10940 
8024This paper reviews the research results of the legitimacy of disruptive innovation and future research directions. Firstly, it analyzes the realistic background and theoretical significance of the emergence of the perspective of innovation legitimacy evaluators, reviews the contents and characteristics of the value conflicts of innovation stakeholders from the perspective, and summarizes the theoretical connotation of disruptive innovative legitimacy based on the value conflicts of stakeholders. Secondly, it summarizes the challenges of the legitimacy of disruptive innovation, including the conflicts about stakeholders’ material interests, spiritual values and moral norms, and analyzes the driving mechanism, market selection mechanism and diffusion mechanism of the dynamic evolution of disruptive innovation legitimacy. Disruptive innovation stakeholders’ material interest conflict challenges include preference value conflicts, market value conflicts, etc. Spiritual value conflict challenges include emotional value conflicts, trust value conflicts, etc. Moral norm conflict challenges include institutional norm conflicts, moral ethics conflicts and cultural value conflicts, etc. Moreover, the interactive relationship between disruptive innovation stakeholders’ value conflicts and entrepreneurs’ strategic actions is the dynamic evolutionary driving mechanism of disruptive innovation legitimacy. Disruptive innovation stakeholders’ value conflicts and entrepreneurs’ market choices form the dynamic evolutionary market selection mechanism of disruptive innovation legitimacy. When disruptive innovation gains a foothold in the low-end or high-end market, it will lead to a broader range of stakeholders’ value conflicts and entrepreneurs’ strategic actions, forming the diffusion mechanism of disruptive innovation legitimacy. Thirdly, it puts forward the theoretical framework of disruptive innovation legitimacy and entrepreneurs’ strategic actions based on the perspective of stakeholders’ value conflicts. The unique strategic orientation of disruptive innovation legitimacy leads to the change of institutional logic, and the value orientation of disruptive innovation entrepreneurs affects the orientation of innovation market values and then the strategic actions of entrepreneurs. The heterogeneity of evaluators’ value judgment about disruptive innovation is manifested in stakeholders’ value conflicts. Stakeholders’ value conflicts are conducive to the discovery of entrepreneurs’ innovative values and guide entrepreneurs’ strategic actions. The interactive relationship between entrepreneurs’ strategic actions and stakeholders’ value conflicts forms the dynamic evolution driving mechanism, market selection mechanism and diffusion mechanism of disruptive innovation legitimacy. Therefore, in the process of the dynamic evolution of disruptive innovation legitimacy, that is, in the process of stakeholders’ value conflicts and co-evolution of disruptive innovation, there is inherent correlation between disruptive innovation legitimacy and entrepreneurs’ strategic actions, thus forming the theoretical analyzing framework of disruptive innovation legitimacy and entrepreneurs’ strategic actions. Finally, this paper points out the problems that need to be solved and the future research directions of the disruptive innovation legitimacy theory.
/ Journals / Foreign Economics & Management
Foreign Economics & Management
LiZengquan, Editor-in-Chief
ZhengChunrong, Vice Executive Editor-in-Chief
YinHuifang HeXiaogang LiuJianguo, Vice Editor-in-Chief
The Legitimacy of Disruptive Innovation and Entrepreneurs’ Strategic Actions: A Literature Review and Prospects
Foreign Economics & Management Vol. 41, Issue 03, pp. 111 - 125,152 (2019) DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2019.03.008
Summary
References
Summary
[1] Liu Yun, Greg W G. The Research on Organizational Legitimacy from the Evaluator Perspective: Legitimacy Judgement[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2017, (5):73-84，114.
[2] Lu Jiangyong, Rong Ke, Wang Meng. How to succeed in the high-end about Didi and Uber–the legitimation of the network-car and the follow-up challenges[J]. Tsinghua Business Review, 2016, (11):24-35.
[3] Adner R, Snow D. Old technology responses to new technology threats: Demand heterogeneity and technology retreats[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2010, 19(5): 1655-1675.
[4] Adner R, Zemsky P. Disruptive technologies and the emergence of competition[J]. The RAND Journal of Economics, 2005, 36(2): 229-254.
[5] Alexy O, George G. Category divergence, straddling, and currency: Open innovation and the legitimation of illegitimate categories[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2013, 50(2): 173-203.
[6] Binz C, Harris-Lovett S, Kiparsky M, et al. The thorny road to technology legitimation — institutional work for potable water reuse in California[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2016, 103: 249-263.
[7] Bitektine A, Haack P. The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2015, 40(1): 49-75.
[8] Bitektine A. Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2011, 36(1): 151-179.
[9] Bunduchi R. Legitimacy-seeking mechanisms in product innovation: A qualitative study[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2017, 34(3): 315-342.
[10] Castellano S, Khelladi I. How French wine producers use open innovation to gain and manage their legitimacy[J]. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2016, 7(1): 155-171.
[11] Chen J, Zhu Z H, Zhang Y T. A study of factors influencing disruptive innovation in Chinese SMEs[J]. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 2017, 25(1): 140-157.
[12] Chesbrough H. Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers[J]. Long Range Planning, 2010, 43(2-3): 354-363.
[13] Geels F W, Verhees B. Cultural legitimacy and framing struggles in innovation journeys: A cultural-performative perspective and a case study of Dutch nuclear energy (1945-1986)[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2011, 78(6): 910-930.
[14] Govindarajan V, Kopalle P K, Danneels E. The effects of mainstream and emerging customer orientations on radical and disruptive innovations[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2011, 28(S1): 121-132.
[15] Hall J, Matos S V, Martin M J C. Innovation pathways at the Base of the Pyramid: Establishing technological legitimacy through social attributes[J]. Technovation, 2014, 34(5-6): 284-294.
[16] Hall J K, Martin M J C. Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innovation value-added chain: A framework for evaluating radical technology development[J]. R&D Management, 2005, 35(3): 273-284.
[17] Harrison J S, Wicks A C. Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance[J]. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2013, 23(1): 97-124.
[18] Hooge S, Dalmasso C. Breakthrough R&D stakeholders: The challenges of legitimacy in highly uncertain projects[J]. Project Management Journal, 2015, 46(6): 54-73.
[19] Hynes N, Elwell A D. The role of inter-organizational networks in enabling or delaying disruptive innovation: A case study of mVoIP[J]. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 2016, 31(6): 722-731.
[20] Jiao H, Zhao G Z. When will employees embrace managers' technological innovations? The mediating effects of employees' perceptions of fairness on their willingness to accept change and its legitimacy[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2014, 31(4): 780-798.
[21] Jorda-Capdevila D, Rodríguez-Labajos B, Bardina M. An integrative modelling approach for linking environmental flow management, ecosystem service provision and inter-stakeholder conflict[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2016, 79: 22-34.
[22] Karimi J, Walter Z. Corporate entrepreneurship, disruptive business model innovation adoption, and its performance: The case of the newspaper industry[J]. Long Range Planning, 2016, 49(3): 342-360.
[23] Klenner P, Hüsig S, Dowling M. Ex-ante evaluation of disruptive susceptibility in established value networks—When are markets ready for disruptive innovations?[J]. Research Policy, 2013, 42(4): 914-927.
[24] Kugler T, Kausel E E, Kocher M G. Are groups more rational than individuals? A review of interactive decision making in groups[J]. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2012, 3(4): 471-482.
[25] Lankoski L, Smith N C, van Wassenhove L. Stakeholder judgments of value[J]. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2016, 26(2): 227-256.
[26] Lim D J, Anderson T R. Technology trajectory mapping using data envelopment analysis: The ex ante use of disruptive innovation theory on flat panel technologies[J]. R&D Management, 2016, 46(5): 815-830.
[27] Miller K, McAdam M, McAdam R. The changing university business model: A stakeholder perspective[J]. R&D Management, 2014, 44(3): 265-287.
[28] Mittlefehldt S. Seeing forests as fuel: How conflicting narratives have shaped woody biomass energy development in the United States since the 1970s[J]. Energy Research & Social Science, 2016, 14: 13-21.
[29] Navis C, Glynn M A. Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2011, 36(3): 479-499.
[30] Osiyevskyy O, Dewald J. Explorative versus exploitative business model change: The cognitive antecedents of firm‐level responses to disruptive innovation[J]. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2015, 9(1): 58-78.
[31] Parry M E, Kawakami T. The encroachment speed of potentially disruptive innovations with indirect network externalities: The case of E-readers[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2017, 34(2): 141-158.
[32] Peeters C, Massini S, Lewin A Y. Sources of variation in the efficiency of adopting management innovation: The role of absorptive capacity routines, managerial attention and organizational legitimacy[J]. Organization Studies, 2014, 35(9): 1343-1371.
[33] Pérez L, Dos Santos Paulino V, Cambra-Fierro J. Taking advantage of disruptive innovation through changes in value networks: Insights from the space industry[J]. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 2017, 22(2): 97-106.
[34] Ravesteijn W, He J, Chen C H. Responsible innovation and stakeholder management in infrastructures: The Nansha Port Railway Project[J]. Ocean & Coastal Management, 2014, 100: 1-9.
[35] Ray S, Ray P K. Product innovation for the people's car in an emerging economy[J]. Technovation, 2011, 31(5-6): 216-227.
[36] Roy R. Role of relevant lead users of mainstream product in the emergence of disruptive innovation[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2018, 129: 314-322.
[37] Russell A W. Improving legitimacy in nanotechnology policy development through stakeholder and community engagement: Forging new pathways[J]. Review of Policy Research, 2013, 30(5): 566-587.
[38] Scherer A G, Palazzo G, Seidl D. Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2013, 50(2): 259-284.
[39] Schmidt G M, Druehl C T. When is a disruptive innovation disruptive?[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2008, 25(4): 347-369.
[40] Skitka L J, Bauman C W, Lytle B L. Limits on legitimacy: Moral and religious convictions as constraints on deference to authority[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009, 97(4): 567-578.
[41] Sood A, Tellis G J. Demystifying disruption: A new model for understanding and predicting disruptive technologies[J]. Marketing Science, 2011, 30(2): 339-354.
[42] Stremersch S, Lemmens A. Sales growth of new pharmaceuticals across the globe: The role of regulatory regimes[J]. Marketing Science, 2009, 28(4): 690-708.
[43] Suddaby R, Greenwood R. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2005, 50(1): 35-67.
[44] Tellis G J, Stremersch S, Yin E D. The international takeoff of new products: The role of economics, culture, and country innovativeness[J]. Marketing Science, 2003, 22(2): 188-208.
[45] Tost L P. An integrative model of legitimacy judgments[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2011, 36(4): 686-710.
[46] Tripsas M, Gavetti G. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, 21(10-11): 1147-1161.
[47] Tyler T R. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation[J]. Annual Review of Psychology, 2006, 57: 375-400.
[48] Überbacher F. Legitimation of new ventures: A review and research programme[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2014, 51(4): 667-698.
[49] Von Pechmann F, Midler C, Maniak R, et al. Managing systemic and disruptive innovation: Lessons from the Renault Zero Emission Initiative[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2015, 24(3): 677-695.
[50] Voronov M, de Clercq D, Hinings C R. Conformity and distinctiveness in a global institutional framework: The legitimation of Ontario fine wine[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2013,
[51] Wallin A. Building legitimacy for entrepreneurial innovations in health service ecosystem: An institutional approach[J]. What's Ahead in Service Research? New Perspectives for Business and Society, 2016: 76-83.
[52] Wan F, Williamson P J, Yin E D. Antecedents and implications of disruptive innovation: Evidence from China[J]. Technovation, 2015, 39-40: 94-104.
[53] Wood D J. Measuring corporate social performance: A review[J]. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2010, 12(1): 50-84.
[54] Yu D, Hang C C. A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory[J]. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2010, 12(4): 435-452.
[55] Zhang W, White S. Overcoming the liability of newness: Entrepreneurial action and the emergence of China’s private solar photovoltaic firms[J]. Research Policy, 2016, 45(3): 604-617.
[56] Zimmerman M A, Zeitz G J. Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2002, 27(3): 414-431.
Cite this article
Yu Peili, Liu Muyang, Pan Peiyao. The Legitimacy of Disruptive Innovation and Entrepreneurs’ Strategic Actions: A Literature Review and Prospects[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2019, 41(3): 111-125.
Export Citations as:
For
ISSUE COVER
RELATED ARTICLES
