 years and (v)
greater than 20 years. Ownership was measured by a dummy variable representing Chinese
domestic firms (including state-owned firms and Chinese private firms).
4.3 Reliability and validity tests Strategic
We used a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the reliability and validity of each human
construct, and the analysis results are as shown in Table 3. In terms of reliability,
Cronbach’s alpha value and combined reliability (CR) value of all variables were greater
resource
than 0.8, indicating high internal consistency of the questionnaire and reliability meeting the management
requirements. In terms of validity, the factor loading of all measurement items was greater
than 0.5, and the AVE value of each variable was greater than 0.5, indicating that the
questionnaire had high convergence validity.
To further verify the discriminative validity of the questionnaire, CFA was performed.
We, respectively, constructed the baseline model (four-factor model), three-factor A model
(merging SHRM and SCI), three-factor B model (merging SHRM and IC), two-factor model
(merging SHRM, IC and SCI) and one-factor model (merging SHRM, IC, SCI and OI), and
compared their fitting effects. The results in Table 4 show that the baseline model has a high
degree of fit (RMSEA ¼ 0.053, CFI ¼ 0.958, TLI ¼ 0.945, NFI ¼ 0.902, X2/df ¼ 2.134), which
is significantly better than other competing models. Thus, the questionnaire has high
discriminative validity.

4.4 Common method assessment

Following Podsakoff et al. (2003), we adopted procedural control and statistical testing methods to
reduce potential CMB. In terms of procedural control, we have made efforts in the following three
aspects. First, questionnaires were distributed through multiple channels (combine online and
offline) and three stages to obtain longitudinal data. Second, the use of positive and negative
wording is balanced in the survey questions. Third, anonymous survey is adopted to guarantee
the confidentiality of data and dispel the potential concerns of participants.
Three statistical tests were performed. First, Harman’s one-factor test was performed. All
variables were loaded into exploratory factor analysis to test whether one factor accounted
for most of the covariance between measures. The unrotated factor solution shows that one
factor explains 21.5% (less than 40%) of the variance. Second, we performed t-tests to
compare the responses of early and late waves of surveys (Yin et al., 2019), the results show
no significant difference between those two sets of responses (p > 0.1). Third, Table 5 shows
that the coefficients of the correlation matrix are less than 0.9 (Chu et al., 2019). Therefore,
the results based on the above three methods suggest that common method variance is not a
serious problem in our study.

5. Analysis of empirical results

5.1 Correlation analysis of variables
Table 5 provided the mean, standard deviation and correlation coefficient of each variable.
SHRM is positively correlated with IC (r ¼ 0.667, p < 0.01), SCI (r ¼ 0.626, p < 0.01) and OI
(r ¼ 0.673, p < 0.01). IC is positively correlated with SCI (r ¼ 0.521, p < 0.01), and OI (r ¼
0.619, p < 0.01). SCI is positively correlated with OI (r ¼ 0.619, p < 0.01). Therefore, the
results of correlation analysis show that the relationship between variables preliminarily
conforms to the hypothesis expectation, which lays the foundation for the following
analysis.

5.2 Hypothesis verification

To test our hypotheses, the bootstrapping re-sampling procedure was carried out. A total of
5,000 bootstrap samples were chosen with 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (Hayes,
2013). We ran Model 6 of the Process macro in SPSS25.0, and the standardized results are
shown in Tables 6 and 7. From Table 6, we found that the total effect of SHRM on OI was
CMS Cronbach’s
Variable First-order construct Item Loading t-Value AVE C.R. alpha KMO

SHRM Selective hiring STA1 0.76 16.45 0.60 0.81 0.81 0.72
STA2 0.79 18.65
STA3 0.77 17.08
Extensive training TRA1 0.82 21.57 0.61 0.82 0.80 0.68
TRA2 0.59 9.61
TRA3 0.84 22.90
Internal promotion MOB1 0.82 22.45 0.66 0.80 0.80 0.55
MOB2 0.81 21.93
Employment security SEC1 0.82 15.82 0.72 0.84 0.84 0.50
SEC2 0.88 17.17
Results-oriented APP1 0.84 28.65 0.63 0.87 0.87 0.50
appraisal APP2 0.89 36.07
Team-based reward REW1 0.71 14.11 0.62 0.84 0.83 0.55
REW2 0.77 19.44
Employee PAR1 0.74 15.18 0.65 0.82 0.80 0.70
participation PAR2 0.73 14.83
PAR3 0.72 14.23
Intellectual Human capital HC1 0.78 19.47 0.64 0.88 0.88 0.83
capital HC2 0.84 24.21
HC3 0.85 25.39
HC4 0.74 16.20
Social capital SC1 0.79 21.43 0.65 0.92 0.92 0.91
SC2 0.84 27.61
SC3 0.80 22.66
SC4 0.85 29.80
SC5 0.82 24.76
SC6 0.77 19.70
Organizational OC1 0.77 18.10 0.63 0.87 0.87 0.82
capital OC2 0.77 18.46
OC3 0.89 28.91
OC4 0.74 16.21
Open innovation External technology ETA1 0.71 15.11 0.61 0.86 0.86 0.82
acquisition ETA2 0.83 24.35
ETA3 0.76 18.46
ETA4 0.81 22.99
External technology ETE1 0.91 27.52 0.65 0.87 0.88 0.63
exploitation ETE2 0.74 15.93
ETE3 0.89 29.91
Supply chain Supplier integration SI1 0.77 20.62 0.67 0.89 0.89 0.83
integration SI2 0.84 28.69
SI3 0.88 36.74
SI4 0.88 37.66
Customer integration CI1 0.86 33.29 0.63 0.87 0.86 0.79
CI2 0.75 18.53
CI3 0.61 10.97
CI4 0.77 20.53
Internal integration II1 0.71 15.32 0.73 0.91 0.90 0.83
II2 0.87 34.88
II3 0.87 34.99
II4 0.89 39.47
Table 3.
Measurement model Source: Table created by authors
0.675 (p < 0.001) in Model 4. And direct effect of SHRM on OI was 0.320 (p < 0.001) in Model Strategic
5. Therefore, H1 was supported. human
Next, the indirect effects of SHRM on OI were shown in Table 7. First, the total indirect effect
of SHRM on OI was 0.355. The confidence intervals did not include 0 and ranged from 0.196 to
resource
0.555, indicating that the total indirect effect was significant with 95% confidence interval. The management
analysis indicated that the indirect effect of SHRM on OI through IC was 0.175. The confidence
intervals did not include 0 and ranged from 0.059 to 0.327; therefore, H2 was supported. The
indirect effect of SHRM on OI through SCI was 0.146. The confidence intervals also did not
include 0 and ranged from 0.058 to 0.272, thus, supporting H3. The chain mediating effect of IC,
and SCI on the relationship between SHRM and OI was 0.034. The confidence intervals also did
not include 0 and ranged from 0.002 to 0.080, thus, supporting H4.

6. Conclusions and discussion

6.1 Major findings
First, our results prove SHRM is an important driver of OI. HRM practice can convey
information to encourage innovation to employees, change employees’ attitude toward OI
and promote OI. The finding is consistent with the prior research of Hong et al. (2019).
Second, IC plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between SHRM and OI. In detail,
human capital can provide intellectual support for OI. Organizational capital can provide
knowledge base for OI. Internal and external social capital can create a cooperative environment

Model RMSEA CFI TLI NFI X2/df

Benchmark modela 0.053 0.958 0.945 0.902 2.134

One-factor modelb 0.120 0.683 0.674 0.635 7.321
Two-factor modelc 0.103 0.756 0.742 0.701 6.535
Three-factor modeld 0.091 0.818 0.803 0.783 4.539
Three-factor modele 0.072 0.865 0.859 0.832 3.748

Notes: aSHRM, intellectual capital, supply chain integration, open innovation; bSHRM þ intellectual
capital þ supply chain integration þ open innovation; cSHRM þ intellectual capital þ supply chain
integration, open innovation; dSHRM þ supply chain integration, intellectual capital, open innovation; Table 4.
e
SHRM þ intellectual capital, supply chain integration, open innovation. “þ” mean merge into a factor Confirmatory factor
Source: Table created by authors analysis

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Firm size 2.400 0.984 1

2. Firm age 3.080 1.217 0.510*** 1
3. Ownership 2.820 1.148 0.035 0.132 1
4. SHRM 3.707 0.673 0.067 0.020 0.002 1
5. Intellectual capital 3.608 0.742 0.006 0.061 0.025 0.667*** 1 Table 5.
6. Supply chain integration 3.536 0.715 0.001 0.037 0.015 0.626*** 0.521*** 1
Mean, standard
7. Open innovation 3.814 0.790 0.012 0.021 0.003 0.673*** 0.619*** 0.619*** 1
deviation and
Notes: ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10 correlation coefficient
Source: Table created by authors of variables
CMS IC SCI OI
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Firm size 0.084 0.075 0.060 0.020  0.023

Firm age 0.088 0.061 0.046 0.025 0.065
Ownership 0.015 0.008 0.006 0.001 0.007
SHRM 0.671*** 0.629*** 0.510*** 0.675*** 0.320***
IC 0.178* 0.262***
SCI 0.285***
Table 6. F 20.035*** 21.479*** 18.331*** 27.246*** 26.852***
Regression analysis Adjusted R2 0.435 0.378 0.391 0.437 0.535
results of direct effect Notes: ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10. SHRM represents strategic human resources management; IC
and mediating effect represents intellectual capital; SCI represents supply chain integration; OI represents open innovation
test Source: Table created by authors

Bias corrected bootstrap

95% confidence interval
Hypothesis path Effect value Se Lower Upper

Total indirect effect 0.355*** 0.093 0.196 0.555

H2 SHRM ! IC ! OP 0.175*** 0.066 0.059 0.327
H3 SHRM ! SCI ! OP 0.146*** 0.056 0.058 0.272
Table 7. H4 SHRM ! IC ! ! SCI ! OP 0.034*** 0.020 0.002 0.080
Bootstrap chain Notes: ***p < 0.001; SHRM represents strategic human resources management; IC represents intellectual
mediating effect test capital; SCI represents supply chain integration; OI represents open innovation
results Source: Table created by authors

of the knowledge transformation and exchange for OI. This conclusion suggests that IC plays a
bridging role between SHRM and OI.
Third, SCI also plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between SHRM and OI.
SCI can promote focal firms to obtain the information and knowledge needed for OI from
major customers and suppliers. Thus, this conclusion suggests that the importance of SCI
behavior in the process of SHRM promoting OI.
Fourth, this study further demonstrates a complex chain mediating effect (“SHRM-IC-SCI-
OI”) in the relationship between SHRM and OI. It shows that IC and SCI are not separated from
each other when mediating the relationship between SHRM and OI.

6.2 Theoretical implications

First, building upon the RBV and the dynamic capabilities perspective, this study aims to
elucidate the underlying mechanisms between SHRM and OI in Chinese manufacturing firms.
Previous research has indicated that SHRM can promote OI, but without specifying the how
and why of this relationship. This study fills this gap by theoretically proposing and
empirically validating the mediating roles of IC and SCI in this relationship. By doing so, we
enrich the understanding of the antecedents of OI, highlighting IC as a key resource and SCI as
a critical dynamic capability that drives the organization’s ability to identify, deploy and
reconfigure resources for innovation and value creation.
 Second, our study contributes to the RBV and dynamic capabilities perspective by Strategic
extending their application to the context of OI and enhancing the nuanced relationship human
between resources and capabilities. Previous studies on OI have often relied on either RBV or
the dynamic capabilities perspective to examine its antecedents. By integrating these two
resource
theoretical perspectives and demonstrating the serial mediation of IC and SCI, we support the management
view that it is through dynamic capabilities that the value of resources is manifested. This
combination of theoretical perspectives offers a more comprehensive approach that better
captures the complexities of the innovation and value creation process.
Third, this study contributes to the discourse on the “black box” between SHRM and
organizational performance. Uncovering the mechanisms through which SHRM influences
organizational outcomes is an important area of research in SHRM. While IC has been proposed
as a key mediator between SHRM and organizational outcomes, there is limited empirical
research to test this assertion. Our study provides empirical evidence in support of this
proposition. Furthermore, by drawing from the supply chain management literature and the
dynamic capabilities perspective, we argue that SCI serves as a novel mechanism that bridges
SHRM and organizational outcomes. This expands the mechanisms typically associated with
psychological processes and offers a broader understanding of how SHRM impacts
organizational performance.

6.3 Practical implications

First, it is crucial for firms to extensively implement SHRM practices. This can be achieved
through selective hiring, where the evaluation criteria of applicants include their innovative
attitude. In addition, firms should focus on continuously enhancing the skills and
capabilities of their staff through training programs and the implementation of a dual ladder
model. Internal promotion should be encouraged to retain and develop talent, while creating
an OI culture can be facilitated through training and mentoring programs.
Second, to improve IC, firms should prioritize the development of a knowledge
management system. This involves building an innovative culture that fosters knowledge
sharing and collaboration among employees. Constructing interpersonal coordination
mechanisms and implementing staff training systems further enhance IC, which, in turn,
supports the facilitation of OI within the organization.
Third, firms should strengthen the integrated management of their supply chain. This entails
encouraging employees to collect both internal and external information extensively. Analyzing
the information related to changes in customer demand is vital for proactive decision-making.
Timely coordination and problem-solving with suppliers are crucial to address any challenges
they may face. Moreover, involving customers and suppliers in the process of OI management
helps ensure effective collaboration and exchange of ideas throughout the supply chain.

6.4 Limitations and future research

There are two main limitations to consider in this study. First, due to the firm-level focus of
our questionnaires, obtaining a large sample size was challenging. As a result, the sample
size used in our study is relatively small, which may limit the generalizability of the
findings. Second, our study sample primarily consists of manufacturing firms, and we did
not account for the potential effects of industry differences. Future research could address
this limitation by including a more diverse range of industries in the sample to examine how
industry context influences the relationship between SHRM and OI.
Furthermore, there are two main directions for future research. First, adopting a multi-
level approach could provide valuable insights. This approach would explore the impact of
organizational-level SHRM on employee learning behavior, and subsequently examine how
CMS individual-level learning behavior influences organizational-level OI. By uncovering the
complex relationship between SHRM and OI at both the organizational and individual
levels, a more comprehensive understanding can be achieved.
Second, considering that firms operate as nodes within a networked ecological system, it is
important to investigate how network configuration, absorptive capacity and other variables
affect the relationship between SHRM and OI. Future research could explore the impact of these
variables on the relationship between HR practices and OI, deepening our understanding of the
situational requirements for successful implementation of OI initiatives.

References
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.-W. (2002), “Social capital: prospects for a new concept”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-40.
Alfalla-Luque, R., Marin-Garcia, J.A. and Medina-Lopez, C. (2015), “An analysis of the direct and
mediated effects of employee commitment and supply chain integration on organisational
performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 162, pp. 242-257.
Antikainen, M., MäKIPää, M. and Ahonen, M. (2010), “Motivating and supporting collaboration in open
innovation”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 100-119.
Apascaritei, P. and Elvira, M.M. (2022), “Dynamizing human resources: an integrative review of SHRM and
dynamic capabilities research”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, p. 100878.
Ataseven, C., Nair, A. and Ferguson, M. (2018), “An examination of the relationship between intellectual
capital and supply chain integration in humanitarian aid organizations: a survey-based
investigation of food banks”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 827-862.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Bianchi, M., Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V. and Frattini, F. (2011), “Exploring the role of human resources in
technology out-licensing: an empirical analysis of biotech new technology-based firms”,
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 825-849.
Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H. and Moedas, C. (2018a), “Open innovation: research, practices, and policies”,
California Management Review, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 5-16.
Bogers, M., Foss, N.J. and Lyngsie, J. (2018b), “The ‘human side’ of open innovation: the role of
employee diversity in firm-level openness”, Research Policy, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 218-231.
Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., Heaton, S. and Teece, D.J. (2019), “Strategic management of open innovation: a
dynamic capabilities perspective”, California Management Review, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 77-94.
Boon, C., Eckardt, R., Lepak, D.P. and Boselie, P. (2018), “Integrating strategic human capital and
strategic human resource management”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 34-67.
Bowen, D.E. and Ostroff, C. (2004), “Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: the role of
the ‘strength’ of the HRM system”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 203-221.
Bretn, Joetidd, A. (2014), “Perspectives on supplier innovation: theories, concepts and empirical insights
on open innovation and the integration of suppliers”, Series on Technology Management. Journal
of Business-to-Business Marketing, Vol. 21, pp. 57-62.
Cabrilo, S. and Dahms, S. (2018), “How strategic knowledge management drives intellectual capital to
superior innovation and market performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 621-648.
Chen, M., Liu, H., Wei, S. and Gu, J. (2018), “Top managers’ managerial ties, supply chain integration,
and firm performance in China: a social capital perspective”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 74, pp. 205-214.
Chesbrough, H. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Strategic
Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
human
Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V. and Frattini, F. (2011), “The open innovation journey: how firms dynamically
implement the emerging innovation management paradigm”, Technovation, Vol. 31 No. 1,
resource
pp. 34-43. management
Chu, Z., Wang, Q., Lai, F. and Collins, B.J. (2019), “Managing interdependence: using guanxi to
cope with supply chain dependency”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 103,
pp. 620-631.
Chuang, C.-H., Jackson, S.E. and Jiang, Y. (2016), “Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be managed?
Examining the roles of HRM systems, leadership, and tacit knowledge”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 524-554.
Collins, C.J. and Smith, K.G. (2006), “Knowledge exchange and combination: the role of human resource
practices in the performance of high-technology firms”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 544-560.
Dahlander, L. and Gann, D.M. (2010), “How open is innovation?”, Research Policy, Vol. 39 No. 6,
pp. 699-709.
Delery, J.E. and Roumpi, D. (2018), “Strategic human resource management, human capital and
competitive advantage: is the field going in circles?”, Human Resource Management Journal,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Ellinger, A.E. and Ellinger, A.D. (2014), “Leveraging human resource development expertise to improve
supply chain managers’ skills and competencies”, European Journal of Training and
Development, Vol. 38, pp. 118-135.
Engelsberger, A., Halvorsen, B., Cavanagh, J. and Bartram, T. (2022), “Human resources management
and open innovation: the role of open innovation mindset”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 194-215.
Feng, M., Yu, W., Chavez, R., Mangan, J. and Zhang, X. (2017), “Guanxi and operational performance:
the mediating role of supply chain integration”, Industrial Management and Data Systems,
Vol. 117 No. 8, pp. 1650-1668.
Flor, M.L., Oltra-Mestre. and M.J., Elenal.sanjurjo. (2021), “An analysis of open innovation strategies in
firms in low and medium technology industries”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 853-867.
Flynn, B.B., Huo, B. and Zhao, X. (2010), “The impact of supply chain integration on performance: a
contingency and configuration approach”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 58-71.
Gallego, C., MEJıA, G.M. and Calderon, G. (2020), “Strategic design: origins and contributions to
intellectual capital in organizations”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 873-891.
Gimenez-Fernandez, E.M.M., Stefan, I. and Beukel, K. (2023), “Exploring the dynamics of openness and
formal appropriability and its impact on innovation performance in start-ups”, R&D
Management, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 434-458.
Groen, A.J. and Linton, J.D. (2010), “Is open innovation a field of study or a communication barrier to
theory development?”, Technovation, Vol. 30 Nos 11/12, p. 554.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Hervas-Oliver, J.-L., Sempere-Ripoll, F. and Boronat-Moll, C. (2021), “Technological innovation
typologies and open innovation in SMEs: beyond internal and external sources of knowledge”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 162, p. 120338.
Hong, J.F.L., Zhao, X. and Snell, R.S. (2019), “Collaborative-based HRM practices and open innovation: a
conceptual review”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 31-62.
CMS Hsu, I.-C. and Sabherwal, R. (2012), “Relationship between intellectual capital and knowledge
management: an empirical investigation”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 489-524.
Hung, K.-P. and Chou, C. (2013), “The impact of open innovation on firm performance: the moderating
effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence”, Technovation, Vol. 33 Nos 10/11,
pp. 368-380.
Huo, B., Zhao, X. and Zhou, H. (2014), “The effects of competitive environment on supply chain
information sharing and performance: an empirical study in China”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 552-569.
Huo, B., Ye, Y., Zhao, X. and Shou, Y. (2016), “The impact of human capital on supply chain integration
and competitive performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 178,
pp. 132-143.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D.P., Hu, J. and Baer, J.C. (2012), “How does human resource management influence
organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 1264-1294.
Jin, Y., Hopkins, M.M. and Wittmer, J.L.S. (2010), “Linking human capital to competitive advantages:
flexibility in a manufacturing firm’s supply chain”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 49
No. 5, pp. 939-963.
Kang, S.-C., Morris, S.S. and Snell, S.A. (2007), “Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and
value creation: extending the human resource architecture”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 236-256.
Kehoe, R.R. and Wright, P.M. (2013), “The impact of high-performance human resource practices on
employees’ attitudes and behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36, pp. 366-391.
Kusi-Sarpong, S., Mubarik, M.S., Khan, S.A., Brown, S. and Mubarak, M.F. (2022), “Intellectual capital,
blockchain-driven supply chain and sustainable production: role of supply chain mapping”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 175, p. 121331.
Lansitiand, M. and Levien, R. (2006), “The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business
ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability”, Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol. 20, pp. 88-90.
Laursen, K. and Foss, N. (2003), “New human resource management practices, complementarities and
the impact on innovation performance”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 243-263.
Lazzarotti, V., Manzini, R. and Pellegrini, L. (2015), “Is your open-innovation successful? The mediating
role of a firm’s organizational and social context”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 26 No. 19, pp. 2453-2485.
Li, Y., Wang, M., Jaarsveld, D.D.V., Lee, G.K. and Ma, D.G. (2017), “From employee-experienced high-
involvement work system to innovation: an emergence-based human resource management
framework”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 2000-2019.
Lichtenthaler, U. and Lichtenthaler, E. (2009), “A capability-based framework for open innovation:
complementing absorptive capacity”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 8,
pp. 1315-1338.
Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K.K., Gu, J. and Chen, H. (2010), “The role of institutional pressures and
organizational culture in the firm’s intention to adopt internet-enabled supply chain
management systems”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 372-384.
Michalski, M., Montes-Botella, J.-L. and Narasimhan, R. (2018), “The impact of asymmetry on
performance in different collaboration and integration environments in supply chain
management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 33-49.
Mortara, L. and Minshall, T. (2011), “How do large multinational companies implement open
innovation?”, Technovation, Vol. 31 Nos 10/11, pp. 586-597.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational Strategic
advantage”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
human
Nedon, V. (2015), Open Innovation in R&D Departments: An Analysis of Employees’ Intention to
Exchange Knowledge in OI-Projects, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Springer Gabler, resource
Wiesbaden. management
Newbert, S.L. (2007), “Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: an assessment and
suggestions for future research”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 121-146.
Ogink, R.H.A.J., Goossen, M.C., Romme, A.G.L. and Akkermans, H. (2023), “Mechanisms in open
innovation: a review and synthesis of the literature”, Technovation, Vol. 119, p. 102621.
Paauwe, J. (2009), “HRM and performance: achievements, methodological issues and prospects”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 129-142.
Parra-Requena, G., Ruiz-Ortega, M.J., GARCíA-Villaverde, P.M. and Rodrigo-ALARCoN, J. (2015), “The
mediating role of knowledge acquisition on the relationship between external social capital and
innovativeness”, European Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 149-169.
Podmetina, D., Volchek, D., Dąbrowska, J. and Fiegenbaum, I. (2013), “Human resource practices and
open innovation”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 6.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Popa, S., Soto-Acosta, P. and Martinez-Conesa, I. (2017), “Antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of
innovation climate and open innovation: an empirical study in SMEs”, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, Vol. 118, pp. 134-142.
Rajaguru, R. and Matanda, M.J. (2013), “Effects of interorganizational compatibility on supply chain
capabilities: exploring the mediating role of inter-organizational information systems”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 620-632.
Randhawa, K., Wilden, R. and Hohberger, J. (2016), “A bibliometric review of open innovation:
setting a research agenda”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 33 No. 6,
pp. 750-772.
Rauter, R., Globocnik, D. and Perl-Vorbach, E. (2019), “Open innovation and its effects on economic and
sustainability innovation performance”, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 226-233.
Reed, K.K., Lubatkin, M. and Srinivasan, N. (2006), “Proposing and testing an intellectual capital-based
view of the firm”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 867-893.
Sanders, K. and Yang, H. (2016), “The HRM process approach: the influence of employees’ attribution to
explain the HRM-performance relationship”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 55 No. 2,
pp. 201-217.
Shipton, H., Sparrow, P., Budhwar, P. and Brown, A. (2017), “HRM and innovation: looking across
levels”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 246-263.
Shou, Y., Hu, W. and Xu, Y. (2018), “Exploring the role of intellectual capital in supply chain intelligence
integration”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 118 No. 5, pp. 1018-1032.
Singh, S.K., Gupta, S., Busso, D. and Kamboj, S. (2021), “Top management knowledge value, knowledge
sharing practices, open innovation and organizational performance”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 128, pp. 788-798.
Sokolov, D. and Zavyalova, E. (2021), “Human resource management systems and intellectual capital: is
the relationship universal in knowledge-intensive firms?”, International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 683-701.
Song, S., Shi, X. and Song, G. (2019), “Supply chain integration in Omni-channel retailing: a human
resource management perspective”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 101-121.
CMS Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B. and Knockaert, M. (2011), “Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound
open innovation in traditional industries”, Technovation, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 10-21.
Sun, L.-Y., Aryee, S. and Law, K.S. (2007), “High-performance human resource practices, citizenship
behavior, and organizational performance: a relational perspective”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 558-577.
Swink, M., Narasimhan, R. and Wang, C. (2007), “Managing beyond the factory walls: effects of four
types of strategic integration on manufacturing plant performance”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 148-164.
Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13, pp. 1319-1350.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Turkulainen, V., Roh, J., Whipple, J.M. and Swink, M. (2017), “Managing internal supply chain
integration: integration mechanisms and requirements”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 38
No. 4, pp. 290-309.
Urbinati, A., Landoni, P., Cococcioni, F. and Giudici, L.D. (2020), “Stakeholder management in open
innovation projects: a multiple case study analysis”, European Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 1595-1624.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 171-180.
West, J. and Bogers, M. (2014), “Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on open
innovation”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 814-831.
West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Chesbrough, H. (2014), “Open innovation: the next decade
introduction”, Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 805-811.
Wikhamn, B.R., Styhre, A. and Styhre, A. (2023), “HRM work and open innovation: evidence from a
case study”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 34 No. 10,
pp. 1940-1972.
Wright, P., Wright, B. and Snell, S. (2001), “Human resources and the resource based view of the firm”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 701-721.
Yin, Y., Wang, Y. and Lu, Y. (2019), “Antecedents and outcomes of employee empowerment practices: a
theoretical extension with empirical evidence”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 564-584.
Youndt, M.A., Subramaniam, M. and Snell, S.A. (2004), “Intellectual capital profiles: an examination of
investments and returns”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 335-361.
Zhu, Q., Krikke, H. and Caniels, M.C.J. (2018), “Supply chain integration: value creation through
managing inter-organizational learning”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 211-229.
Zubielqui, G.C.D., Fryges, H. and Jones, J. (2019), “Social media, open innovation and HRM: implications
for performance”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 144, pp. 334-347.

Corresponding author
Rongrong Shi can be contacted at: srr1229@163.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com