Drivers of global innovation

Asia has emerged as a major driver of global innovation. American, European and Japanese demands to protect Intellectual Property now appear outdated. And even the notion that competition works as a driver of innovation may well be obsolete in an interlinked global economy (with or without Trump’s US). The question is whether co-innovation be the 21st century’s industrial revolution?

Innovation is a driver of growth. For this reason, the protection of intellectual property has been of utmost importance. Only where know-how is properly protected can there be motivation to invest time, money and ideas in research and development.

Asia’s share of global R&D is expected to reach about 40 percent in 2017 and, following in Japan’s footsteps, China is fuelling much of this change. Today, there is an abundance of patent applications being made by Chinese companies – and while some of them may be aiming to secure tactical advantages, others stand for actual and substantial innovation. In this new line-up, there is no clear demarcation between holders of intellectual property and violators – at least not along geographical frontiers. For this reason, the claim of European business in discussion with Asian partners for the last couple of years has been: Competition is a driver for innovation – and competition should be fair and transparent.

Today, cycles of innovation have accelerated at breath-taking pace. As a result, global businesses are entering into a new dimension when it comes to innovation: the discussion today is about co-innovation – in partnership with customers all over the world, especially in Asia-Pacific, combining a strong customer base with impressive R&D capabilities.

(total patent registrations (cumulative) in thousands)

2009        2014

China    315928

USA      456579

Europe   323346

Japan     349326

This implies a more radical change than just launching new corporate R&D centers. The discussion is about a truly joint innovation process – beyond corporate border lines and corporate control of intellectual property. Some say this is a risky road to take as it implies sharing knowledge and property of such knowledge with partners, who have their own corporate agendas. Socializing knowledge would, the argument goes, turn out to be corporate suicide. Others see co-innovation as the process of choice for the future. Not just by making virtue out of a necessity, but instead in seeing that IPR protection has turned out to be an illusion. Quick and tailor-made innovation is a must – not just for companies to make profit, but for societies all over the world to tackle the increasing challenges and make use of new technologies to safeguard livelihoods.

Will co-innovation drive an industrial revolution? One thing is certain: This is a topic that will create a heated debate.