Innovation Survey on
Chinese Industrial Enterprises
Department of Social, Sciences and Technology Statistics
National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS)
December 2010, Nepal
The presentation outline:






The background and motivation for carrying out the first
innovation survey in China
The Structure of the Chinese questionnaire
The similarities and differences between Chinese
questionnaire and CIS questionnaire
The Survey Methodology
The preliminary results from the first innovation of China
The concluding remarks and future plan for the
development of innovation survey
Background & motivation
1. Needs from the perspective of policy-making
2. Needs for achieving international comparability through
exchange and mutual learning.
3. Needs for further developing the statistical system of
China
Needs from the perspective of
policy-making
In the Chinese process of building a well-off society in an
all-round way, the economic reform and openness will
remain as crucial development strategies.
Beyond the introduction of advanced foreign technology,
indigenous innovation capacity building will be the focus of
future development strategies when promoting the
openness of the Chinese economy.
Needs from the perspective of
policy-making
On the other hand, improving the enterprise’ innovation
ability is very important to transforming the economic
growth mode and reducing the consumption of resource
and energy.
In this background, the Chinese government declared
the new development strategy in 2006, namely to
transfer China to an innovation-oriented and strong
indigenous innovation capacity.
Needs from the perspective of
policy-making
At the current stage, there are a large number of
innovation policy instruments, which are being
implemented by the Chinese government.
To meet the information needs of such macroeconomic
management and to reflect/measure the effects of these
innovation policies, the S&T statistical agency in China
have an important task.
Needs for achieving international
comparability through exchange and
mutual learning
In recent years, the innovation capacity and activities
of Chinese enterprises have received considerably
attention, from many foreign/ European
governmental agencies and researchers from
universities and research institutes. Some proposals
for research co-operation with the NBS regarding
innovation of enterprises in China have been
developed.
Needs for achieving international
comparability through exchange and
mutual learning
At the same time, China also considers innovative
countries in Europe a target to catch up. Therefore,
it is necessary to carry out international comparative
studies to meet the need for benchmarking with
more advanced innovative countries.
Needs for further developing and
completing the statistical system of
China
In the last two decades, only R&D statistics was
included in the national indicator system. While most
of EU countries have carried out Community
Innovation Survey (CIS) on a regular basis, China
did not have regular innovation survey praxis.
Human resources involved in S&T indicator system
has been also limited.
Needs for further developing and
completing the statistical system of
China
Due to these restraints, it leaves large room for
improvement, in terms of international comparability, in
fields of survey practices, personnel training, data quality,
research methodology and data collection.
Therefore, we would like to take this opportunity when
S&T and innovation are becoming increasingly important
issues, not only for the Chinese government but also for
the international community, in the face of globalization,
to develop the S&T statistics system, and to establish the
regular innovation survey system.
Background & motivation
Based on the above perspectives, according to
the standard /spirit of Oslo manual and CIS4,
with the technical aids from Nordic experts, the
first innovation survey of China in the scope of
industrial enterprise was conducted in 2007.
The structure of the
questionnaire
The survey aims to collect information for the period
2004-2006, regarding the industrial enterprises’
innovation in terms of expenditure, effects and
influencing factors as well as the understanding
(perception) of innovation of the CEOs (at the managing
/decision-making level).
The survey questionnaire is divided into two parts. The
first part is Information on Industrial Enterprises’
Innovation, the second part is the Manager/CEO Survey.
The structure of the
questionnaire
Part 1: Industrial Enterprises’ Innovation
information
S1. General information about the enterprise
S2. Product innovation
S3. Process innovation
S4. Ongoing or abandoned innovation activities
and reasons for abandoning innovation activities
The structure of the
questionnaire
S5. Innovation activities and expenditure
S6. Output of Innovation
S7. Intellectual property rights Protection
The structure of the
questionnaire
Part 2:Manager/CEO Survey Questionnaire
S1.
S2.
S3.
S4.
Information about the manager /CEO
Opinion on the importance of innovation
The effects of product and process innovation
Source of information of innovation
The structure of the
questionnaire
S5. Promoting factors for the success of innovation
S6. Incentive for innovation
S7-S8. Effect of various government policies on
innovation
S9. Future innovation strategy
The similarities and differences between
Chinese questionnaire and CIS questionnaire
The structure presented above shows considerable
similarities between the Chinese survey questionnaire
and the CIS questionnaire.
In briefly, to a large extent, the Chinese questionnaire
covers the same topics and the same questions as in the
CIS questionnaire.
The similarities and differences between
Chinese questionnaire and CIS questionnaire
On the other hand, there are also some differences,
which can be summarised as follows :
1. The questionnaire is divided into two parts. the first
part is supposed to be completed jointly by units of S&T
management, coordination and accounting, organised by
the responsible for innovation activities of the enterprise.
The second part is expected to be completed by the
manager/CEO who is in charge/responsible for decision
making concerning innovation activities of the enterprise.
The similarities and differences between
Chinese questionnaire and CIS questionnaire
2. In the CEO questionnaire, there are a
number of China-specific questions, such
as promoting factors, incentive
instruments, effects of various
government policies and enterprises’
future innovation strategy. They are of
great policy interest.
The similarities and differences between
Chinese questionnaire and CIS questionnaire
3.The key concepts and definitions are
slightly different, such as product
innovation, process innovation and new
product, etc. (due to the article space
limitations, the concrete differences no
longer are pointed out in this report. If
you are interested in these issues, please
contact with us)
The similarities and differences between
Chinese questionnaire and CIS questionnaire
In a word, there are some modifications in the
Chinese innovation survey questionnaire
compared to the CIS questions, which are
motivated by the need to maintain the
international comparability as well as the need
to reflect the China-specific context.
The survey methodology
1.
The time period
The innovation survey of China covers
the period 2004-2006, whereas the CIS4
covers the observation period 2002-2004.
The survey methodology
2. The survey object: Industrial enterprises

Large and Medium-sized industrial Enterprises (LMEs)

Small-sized industrial enterprises with annual turnover above
5 million RMB
Classification of Large, Medium and Small Enterprises
Large
Employment (Person)
2000+
Turnover (Million Yuan)
300+
Total assets (Million Yuan) 400+
Medium
Small
300-2000
30-300
40-400
3003040-
Firms are classified as large if all three criteria in column (1) are
satisfied. The remaining firms are classified as medium if all three
lower bounds in column (2) are satisfied. Otherwise they are
classified as small
The Survey methodology
2. The survey method

Census survey on LMEs

Sample survey on small-sized enterprises
3. Coverage of the survey

Totally 67,242 LMEs and small enterprises were
included

The sample size of small-sized enterprises drawn by
NBS were 42,600 and the sampling ratio was equal to
16.3%

the response rate was 82%
The Survey methodology

The survey is organized by the department of
Social, Science and Technology statistics of NBS.
It is responsible for organisation and leadership,
and undertakes the specific statistics work,
including the questionnaire and guideline design,
Provincial and Municipal statistician training,
data processing and publishing, and so on.
Provincial and Municipal Bureaus of statistics are
responsible for enterprises’ personnel training,
collecting and processing data, submitting the
data to NBS, etc. The questionnaires are filled
out by the enterprises’ respondents after being
trained and reading the guideline.
The survey results








Innovation activity during 2004-2006.
Who developed product and process innovations?
Innovation expenditures in 2006.
Information source of innovation during 2004-2006.
Effects of innovations.
Share of revenue in 2006 from product innovations.
Promoting factors for success of innovations.
Hampering factors for innovations.
Innovation activity during 2004-2006





28.8 % of surveyed enterprises conducted innovation
activity
of which:
19.9% introduced both product and process innovations.
3.6% introduced product innovations only.
4.4% process innovations only.
0.9% had ongoing or abandoned innovation activity.
Innovation activity 2004-2006
0.9
19.9
Enterprises without
innovation activity
Product innovations
only
Process innovations
only
Product and process
innovations
Ongoing/abandoned
innovation
4.4
3.6
71.2
Innovation activity by size & industry
(Share of enterprises with innovation activities, %)
Size
All
Mining
Manufacturing
Electricity, Gas and
Water
Large
83.5
72.3
85.6
70.8
Medium
55.9
30.5
58.7
31.6
Small
25.2
8.8
27.6
10.5
All
28.8
12.2
30.0
15.7
Large enterprises were most likely to conduct innovation activity
Innovation activity in LMEs by ownership
(Share of LMEs with innovation activities, %)
Ownership
Share
Domestic
61.8
Overseas from Hong Kong, Macao & Taiwan
49.6
Foreign
53.0
All
58.2
Who developed innovations?
(Share of different forms of conducting innovation, %)
80
70
76.3
Own enterprise
/enterprise group
69.9
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
17.2
17.9
12.1
6.5
Product
innovation
Together with other
enterprise or
institute or
University
By others
Process
innovation
Product and process innovations were mostly developed by the enterprise
or enterprise group . 76.3% of product innovations and 69.9% of process
innovations respectively.
A larger share of process innovations were developed by others compared
to product innovations.
Who developed innovations in LMEs ?
By ownership (product innovation,%)
Ownership
Itself
Together
Other
Domestic
77.8
17.9
4.3
Overseas from Hong Kong, Macao &
Taiwan
84.2
11.7
4.1
Foreign
82.6
12.7
4.7
All
79.6
16.1
4.3
Who developed innovations in LMEs ?
By ownership (process innovation,%)
Ownership
Itself
Together
Other
Domestic
67.5
17.6
14.9
Overseas from Hong Kong, Macao &
Taiwan
75.4
11.5
13.1
Foreign
75.8
10.7
13.5
All
70.0
15.7
14.4
Innovation expenditures 2006
(Share in total expenditure, %)
Intramural R&D
8.1
32.4
55.8
3.6
Extramural R&D
Acquisition of
machinery,
equipment and
software
Acquisition of
other external
knowledge
The total expenditure amounted to 582.1 billion RMB, up
by 23.1 percent over the previous year, it accounted for
1.86 percent of turnover.
Innovation expenditures in LMEs, 2006
By ownership
Innovation expenditures
(Billion RMB)
Intramural R&D
(%)
Extramural R&D
(%)
Acquisition of machinery,
equipment and software (%)
Acquisition of other external
knowledge
(%)
Domestic
Overseas
Foreign
355.48
32.51
84.34
33.6
46.2
36.8
3.3
3.0
5.9
57.1
42.6
41.9
6.0
8.2
15.4
Information source for innovation
Degree of importance
High
All
(%)
LMES
(%)
Own
33.1
35.6
Enterprise group
16.4
26.3
Clients and Customers
58.6
63.0
Suppliers
21.6
21.0
Competitors
29.8
33.0
Technology market & consulting
org.
17.0
20.2
Information source for innovation
Degree of importance
High
Industrial associations
Universities
Independent Institutions
Governmental authorities
Trade fairs, exhibitions
S&T literature
Internet information
All
(%)
14.7
8.9
12.4
12.3
26.0
11.9
17.5
LMES
(%)
19.0
11.8
17.1
15.0
27.4
14.4
17.3
Effect of innovation
Degree of importance
High
All
(%)
LMEs
(%)
54.1
56.6
61.5
62.7
58.9
64.1
Product oriented effects
1. Increased range of goods
2. Improved quality of goods
3. Entered new markets or
increased market share
Effect of innovation
Degree of importance
High
Process oriented effects
4. Improved flexibility of production
5. Increased capacity of production
6. Reduced labour costs per unit
output
All
(%)
LMEs
(%)
38.3
56.3
41.1
60.0
37.9
41.4
Effect of innovation
Degree of importance
High
All
(%)
LMEs
(%)
35.4
36.1
41.5
42.5
39.4
43.5
42.3
45.0
Process oriented effects
7. Reduced materials per unit
output
8. Reduced energy per unit output
9. Reduced environmental
impacts
10. Improved working conditions
and enhanced safety
Effect of innovation in LMEs
by Ownership
Degree of importance
high
Domestic
(%)
Overseas
(%)
Foreign
(%)
61.5
63.3
60.3
59.7
62.7
63.2
64.5
62.6
63.9
Product oriented effects
1. Increased range of goods
2. Improved quality of goods
3. Entered new markets or
increased market share
Effect of innovation in LMEs
by Ownership
Degree of importance
high
Domestic
(%)
Overseas
(%)
Foreign
(%)
40.3
42.1
43.6
60.3
58.1
59.9
42.0
39.5
40.4
Product oriented effects
4. Improved flexibility of
production
5. Increased capacity of
production
6. Reduced labour costs per unit
output
Effect of innovation in LMEs
by Ownership
Domestic
(%)
overseas
(%)
Foreign
(%)
7. Reduced materials per unit
42.3
output
8. Reduced energy per unit output 43.9
37.9
38.1
40.8
40.3
9. Reduced environmental
impacts
44.3
40.6
42.3
10. Improved working conditions
and enhanced safety
46.0
41.5
43.8
Process oriented effects
Share of revenue from product innovation

12.7 % of revenue in 2006 came from new
products.

6.8% from new to the market.

5.9% from new to the firm.
Share of revenue from product innovations
( by size & degree of novelty)
Size class
New for
market
New for
firm
Large
10.0
8.6
Medium
6.1
5.0
Small
4.0
3.8
All
6.8
5.9
Share of revenue from product innovations in LMEs
(by Ownership & degree of novelty)
Ownership
New for
market
New for
firm
Domestic
7.2
6.4
Overseas
10.5
5.2
Foreign
10.0
9.4
All
8.2
7.0
Promoting factor for success of innovation
Degree of importance
high
Manager /CEO with innovative
spirit
Sufficient financial support
Highly qualified human resource
Commitment of employees
All
(%)
LMEs
(%)
66.0
72.9
44.8
57.0
41.8
54.3
66.7
46.9
Promoting factor for success of innovation
Degree of importance
high
All
(%)
LMEs
(%)
Incentive instruments
Effective technological strategies &
planning.
Fluent information channels
Reliable partners in innovation cooperation
Favourable governmental support
40.6
44.6
46.9
53.2
40.0
30.2
43.6
34.0
30.8
33.6
Hampering factors for innovation
Degree of importance
high
Immature technology
All
(%)
LME
(%)
37.9
37.4
Mismatch b/w new technology & production capacity
Emergence of newer/better technology or product
27.1
29.1
22.5
33.5
Lack of technical personnel or brain drain
28.0
23.8
Hampering factors for innovation
Degree of importance
high
Lack of funds during process of industrialisation
All
(%)
LME
(%)
34.1
25.8
Reduction of market demand
Counterfeiting or import competition
40.3
12.3
53.0
12.5
Policy or regulation constraints
10.9
13.3
The concluding remarks and future plan for the
development of Innovation survey

The first innovation survey of China can be
considered a great step forward
accomplished by the NBS in a close cooperation with its Nordic partners. It is a
promising start for an enlarged and
deepened capacity building in the S&T
indicator system of China and its cooperation with a broad international
community.
The concluding remarks and future plan for the
development of Innovation survey

The Survey has also provided us with rich
information on the China-specific economic and
social context and greatly enhanced our
understanding of the innovation environment, in
which enterprises in China are operating.
Although there is no obvious evidence of the use
of these results for policy making, the related
government departments hope that NBS of
China continues to conduct this survey in the
future. It was well known that it is a valuable
survey.
The concluding remarks and future plan for the
development of Innovation survey

With respect to the coordination with the R&D
survey, you can find that the R&D expenditures
of large- and medium sized enterprises in 2006
were approximately equal in both surveys,
because we used the data of R&D survey in
innovation survey. In fact, the R&D expenditure
in innovation survey is larger than it in the R&D
survey. We believe that the data quality of R&D
survey is higher because the R&D survey was
conducted every year.
The concluding remarks and future plan for the
development of Innovation survey

However, we can also see that the first
innovation survey of China leaves large
room for improvement, in terms of
international comparability regarding
survey practices and methodology. More
specifically, departing from the current
achievement, the NBS plans to continue
their work on the innovation survey in the
following directions:
The concluding remarks and future plan for the
development of Innovation survey
To set up a regular innovation survey system and to
enlarge the scope of the Survey, covering enterprises
in service sector.
To increase types of innovation in the Survey, including
organisational and marketing innovation.
To make the coverage and time point for survey as
consistent as possible with the CIS.
Acknowledgements
Many helps was provided from international experts during our first
innovation survey:
Mrs Birgitta Mannfelt at Statistics Sweden and Mr. Mikael Åkerblom
at Statistics Finland provided us many technical assistances for the
questionnaire design.
Ms. Maria Säfström (Statistics Sweden) and Ms.Viveca Koch
(Statistics Sweden) provided us the excellent training course.
Dr. Nannan Lundin (Research Institutes of Industrial Economics,
IFN) provided considerable assistance in co-coordinating the
cooperation project.
we deeply appreciate their helps and hope that more international
experts can cooperate with us on our S&T statistics including
innovation survey.
Many thanks !