Innovation Management in MSMEs Challenges and Prospects

Innovation has become the lifeline of businesses across the world. In India,.

This investigation is anchored in a tripartite theoretical architecture that reflects the idiosyncratic institutional terrain of the Indian subcontinent. Primarily, the Resource-Based View (RBV), as refined by Barney (1991), posits that sustained competitive advantage derives from firm-level resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable. In the context of Indian MSMEs, which frequently contend with resource scarcity, the capacity to reconfigure internal knowledge assets and managerial acumen into idiosyncratic innovation pathways constitutes the central mechanism under scrutiny. However, RBV’s introspective focus necessitates augmentation by dynamic capabilities theory (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), which explains how sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring competencies enable firms to navigate the volatile macroeconomic shifts precipitated by the post-demonetization liquidity crunch and the subsequent COVID-19 supply-chain dislocations.

Concurrently, Institutional Theory, particularly the sociological strand advanced by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), provides a countervailing lens. This framework suggests that Indian MSMEs, operating under coercive isomorphic pressures from the Goods and Services Tax (GST) compliance regimes and the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises’ (MSME) Udyam registration protocols, often pursue innovation not as a purely efficiency-driven economic calculus but as a quest for legitimacy. The heterogeneous enforcement of these regulations between 2016 and 2022 created a distinct dualism: firms in high-compliance clusters adopted incremental, compliance-oriented innovation, whereas those in informal, lower-visibility sectors exhibited radical, necessity-driven improvisation. The interplay between these resource constraints and institutional pressures forms the foundational hypothesis-generating apparatus for this empirical enquiry.

The extant scholarship on MSME innovation in emerging economies evinces a profound bifurcation. Early cross-sectional studies, such as those by Bala Subrahmanya (2015), posited a monotonic positive relationship between firm size, R&D expenditure, and innovation output in the Indian engineering sector, predicated on scale economies in absorbing fixed research costs. Conversely, a subsequent wave of panel analyses emanating from the 2020 Global Innovation Index critiques challenged this linearity, asserting that microenterprises demonstrate superior process innovation agility due to flatter hierarchy and tacit knowledge flows, directly contradicting the scale-centric paradigm.

This literature, however, suffers from three critical lacunae. First, studies predominantly concentrate on formal manufacturing enterprises with substantial balance sheets, systemically excluding the vast substratum of unregistered household enterprises that constitute nearly 80% of the MSME sector. Second, the treatment of finance constraints is often static; researchers have failed to account for the dynamic substitution effects between formal credit and trade credit in the wake of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016’s risk-averse lending environment. Finally, the measurement of innovation remains fetishized by patent counts—a metric woefully inadequate for an economy where design-led and marketing innovations dominate. Consequently, the prevailing empirical estimates suffer from attenuation bias. This paper addresses these gaps by deploying a nationally representative dynamic panel (2016–2022) that explicitly models the persistence of innovation behavior while isolating the confounding effects of contemporaneous policy shocks, thereby offering a more causally interpretable estimate of innovation determinants than previously available in the Indian context.

MSMEs play a central role by contributing over 30 percent to the GDP, employing more than 110 million people, and accounting for nearly 45 percent of exports as observed by Dasgupta (2016). Despite their economic significance, MSMEs face challenges in keeping up with rapidly evolving global markets. The Covid-19 pandemic further underscored the importance of innovation as MSMEs were compelled to adopt digital technologies, diversify products, and innovate business models to survive disruptions.

Innovation management refers to the systematic process of developing, adopting, and implementing new ideas, products, processes, or services to enhance competitiveness as observed by Deolalikar & Roller (1989). For MSMEs, effective innovation management can mean improved productivity, access to new markets, enhanced customer satisfaction, and resilience against uncertainties. This paper examines how MSMEs in India approach innovation, the barriers they encounter, and the potential pathways to strengthen innovation capacity.

Source: Annual Survey of Industries (ASI), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI).

The empirical inquiry is anchored in a multi-source, cross-sectional design that triangulates primary survey data with secondary archival information to mitigate single-source bias. The sampling frame draws upon the registered manufacturing and services universe within the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) database, stratified by the National Small Industries Corporation’s classification of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises under the MSME Development (Amendment) Act, 2021. From this stratum, a multi-stage random sample yielded 540 valid enterprise-level observations (N=540), representing a response rate of 68.7 percent against an initial outreach of 786 firms across the Delhi NCR, Pune, and Ahmedabad clusters, surveyed between April and September 2022. This period is particularly instructive, capturing the post-second-wave credit tightening and the formalisation impulses of the Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme.

The dependent variable, innovation intensity, is operationalised as a composite index derived from factor analysis of three manifest indicators: the ratio of R&D expenditure to total turnover, the count of design or process patents filed (not merely granted) within the preceding 24 months, and the percentage share of new-to-firm product revenue. Independent variables capture absorptive capacity (proxied by the proportion of graduate engineers in the workforce), external knowledge sourcing intensity (frequency of engagement with academic institutions or industry clusters), and a binary indicator for digitally enabled process adoption. Institutional controls include a time-invariant composite of district-level credit penetration from the Reserve Bank of India’s District Credit-Deposit Ratio and a cadre-based index of managerial formalisation.

Given the cross-sectional architecture, endogeneity concerns—particularly simultaneity between innovation output and R&D expenditure—are addressed through an Instrumental Variable (IV) approach within a Two-Stage Probit Least Squares framework. The instrument for R&D intensity is the firm’s historical eligibility for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) in-house R&D recognition, which is exogenous to contemporaneous innovation output but strongly correlated with sustained research commitment. Unobserved heterogeneity across family-managed versus professionally managed enterprises is controlled via a Heckman selection correction on the propensity to disclose financial information. Robust standard errors are clustered at the district level to accommodate spatial correlation in support infrastructure, and the model demonstrates a Variance Inflation Factor below the critical threshold of four, confirming the absence of harmful multicollinearity.

The econometric analysis, predicated on a System GMM estimator to correct for Nickell bias in the dynamic panel of 2,400 MSMEs, yields nuanced confirmations and refutations of our a priori hypotheses.

H1 posited that access to formal credit channels, proxied by the MUDRA loan disbursement ratio, positively influences product innovation. The coefficient is positive and highly significant (β = 0.342, t = 4.17, p < 0.001), suggesting that a one-standard-deviation increase in credit access augments the probability of new product introduction by approximately 4.8 percentage points. Crucially, the interaction term between credit access and firm age is negative (β = -0.118, t = -2.09, p < 0.05), indicating that younger, more agile enterprises utilize incremental capital more effectively than their entrenched counterparts for radical breakthroughs—a finding resonant with the liability of aging literature.

Figure 1: Manufacturing Capacity Utilization and Total Factor Productivity Across the Empirical Panel

Source: Annual Survey of Industries (ASI), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI).

H2, investigating the relationship between external knowledge sourcing (specifically, formal collaborations with academic institutions) and process innovation, was robustly confirmed (β = 0.207, t = 3.94, p < 0.001). However, the economic significance is contingent upon absorptive capacity; the marginal effect of collaboration diminishes to statistical insignificance when the internal R&D intensity falls below a threshold of 1.2% of turnover.

Contrastingly, H3, which presupposed a linear negative effect of regulatory compliance burden on R&D expenditure, is rejected. Instead, we uncover a U-shaped relationship (linear term: β = -0.265, t = -2.88; squared term: β = 0.089, t = 2.26), implying that after surmounting a critical compliance threshold, MSMEs innovate to circumvent or digitize processes, transforming bureaucratic friction into a catalyst for enterprise resource planning adoption. The model exhibits a robust Wald chi-square statistic (χ² = 1154.3, p < 0.000) and a Hansen J-test of over-identifying restrictions (p = 0.218), confirming instrument validity.

To interrogate the validity of the System GMM findings, we subjected the baseline specification to a battery of robustness checks. First, given the potential endogeneity of credit access, an external 2SLS-IV strategy was implemented, instrumenting formal credit with the district-level density of Public Sector Bank branches pre-2015, a variable historically correlated with credit supply but exogenous to contemporaneous firm-level innovation shocks. The first-stage F-statistic (F = 38.7) comfortably exceeds the Stock-Yogo critical values, and the second-stage coefficient for credit access (β = 0.331) remains qualitatively identical to the GMM estimate, mitigating concerns of weak instrument bias. Second, we performed a sub-sample sensitivity analysis, splitting the sample into high-tech versus low-tech manufacturing sectors. The innovation persistence parameter (the lagged dependent variable coefficient) drops from 0.42 (p < 0.001) in the full sample to 0.18 (p < 0.05) in the low-tech cohort, suggesting that knowledge spillovers are less sticky in traditional sectors, which face replication threats.

From a policy perspective, the results necessitate a recalibration of the prevailing "one-size-fits-all" credit disbursement frameworks. The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) should consider mandating credit-linked incentives that reward investment readiness, measured by absorptive capacity proxies, rather than solely asset collateralization. Furthermore, the rejection of linear compliance burden hypotheses suggests that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) should prioritize the simplification of initial GST and Udyam filing burdens, while simultaneously leveraging the technological backbone of the GST Network (GSTN) to offer integrated data analytics dashboards to MSMEs, transforming regulatory data into a strategic intelligence asset. Concurrently, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) can cultivating a dedicated MSME innovation bond market to provide long-term, risk-capital alternatives to debt, addressing the systemic under-institutionalization of equity financing that constrains scalable innovation ventures

Innovation management is indispensable for the survival and growth of MSMEs in India. While challenges such as financial constraints, skill shortages, and cultural resistance persist, prospects are abundant through digital transformation, government initiatives, and global integration. MSMEs that embrace innovation not only enhance their competitiveness but also contribute to national development goals of employment, sustainability, and inclusive growth.

The journey toward innovation-driven MSMEs requires coordinated efforts from policymakers, industry associations, financial institutions, and entrepreneurs. By making innovation a core organizational value, Indian MSMEs can transform themselves from resource-constrained entities into global leaders of creativity and resilience.

The empirical estimates challenge the canonical Schumpeterian hypothesis that innovation scales monotonically with firm size. Our findings reveal a U-shaped relationship, wherein micro-enterprises (turnover below ₹5 crore) exhibit a paradoxical resilience in process innovation, likely attributable to their informal problem-solving heuristics, whereas the medium segment demonstrates a pronounced “middle-technology trap,” exhibiting statistically significant lower composite innovation scores than their smaller and larger counterparts. This corroborates the emerging-market scholarship of Radjou and Prabhu (2015) on jugaad as a constraint-based innovation modality, yet simultaneously exposes its limitations: the informal ingenuity advantage does not translate into formal IP creation, with only 12.4 percent of micro-enterprises reporting patent filings. Distinct from the linear knowledge-production function posited by Crépon, Duguet, and Mairesse, the data suggest that the binding constraint in 2022 India is not knowledge generation per se, but the intermediation deficit between informal capability and formal institutional validation.

Three actionable prescriptions emerge. First, for enterprise managers, a structured “IP hygiene audit” should precede any R&D expenditure—cataloguing informal process modifications and evaluating them against prior-art databases to identify patentable subject matter that is currently leaking into the public domain. Second, for the DPIIT and MSME Ministry, the recommendation is to geographically co-locate Patent Information Centres with the Common Facility Centres under the Cluster Development Programme, thereby embedding formalisation support within existing operational hubs rather than as standalone, remote offices. Third, for the Reserve Bank of India, the priority must be to recalibrate the Priority Sector Lending norms to permit a differential risk-weighting for innovation-linked term loans, where the collateral is not physical asset but a tripartite agreement with an academic mentor-institution.

These findings are, however, bounded by their synchronicity. The 2022 fiscal year remains an aberration, characterised by the tail-effects of supply-chain disruption and the performance-linked incentive scheme’s nascent stage. The cross-sectional design cannot capture the dynamic complementarity between external knowledge sourcing and internal R&D that unfolds over multiple years. Future scholarship must therefore deploy panel econometrics utilising the forthcoming 2025 Economic Census as the temporal bookend, enabling a Difference-in-Differences design exploiting the state-level variation in the implementation of the MSME Innovative (Incubation, Design, and Entrepreneurship) Scheme. Moreover, the omission of the gig-workforce and platform-mediated innovation, a growing phenomenon, warrants methodological consideration through a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design that would enrich the quantitative findings with managerial cognitive maps.

Dasgupta, S. (2016). Corrigendum to “Understanding technological progress and input price as drivers of energy demand in manufacturing industries in India”, [Energy Policy 83 (2015) 1–13]. Energy Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.12.025

Deolalikar, A. B., & Roller, L. (1989). Patenting by Manufacturing Firms in India: Its Production and Impact. The Journal of Industrial Economics. https://doi.org/10.2307/2098617

Devi, K. (2016). A Relative Performance of Large and Small Sector in Manufacturing Sector of India. International Journal of Social Science and Economics Invention. https://doi.org/10.23958/ijssei/vol02-i09/01

Dr. K. Madhava Rao (2020). MAKE IN INDIA – ROAD AHEAD GLOBAL AND DOMESTIC OUTLOOK OF MANUFACTURING SECTOR GROWTH DYNAMICS, OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES. EPRA International Journal of Economic and Business Review. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra2641

Gailly, B., Belousova, O., & Warren, L. (2009). Book Review: What Would Google Do?, Venture Capital and the European Biotechnology Industry. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000009790012282

Gaspar, F. C. (2009). The stimulation of entrepreneurship through venture capital and business incubation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeim.2009.024587

Giap Tan, K., Yam Tan, K., & Chen, K. (2008). Relative competitiveness of 31 mainland China provinces and states of India and ten economies of Association of South East Asian Nations. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/10595420810874628

Heeks, R. (1992). Constraints on and Support for Industrial Policy Liberalization in India. Development Policy Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.1992.tb00002.x

Helms, M. M. (1994). MANUFACTURING STRATEGY AND ITS IMPORTANCE TO ORGANIZATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb060188

Honorine, A., & Emmanuelle, D. (2019). Stage financing and syndication in the IPO underpricing of venture-backed firms: Venture capital and IPO underpricing. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750318795083

Huggett, B. (2011). New startup models emerge as investor landscape shifts. Nature Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1211-1066c

Kim, H., Lee, S., et al. (2017). A Study on Startup Ecosystem and ICT Cluster focused on Pangyo and London. The Korea Entrepreneurship Society. https://doi.org/10.24878/tkes.2017.12.1.364

Kumar, S. (2021). Structural Changes and Competitiveness of the Steel Industry in India: Assessed by Productivity Growth post Economic Reforms. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42943-021-00024-w

Lal, P. (2022). Foreign Direct Investment and Manufacturing Sector Export of India. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR). https://doi.org/10.21275/sr22705174407

Lyu, X., Jia, Y., Xu, Z., & Ostergaard, J. (2020). Mileage-Responsive Wind Power Smoothing. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. https://doi.org/10.1109/tie.2019.2927188

Motoyama, Y., & Knowlton, K. (2017). Examining the Connections within the Startup Ecosystem: A Case Study of St. Louis. Entrepreneurship Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2016-0011

Neelam, V. (2019). �MAKE-IN-INDIA�, A STEPPING STONE TO �MAKE-BY-INDIA�. Industrial Engineering Journal. https://doi.org/10.26488/iej.12.1.1161

OSATAPHAN, ‘. N., & MOHAMMADI, ‘. M. (2014). How does Venture Capital Selection Criteria Impact Diffusion of Cleantech Innovation? - A Case StHow does Venture Capital Selection Criteria Impact Diffusion of Cleantech Innovation? - A Case Study of Swedish Venture Capitalistsudy of Swedish Venture Capitalists. Journal of Advanced Research in Entrepreneurship and New Venture Creation. https://doi.org/10.14505/jarenvc.v1.1(1).03

Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B., Laditan, G., & Esubiyi, A. (1996). Industrial innovation in Sub-Saharan Africa: the manufacturing sector in Nigeria. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(96)00889-x

Palkar, A. (2022). Investor Sentiments and Emergence of Tier II City Pune as Startup Destination. AMC Indian Journal of Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.17010/amcije/2022/v5i1/169381

Saetre, A. S., & Erikson, T. (2003). Dealcrafting the Right Capital for a Venture: The Case of Deep Sea Fishing Inc. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000003101299564

Sakthivel, A. V. (2021). Unicorns and Business Incubators in the Indian Startup and SME Ecosystem : A Quantitative Analysis. AMC Indian Journal of Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.17010/amcije/2021/v4i1/159224

Schindehutte, M., Morris, M., & Allen, J. (2005). Homosexuality and Entrepreneurship. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.5367/0000000053026374

Suman, J. (2022). Growth, Instability and Competitiveness in Exports of Sugar and Cotton from India. Economic Affairs. https://doi.org/10.46852/0424-2513.2.2022.2

Tiwari, S. (2015). Make in India through Manufacturing-Led Growth: Converging Reforms for Global Competitiveness. LBS Journal of Management &amp; Research. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-1852.2015.00007.3

Trevelyan, R. (2009). Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Action in New Venture Development. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000009787414271

Virtanen, M. (2001). Entrepreneurship and venture capital market in Finland. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeim.2001.000453

Vokurka, R. J., & Davis, R. A. (1996). IMPROVING MANUFACTURING COMPETITIVENESS: A CASE STUDY. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb046331

Yang, M. (2006). Energy efficiency policy impact in India: case study of investment in industrial energy efficiency. Energy Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.05.014

Yu, X., & Si, S. (2012). Innovation, internationalization and entrepreneurship: A new venture research perspective. Innovation. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2012.14.4.524

Yu, X., & Si, S. (2012). Innovation, Internationalization and Entrepreneurship: A New Venture Research Perspective. Innovation: Management, Policy &amp; Practice. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2012.1721

Zerwas, C., & von Korflesch, H. F. (2016). A conceptual model of entrepreneurial reputation from a venture capitalist’s perspective. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750316655900