Some not so much, argues guest-blogger and SUP author of ENDURING SUCCESS: What We Can Learn from the History of Outstanding Corporations Christian Stadler, in a post written originally for his own blog, Enduring Success:
With the entire craze about innovation it was only a matter of time before we get a list of the world’s most innovative companies. Forbes published one based on a new book by Jeffrey Dyer, Hal Gregersen, and Clayton Christensen. Considering the stature of the three I would have expected a ‘solid’ ranking. By that I mean a ranking based on a method that really captures innovation. Unfortunately that is not the case.
Forbes’ innovation premium is calculated by comparing the Net Present Values of Cash flows (i.e. value of existing business) with the market capitalisation. The assumption is that investors bid up the stock value if they expect future innovation results. For two reasons this does not work. First, investors do not necessarily know what innovations companies work on. Often firms keep this secret to avoid competitors from copying their ideas. Second, investors bid up stocks for many reasons not related to innovation such as brand value, future competition, or economic environment. For example the market cap of an oil firm is going up when investors expect a crisis in the Middle East. For those oil companies having large reserves in politically safe countries the stock price is going to sore even more.
So how does Forbes’ list hold up when using other measures of innovation? Not very well! The most widely used measurement is patents. I ranked Forbes’ ‘Most Innovative Companies’ according to the number of patents they published in 2011 so far. The ranking is fundamentally different (for those into statistics, the correlation is -0.1285). Not much changes if I weigh the patents according to company size (correlation is -0.2043).
Patents are not an ideal measurement either as some innovations are difficult to patent (e.g. process innovation). This means that some industries patent much more than others. But even within a particular industry the Forbes ranking turns out to be flawed. Take Henkel, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever. According to the Forbes list, P&G is much more innovative than Unilever and Henkel comes last. Looking at patents P&G is still better than the other two but they are much closer together and Henkel has more patents than Unilever.
While alternative measures of innovation such as the number of new products introduced or patent citations (i.e. how often a patent is cited) might not produce exactly the same results, my crude patent count shows that Forbes’ list simply does not work. This does not undermine the book of Dyer and his colleagues as the companies on the list are probably all pretty innovative, but calling Salesforce.com the world’s most innovative company is a bit of a stretch.
Number of patents in 2011 |
Forbes' ranking |
||
1 |
Toshiba |
3610 |
94 |
2 |
Qualcomm |
3586 |
61 |
3 |
Microsoft |
1877 |
86 |
4 |
ABB |
967 |
93 |
5 |
Procter & Gamble |
964 |
24 |
6 |
Apple |
888 |
5 |
7 |
L'Oréal |
836 |
26 |
8 |
Henkel |
744 |
83 |
9 |
Corning |
716 |
69 |
10 |
Schlumberger |
670 |
27 |
11 |
Boston Scientific |
578 |
91 |
12 |
Daikin Industries |
532 |
70 |
13 |
|
475 |
7 |
14 |
Unilever NV |
465 |
74 |
15 |
Alstom |
463 |
29 |
16 |
Rolls-Royce Holdings |
439 |
76 |
17 |
Kao |
438 |
66 |
18 |
Syngenta |
428 |
79 |
19 |
Halliburton |
426 |
97 |
20 |
Air Liquide |
393 |
90 |
21 |
Alcon** |
372 |
21 |
22 |
Oracle |
358 |
77 |
23 |
BAE Systems |
350 |
96 |
24 |
Johnson Controls |
314 |
73 |
25 |
Colgate-Palmolive |
294 |
33 |
26 |
Areva |
268 |
37 |
27 |
SAP |
256 |
63 |
28 |
Juniper Networks |
207 |
42 |
29 |
Monsanto |
205 |
10 |
30 |
Terumo |
204 |
14 |
31 |
Sandvik |
200 |
58 |
32 |
Fresenius SE |
194 |
78 |
33 |
Kraft Foods |
187 |
82 |
34 |
Essilor International |
185 |
25 |
35 |
Synthes |
170 |
41 |
36 |
HTC Corp |
167 |
56 |
37 |
Fresenius Medical Care |
145 |
51 |
38 |
Air Products & Chemicals |
140 |
60 |
39 |
Nidec |
138 |
13 |
40 |
Adobe Systems |
136 |
54 |
41 |
Kone |
135 |
39 |
42 |
Altera |
132 |
99 |
43 |
Atlas Copco |
130 |
67 |
44 |
Automatic Data Processing |
124 |
87 |
45 |
Reckitt Benckiser Group |
123 |
11 |
46 |
Ecolab |
123 |
28 |
47 |
Stryker |
108 |
95 |
48 |
Cameron International |
107 |
85 |
49 |
LeGrand |
106 |
80 |
50 |
Amazon.com |
104 |
2 |
51 |
Nintendo |
103 |
20 |
52 |
Beiersdorf |
88 |
23 |
53 |
NetApp |
87 |
34 |
54 |
Hindustan Unilever |
86 |
6 |
55 |
Intuitive surgical |
84 |
3 |
56 |
Rockwell Automation |
78 |
38 |
57 |
Praxair |
71 |
43 |
58 |
Fanuc |
70 |
45 |
59 |
Celgene |
58 |
12 |
60 |
Agilent Technologies |
58 |
55 |
61 |
Intuit |
58 |
84 |
62 |
Emerson Electric |
55 |
64 |
63 |
Citrix Systems |
53 |
36 |
64 |
Tencent Holdings |
50 |
4 |
65 |
Sany Heavy Industry |
47 |
72 |
66 |
Avon Products |
46 |
47 |
67 |
SMC Corp |
43 |
49 |
68 |
CSL |
42 |
32 |
69 |
Hershey |
37 |
46 |
70 |
Danone |
35 |
35 |
71 |
General Mills |
32 |
31 |
72 |
Thermo Fisher Scientific |
30 |
71 |
73 |
Natura Cosméticos |
23 |
8 |
74 |
Infosys |
23 |
15 |
75 |
Richemont (Compagnie Financière) |
23 |
62 |
76 |
ASML Holding |
21 |
59 |
77 |
ConAgra Foods |
19 |
100 |
78 |
Keyence |
18 |
17 |
79 |
Salesforce.com |
17 |
1 |
80 |
FMC Technologies |
15 |
18 |
81 |
Secom |
13 |
52 |
82 |
Kellogg |
13 |
57 |
83 |
Tenaris |
13 |
92 |
84 |
Paccar |
12 |
48 |
85 |
Anheuser-Busch InBev |
9 |
53 |
86 |
Danaher |
7 |
68 |
87 |
Starbucks |
6 |
19 |
88 |
Schindler Holding |
2 |
81 |
89 |
Campbell Soup |
1 |
65 |
90 |
Zoomlion Heavy Industry |
1 |
75 |
91 |
Activision Blizzard |
0 |
22 |
91 |
Bharat Heavy Electricals |
0 |
9 |
91 |
CA |
0 |
98 |
91 |
China Oilfield Services |
0 |
40 |
91 |
Estée Lauder Cos |
0 |
44 |
91 |
ICL-Israel Chemicals |
0 |
30 |
91 |
Maroc Telecom |
0 |
88 |
91 |
PepsiCo |
0 |
50 |
91 |
Pernod Ricard |
0 |
16 |
91 |
Precision Castparts |
0 |
89 |