1. THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF COGNITIVE SOCIAL CAPITAL ON
KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION IN CLUSTERED FIRMS
Gloria Parra Requena (Gloria.Parra@uclm.es)
Pedro Manuel García Villaverde (Pedro.GVillaverde@uclm.es)
Departamento de Administración de Empresas
UNIVERSIDAD DE CASTILLA-LA MANCHA
ÁREA TEMÁTICA: Distritos industriales / clusters industriales
RESUMEN: (máximo 300 palabras)
Recently relational perspective has fuelled the literature on industrial districts.
Geographical and cognitive proximity among similar organizations in bounded contexts
favors the creation of diverse forms of social capital (McEvily and Zaheer 1999).
Although proximity generates beneficial dense and cohesive social networks, it has also
been argued that this characterization of networks restrains the capacity to detect and
access new ideas and other knowledge resources.
The specific concern of this paper is to analyze the role played by the cognitive
dimension of social capital on knowledge acquisition in firms belonging to industrial
districts. The cognitive dimension refers to the degree to which people and
organizations share goals and culture (Bolino, Turnley and Blodgood 2002). This
cognitive dimension has received much less attention in the social capital literature, as
acknowledged by Bolino et al. (2002). However, in our opinion, it is perhaps the most
appropriate dimension to define the relational characterization of clustered firms. This
cognitive proximity can be found in the notion of feeling of belonging in districts
(Becattini 1979).
In our view, the cognitive dimension of social capital offers a congruent explanation of
firms’ capacity to acquire knowledge and consequently, to improve innovation in a
context of geographical proximity. Therefore, in contrast to the assumption of direct and
free access to common knowledge in territorial agglomerations (Storper 1992), we
argue that knowledge access depends on firms’ capacity to share goals and culture with
other members of the district.
This research draws on an empirical survey in the Spanish footwear industry, based on a
sample of 224 companies. The paper is structured as follows. First, we explain the
1

2. theoretical framework and the derived hypotheses. We then describe the research
method and findings. Finally, we outline its possible contribution and implications.
PALABRAS CLAVE: Industrial district, social capital, cognitive dimension
1. INTRODUCTION
Recently, social capital has been considered as an explanatory factor of firms’ behavior
and performance (Adler and Kwon 2002). Previous research, although from very
different perspectives, shares some common propositions. Specifically, it has been
argued that dimensions of social capital, that is, how and with whom organizations are
connected, have a significant effect on value creation (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998).
On the other hand, the relational perspective has fuelled the literature on territorial
agglomerations of firms, those referring to concepts of the industrial cluster or district.
Geographical and cognitive proximity among similar organizations in bounded contexts
favors the creation of diverse forms of social capital (McEvily and Zaheer 1999).
Drawing on these two perspectives, social capital could be expected to explain, to a
great extent, the value creation of clustered firms. However, this has been a
controversial argument in the previous literature. Although proximity generates
beneficial dense and cohesive social networks, it has also been argued that this
characterization of networks restrains the capacity to detect and access new ideas and
other knowledge resources. Among others, Grabher (1993), Uzzi (1997), Gargiulo and
Benassi (2000) have suggested that the same ties that serve as a filter of information and
knowledge resources may generate lock-ins, isolating organizations from the external
world.
The specific concern of this paper is to analyze the role played by the cognitive
dimension of social capital on knowledge acquisition in firms belonging to industrial
districts. The cognitive dimension refers to the degree to which people and
organizations share goals and culture (Bolino, Turnley and Blodgood 2002). This
cognitive dimension has received much less attention in the social capital literature, as
acknowledged by Bolino et al. (2002). However, in our opinion, it is perhaps the most
appropriate dimension to define the relational characterization of clustered firms. This
cognitive proximity can be found in the notion of feeling of belonging in districts
(Becattini 1979).
2

3. In our view, and this is the possible contribution of the paper, the cognitive dimension
of social capital offers a congruent explanation of firms’ capacity to acquire knowledge
and consequently, to improve innovation in a context of geographical proximity.
Therefore, in contrast to the assumption of direct and free access to common knowledge
in territorial agglomerations (Storper 1992), we argue that knowledge access depends on
firms’ capacity to share goals and culture with other members of the district.
This research draws on an empirical survey in the Spanish footwear industry, based on a
sample of 224 companies. This industry is characterized by the presence of a relevant
number of districts, making it particularly appropriate for this kind of study.
The paper is structured as follows. First, we explain the theoretical framework and the
derived hypotheses. We then describe the research method and findings. Finally, we
outline its possible contribution and implications.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. The concept of the industrial district
The industrial district has traditionally been defined as a socioeconomic entity which is
characterized by the active presence of both a community of people and a population of
firms in one naturally and historically bounded area (Becattini 1990: 39). An industrial
district presupposes the existence of a population of firms that are specialized in one or
more phases of the production process. The district is characterized as a group of firms
that work together, where the division of labor takes place on an inter-firm rather than
intra-firm basis.
Although on the whole, the relations that are developed as a result of geographical
proximity may vary considerably in their details, their underlying logic remains
constant. Thus, despite having their own specific characteristics, the organizational
principles underlying the districts in south-west Germany and north-east Italy are
widely applicable. Similar inter-firm cooperation is often found in economic activities
carried out on a regional/supranational scale (e.g. Scandinavia) or in local contexts, such
as Silicon Valley in the United States.
An initial justification of the benefits of industrial districts for firms comes from
Marshallian or agglomeration economies. The author of the original concept of the
3

4. industrial district (Marshall 1925) identified a number of external economies deriving
from the pool of common factors that include qualified human resources, specialized
suppliers and technological spillovers (Krugman 1991). At the same time the notion of
industrial atmosphere can be translated in the existence of intangible resources based on
experience, knowledge and information that is common to all the firms belonging to the
district. In general, authors have argued that firms belonging to districts benefit from
intangible externalities such as mutual knowledge, repeated and long term relationships,
or common experience, which build trust and a cooperative attitude (Paniccia 1998).
Within the context of our work we understand the notion of the district in the broad
sense of the term, as referring to a physical and relational space where externalities are
generated for firms. Despite the different views expounded, a review of the literature
provides us with a set of common ideas and postures that are useful for our research and
which we have set out in the following points:
(1) Face-to-face contact and physical proximity between firms facilitates interaction and
the transfer of resources and knowledge, which would be difficult to achieve with
long-distance relations.
(2) The critical value of districts has more to do with social or relational resources than
with tangible externalities or physical infrastructures.
(3) Of those who participate in districts, the leading players are not only final firms but
also suppliers of the different products and intermediate services, as well as a wide
range of institutions, such as universities, trade associations, industrial policy agents
and other local or regional institutions.
Recently, authors have postulated different paths for district transformation. Most have
advocated opening the district up to external sources and carrying out substantial
internal restructuring (Belussi, Sammarra and Sedita 2008). This new model may affect
some district principles such as internal homogeneity. Firms may vary significantly in
terms of resources and outputs, leaving aside previous internal homogeneity Boschma
and ter Wall (2007). Giuliani and Bell (2005), Giuliani (2005) and Morrison and
Rabellotti (2005) have posited the existence of sub-networks inside the districts, with
significant differences in terms of network structure characterization. In fact, firms have
varied knowledge bases and in consequence they can perform different roles in
knowledge networks.
4

5. 2.2. The social capital perspective: the cognitive dimension
The social capital perspective considers the economic action embedded in the network
of relationships which firms maintain, including non-business relationships (Oliver
1996). Firms import knowledge through social capital, which indeed constitutes a
valuable resource for them (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). Some authors have argued
that social networks are a critical part of the learning process where firms find new
opportunities and obtain new knowledge, also improving their previously existing
knowledge through interacting with others (Tsai 2000).
In creating knowledge and building trust, social capital prevents or restrains
opportunism in relationships (Trigilia 2001). Moreover, social capital reduces
transaction costs and uncertainty (Dosi 1988). As Yli-Renko, Autio and Sapienza
(2001) have argued, the degree to which firms use external networks to acquire and
exploit knowledge is regulated by the amount of social capital they possess. Firms
improve the quality of mutual exchanges of knowledge through their social interactions
(Lane and Lubatkin 1998).
Some authors have presented and discussed different mechanisms and potential
outcomes associated with social capital. Analytically, social capital presents three
different dimensions (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998). First, the structural dimension
concerns the density or dispersion of the network of ties. On the other hand, the nature
of the ties is related to the relational (strength) and cognitive (shared goals and culture)
dimensions.
As Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) suggest, there are indubitably connections between all three
dimensions, particularly between the cognitive dimension and the other two. Shared
goals and culture and other elements such as shared values or vision as expressions of
cognitive social capital also favor the development of trusting relationships, associated
with strong ties. On the other hand, the association between structural and cognitive
dimensions is based on the premise that social interactions play a critical role in shaping
goals and values among the members of the network.
Shared goals represent the degree to which the members of the network share an
understanding of and perspective on the achievement of the network’s activities and
results. When members of the network share goals and have similar perceptions of how
5

6. to act with others, exchange of ideas and resources is fostered (Inkpen and Tsang 2005).
On the other hand, common culture refers to the degree to which common behavioral
norms control the relationships, that is, the set of institutionalized rules and norms that
govern behavior in the network (Inkpen and Tsang 2005). In this respect, sharing the
same entrepreneurial culture implies sharing concepts such as objectives, concerns,
processes, routines, etc. (Rowley 1997). In consequence, common culture includes
many different aspects such as codes, language, histories, visions or goals. All these
elements permit and improve the understanding between parties involved in the
relationship, thereby facilitating knowledge transmission.
According to Tsai and Ghoshal (1998), the cognitive dimension is related to the shared
vision among network members and includes collective objectives and aspirations.
Members of the network thus have more opportunities for a free exchange of ideas and
resources. Moreover, common objectives and interests help to reveal the potential value
of the exchange and combinations of resources. In conclusion, cognitive capital can be
viewed as a relational mechanism that helps network members to integrate and
exchange resources.
2.3. Knowledge acquisition
Knowledge acquisition is understood as the process used by an organization to obtain
knowledge. This process takes place through the organization’s external and internal
relationships. The relationships that provide knowledge vary in nature, and include both
formal and informal daily activities, as well as others. Some authors have systematized
the processes through which organizations acquire knowledge. Huber (1991) and Grant
(2000) provide a categorization of the sources of knowledge generation and acquisition,
respectively. These are integrated in the present paper: first, the internal creation of
knowledge, obtained through internal R&D, together with the learning that derives from
mechanisms such as the inheritance of knowledge possessed by the founders or
additional knowledge that was acquired before the organization was created. Grafted
learning is also included, since organizations improve their knowledge thanks to new
members’ knowledge that was not available before they joined the firm. Second,
experimental learning, based on action, acquired through direct experiences: this
learning includes processes such as organizational experiments, training in work, and
simulations. Third, external knowledge: these processes include a great variety of
6

7. actions from the attendance of conferences, courses, workshops, benchmarking with
other organizations, interaction with other actors or establishing strategic alliances.
Searching learning is also included, namely, the information acquired by exploring the
firm’s external environment.
External sources of knowledge have been increasingly attracting the attention of
researchers in recent times. External sources include a broad range of mechanisms such
as external R&D, patent and license acquisition, strategic alliances and other
cooperation modalities (see Mowery, Oxley and Silverman 1996; Simonin 1999;
Caloghirou, Kastelli and Tsakanikas 2004). External knowledge acquisition becomes
crucial for firms since the innovation process requires external knowledge flows to
enhance their innovative capacity as some authors have suggested (Dyer and Singh
1998; Lane and Lubatkin 1998). In fact, the positive effect of knowledge acquisition on
innovation has already been proved in the literature (e.g., Ahuja and Katila 2001; Yli-
Renko et al. 2001; Chen and Huang 2008).
3. HYPOTHESES
3.1. The industrial district and knowledge acquisition
The definition of an industrial district suggests that inter-organizational relationships
(firms and institutions) and proximity constitute the basic elements of clustered firms.
Inter-organizational relationships constitute an external source of knowledge since they
provide opportunities for acquisition and exploitation of knowledge (Dyer and Singh
1998; Lane and Lubatkin 1998). Therefore, these sources of knowledge would appear to
be more relevant in contexts of intense relationships between organizations. Some
researchers have argued and demonstrated that territorial agglomerations of firms permit
a greater exchange of information and knowledge (e.g. Utterback 1974; Jaffe 1989;
Jaffe, Trajtenberg and Henderson 1993). On the other hand, proximity produces and
favors spontaneous, social or non-business interactions between managers and
employees in the industry that also facilitates knowledge dissemination (Lazerson and
Lorenzoni 1999). In spite of the development of new technologies that improve
communication between distant actors, tacit or non-codified knowledge is mainly
transmitted between close actors (Uzzi 1996), since intense interactions are required
(Dyer and Nobeoka 2000). In conclusion, geographical proximity favors the natural
7

8. exchange of ideas (Decarolis and Deeds 1999) and is an element that facilitates
knowledge flows and technological exchange between firms (Boschma and ter Wall
2007).
In the industrial district tradition, the concept of industrial atmosphere refers to the
existence of knowledge shared by all members inside the district. In Marshallian terms,
this knowledge is in the air (Marshall 1925). Becattini (2005) defines knowledge inside
the district as mainly contextual, that is, knowledge closely related to the underlying
activity in which the district is involved. This knowledge gains value within the specific
activity, but on the other hand, it loses value with alternative uses. Furthermore, this
knowledge is difficult to reproduce in other temporal, social and spatial contexts, since
it is basically tacit in nature and experience based. In fact, as Bellandi (1996) suggests,
the district is characterized by gradual learning from experience.
Additionally, one of the important elements of the district is the existence of local
institutions that provide supporting services to the firms in district. These entities
compile and disseminate knowledge among firms, thereby reducing their search costs
(Molina-Morales 2005; McEvily and Zaheer 1999). Specifically, Antonelli (2000)
emphasized the role of universities and public research centers, since they can provide
information on laboratory discoveries, which represent complex and tacit scientific
knowledge. In the same vein, technician and employee mobility inside the district offers
further possibilities to obtain knowledge (DeCarolis and Deeds 1999).
To summarize, there are diverse sources of knowledge in the district, due to
geographical proximity, and intense relationships between organizations. Both facilitate
formal and informal communication, supported by internal mechanisms such as
friendship or family relationships, internal mobility of human resources, a shared
education from local institutions or spin-off processes, amongst others.
From these arguments the following hypothesis can be posited:
H1: DISTRICT MEMBERSHIP WILL BE POSITIVELY ASSOCIATED WITH
KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION IN FIRMS.
3.2. Industrial district and cognitive social capital
Since social capital refers to the structure and content of relationships, possible effects
can be analyzed at different levels, including individual, organizational, regional or
national levels. Many authors have considered social capital insights as inherently
8

9. spatial (Martin 1994), since relations, particularly those which are informal in nature,
frequently evolve close to home (Malecki 1995). In fact, social capital has been rapidly
propagated in the territorial literature (see Trigilia 2001 or Wolfe 2002; among others).
According to Trigilia (2001), a territorial context can be said to be rich in social capital,
depending on the degree to which individuals and groups are involved in relationship
networks of greater or lesser scope. Previous research has explained how districts
represent local configurations made up of many small local enterprises with specialized
and complementary competences rich in social capital, characterized by mutual trust,
cooperation and entrepreneurial spirit (Dakhli and De Clercq 2004). In fact, trust is
more successfully built up through repeated interactions and personal contacts, such as
those developed under conditions of proximity (Gulati 1995). Various authors have
described particular mechanisms in districts that drive the creation of social capital,
such as internal human resources, social non-business relationships, spiff-off from
previous district firms, among others (DeCarolis and Deeds 1999).
Specifically proximity and interaction intensity, characteristic of districts, play a key
role in sharing goals and building common values between network members. In this
way, actors adopt common codes, values and practices through social interactions (Tsai
and Ghoshal 1998). Thus, as a consequence of their frequent relationships, clustered
firms in districts are more likely to share common cultural elements (Paniccia 1998).
Firms especially build a code of communication and common language that uses these
interactions (Nelson and Winter 1982).
In conclusion, districts can be described as groups of firms embedded in a strong local
network and sharing a relatively homogenous system of values and ideas (Becattini
1990; Barabel, Huault and Meier 2007). In this respect Molina-Morales and Martínez-
Fernández (2006) observed greater shared culture and values in firms belonging to
industrial districts as compared to external firms.
The above arguments lead us to formulate a positive association between district
membership and cognitive social capital.
H2: DISTRICT MEMBERSHIP WILL BE POSITIVELY ASSOCIATED WITH
COGNITIVE SOCIAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT IN FIRMS.
9

10. 3.3. Cognitive social capital and knowledge acquisition
Although previous research is limited on this specific point, some precedents do
establish a positive association between cognitive social capital and firm performance.
Krause, Handfield and Tyler (2007) have evidenced that shared values positively affect
firm results. In general, shared goals and objectives among members of a network foster
common understandings about what an improvement is, and how it should be
implemented, thus leading to better firm performance. In contrast, if they are
incongruent, misunderstandings and conflicts are more likely to arise, presenting an
obstacle to the exchange of knowledge resources (Inkpen and Tsang 2005; Krause et al.
2007).
Specifically, the cognitive dimension of social capital may favor knowledge acquisition
in firms. First, it can be argued that in a relational context where actors share a similar
culture, the acquisition of tacit knowledge will probably be easier (Storper 1997).
Hence, when partners possess the same working culture, knowledge communication,
transmission and acquisition become more effective. Compatibility between cultures of
partners is required to facilitate the understanding of norms and values among parties
(Lane, Salk and Lyles 2001; Mowery et al. 1996). In contrast, organizational distance
negatively affects knowledge flows. Cultural conflicts and misunderstanding can limit
acquisition of information and learning (Simonin 1999).
In the same vein as shared goals, shared expectations affect knowledge acquisition in
the context of intellectual capital creation. When firms have the same perceptions of
how to act, there are fewer misunderstandings in their communication processes. This
increases the opportunities for idea and resource exchange, and for understanding the
potential value of these exchanges (Tsai and Ghoshal 1998). In this way, shared vision
can be considered as a binding mechanism that helps different parts of the network to
integrate knowledge (Inkpen and Tsang 2005).
In consequence, we understand that the cognitive dimension not only has a positive
effect, but it is fundamental to the external knowledge acquisition in firms. Thus, in
contexts where the organizations involved attain a better alignment of their goals and
culture, they are likely to obtain access to external knowledge. We can express this idea
formally as follows:
10

11. H3: COGNITIVE SOCIAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE
POSITIVELY ASSOCIATED WITH KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION IN FIRMS.
3.4. Mediating effect of cognitive social capital
As pointed out above, in industrial districts knowledge flows with a certain degree of
freedom (Brusco 1990). In this vein, some scholars have argued that accessing
knowledge is one of main externalities firms derive from belonging to a territorial
agglomeration. Additionally, this knowledge is rarely available to firms outside the
district (Krugman 1991; Storper 1992).
Nevertheless, geographical proximity is not a sufficient condition to enable firms to
access district knowledge. Firms vary in terms of their ability to understand, and in their
degree of commitment to the cultural context existing in the district (Storper 1997). The
vision and goals of an individual firm may differ from those of the other firms
belonging to the district (Inkpen and Tsang 2005). In consequence, firms vary in their
capacity to acquire and learn from the valuable knowledge in district.
We consider that cognitive social capital is a basic explanatory factor that links
industrial district membership and internal district knowledge acquisition. In this way,
firms that are able to develop shared representations, interpretations, goals, routines and
ways of acting are in the best position to take advantage of their membership of an
industrial district. We understand that belonging to an industrial district will have an
indirect effect on the firm’s knowledge acquisition through the development of
cognitive social capital.
In line with the above arguments, we formulate the following hypothesis:
H4 THE DEVELOPMENT OF COGNITIVE SOCIAL CAPITAL MEDIATES IN
THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN A FIRM’S MEMBERSHIP OF A DISTRICT
AND ITS KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION.
Figure 1 shows the theoretical model and proposed hypotheses representing the
relationship between the analyzed variables. As can be observed, in addition to the
hypothesized effects we have introduced size and age as control variables (Yli-Renko et
al. 2001).
11

12. Figure 1. Model of the determinants of knowledge acquisition in districts
District
Membership
H2 H1
Age
H4
Cognitive Knowledge
Social Capital Acquisition
H3
Size
4. METHOD AND EMPIRICAL STUDY
4.1. Sampling
The empirical study focused on the Spanish footwear industry. This labor intensive
industry is characterized by the existence of small and micro enterprises (accounting for
99% of the total). These firms are concentrated in Spanish regions such as the Valencian
Community (65.9%), Castilla-La Mancha (9.94%), La Rioja (7.1%) and the Balearic
Islands (3.55%), among others. In 2007, the industry produced 108.4 million pairs of
shoes, with a value of 1,905 million euros. Most of the total production is exported
(93.7% of total production in 2007). Finally, the Spanish footwear industry is mainly
structured in industrial districts, as mapped by Boix and Galleto (2004, 2006).
In our opinion, such a mature and traditional industry is particularly appropriate for our
research proposals. First, social capital requires a certain period of time to develop
completely. Second, a highly competitive environment, characteristic of mature
industries, allows us to better analyze aspects related to the accumulation and diffusion
of knowledge. In addition, the geographical distribution of firms combines the presence
of industrial districts with a significant number of isolated or non-district firms.
We used two databases to establish the population of firms, in particular SABI1 and
Camerdata2, which provide descriptive and financial information about Spanish firms.
Once we had filtered the initial list of firms from different sources, we determined a
1
SABI is a directory of Spanish and Portuguese firms that gathers general information and financial data.
In the case of Spain, it compiles information on more than 95% of the firms with total yearly revenues
over 360,000-420,000 € from the 17 Spanish regions.
2
The Camerdata database compiles a directory of all Spanish firms from the network of local Chambers
of Commerce.
12

13. population of 1,403 firms3. A questionnaire was distributed among these firms, of which
a final total of 224 valid complete questionnaires were returned, constituting a response
rate of 16.97%. This can be considered an acceptable rate in comparison with similar
surveys. The sampling error was 5.96% for a confidence level of 95%, and the least
favorable situation of p=q=0.5. Furthermore, when we tested for non-response bias, no
significant differences were observed between respondent and non-respondents on
structural characteristics.
4.2. Variables
Independent variables
District membership: To identify firms belonging to industrial districts, we asked for the
location of the firm. District membership was established when the firm was located in
one of the industrial districts identified by previous research. We therefore incorporated
a dummy variable to distinguish between district member and non-member firms,
similarly to other previous studies (Hundley and Jacobson 1998; Molina-Morales and
Martínez-Fernández 2004; among others)4. In order to reinforce the internal consistency
of the objective measurement of district membership, we included a perceptual variable
in the questionnaire to measure feeling of belonging. Following the criterion of Becattini
(1979), we used a 7-point Likert scale with only one item to measure this perception
(see appendix5).
Cognitive social capital: The variable shared goals was measured by a six-item Likert
scale. This scale is comprised of those used by Tsai and Ghoshal (1998), Young-Ybarra
and Wiersema (1999) and Yli-Renko et al. (2001). We adapted the scales to the
particular characteristics of our study. We used the Simonin (1999) scale to measure
shared culture and a second order construct to measure cognitive social capital. This
construct is formed by two first order constructs (shared goals and shared culture).
3
We excluded companies with fewer than 6 employees. This criterion was suggested by other studies
because a minimal operative structure is required to define their behavior and performance (Spanos and
Lioukas 2001). A similar criterion is also used in other industrial district studies, such as Boschma and ter
Wall (2007).
4
We considered all firms that were members of any district to be in the same category when testing our
hypotheses. Thus, in order to test for bias, we analyzed mean differences of the variables of the study
between firms belonging to each of the industrial districts. We ran an ANOVA and a Scheffe’s test
between pairs of groups and found no significant differences for variables.
5
After running an ANOVA on the feeling of belonging variable for firms both internal and external to the
industrial districts, we observed the existence of a significant difference (p<0.001) between the two
groups. This feeling of belonging is greater for firms belonging to industrial districts. These results
reinforce the nomological validity of the objective criterion used to measure belonging to a district.
13

14. Dependent variable
Knowledge acquisition. From precedents in the literature, we included the Kale, Singh
and Pelmutter (2000) and Maula, Autio and Murray (2003) scales. Since these scales
were used in the fields of strategic alliances and customer relationships, we adapted
them to our specific context. Thus, this construct allows us to measure knowledge
acquisition of one organization derived from the relationships with different agents.
Control variables. This study included two variables to control their effects on
knowledge acquisition. Previous studies strongly support the use of these variables (e.g.
Yli-Renko et al. 2001). Some studies suggest that a firm’s age can affect its ability to
acquire knowledge (e.g. Lane and Lubatkin 1998; Zahra, Ireland and Hitt 2000), as
older firms can gain advantages from their experience of knowledge acquisition (Autio,
Sapienza and Almeida 2000). Firm size can also affect knowledge acquisition (Autio et
al. 2000), since larger firms have more resources to spend on relationships (Yli-Renko
et al. 2001). Size was measured by number of employees and age was measured by the
number of years from the foundation of the company to the survey date (2008).
4.3. Analysis techniques
Structural equations analysis was used since it has some advantages over traditional
multivariate techniques (Haenlein and Kaplan 2004). Specifically, we used partial least
squares (PLS) with PLS-Graph software to analyze data. PLS is particularly suitable for
data analysis during the early stage of theory development where the theoretical model
and its measures are not well or definitely formed. The level of statistical significance of
the coefficients of both the measurement and the structural models was determined
through a bootstrap re-sampling procedure (500 sub-samples).
5. RESULTS
5.1. Measurement model
To evaluate item reliability, we controlled the value of the loadings ( ). All loading
values exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.7 (Carmines and Zeller 1979).
Construct reliability was assessed using the composite statistic of reliability ( c), which
14

15. is similar to Cronbach’s alpha. As we can observe in Table 1, all constructs exceeded
the accepted value of 0.8. For instance, Nunnally (1978) suggested that values above 0.8
can be considered as strict reliability. To assess the convergent validity we used average
variance extracted (AVE). All constructs exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.5
(Fornell and Larcker 1981).
Table 1. Reliability
Construct Composite reliability AVE
Cognitive social capital 0.919 0.851
Knowledge acquisition 0.954 0.774
Finally, in order to control discriminant validity (Barclay, Higgins and Thompson 1995)
the mean extracted variance should be used (Fornell and Larcker 1981). We compared
the square root of the AVE (the diagonal in Table 2) with the correlations between
constructs (the off-diagonal elements in Table 2). We can observe that the square root of
AVE for both constructs is greater than the correlation between constructs, suggesting
that each construct relates more strongly to its own measures than others.
Table 2. Discriminant validity and correlations
Construct Cognitive S.C. Knowledge acq.
Cognitive S.C. 0.923 0.554
Knowledge acq. 0.554 0.880
5.2. Structural model
We evaluated the structural model by examining the size and significance of the path
coefficients and the R2 values of the dependent variable. Figure 2 shows the results of
the model analysis and the explained variance. The results allow us to corroborate all
the research hypotheses.
Table 3 shows that district membership has a positive and significant effect on
knowledge acquisition ( =0.172; p<0.05). District membership also has a positive and
15

16. significant effect on cognitive social capital ( =0.218; p<0.001). These findings support
hypotheses 1 and 2.
Table 3. Direct effects of industrial district
N= 224; **p<0,05; ***p<0,01; ****p<0,001
Construct Knowledge Cognitive social
acquisition capital
Path T Path T
Industrial district 0.172 2.264** 0.218 3.677****
Hypothesis 3 proposed a positive effect of cognitive social capital on knowledge
acquisition. The results presented in Table 4 allow us to confirm this hypothesis
( =0.558; p<0.001).
Table 4. Effect of cognitive social capital on knowledge
acquisition
N= 224; **p<0,05; ***p<0,01; ****p<0,001
Construct Knowledge acquisition
Path T R2
Cognitive social capital 0.558 9.105**** 0.316
Figure 2. Model of the results of the determinants of knowledge acquisition in districts
District
membership
**** ns
0.218 0.044 ns Age
0.084
Cognitive Knowledge
Social Capital Acquisition
****
0.549
ns Size
0.050
R2= 0.317
16

17. In hypothesis 4 we proposed an indirect effect of industrial district on knowledge
acquisition through cognitive social capital. To confirm this hypothesis the four
conditions established by Baron and Kenny (1986) must be met. For this mediator
effect, the first condition is satisfied since the independent variable (district
membership) has a positive and significant influence on the dependent variable
(knowledge acquisition). The second condition establishes a positive relationship
between the independent variable and the mediator variable, that is, cognitive social
capital. This condition is satisfied through the corroboration of hypothesis 2. The third
condition requires a relationship between the mediator variable –cognitive social
capital- and the dependent variable –knowledge acquisition-. This condition is satisfied
by the confirmation of hypothesis 3. The fourth condition establishes that the
relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable should be
eliminated —or at least reduced— when the mediator variable is included in the model.
When we introduced these three variables into the model, the effect of industrial district
on knowledge acquisition disappeared (from 0.172 to 0.044 and is not significant).
That means that cognitive social capital wholly mediates the relationship between
industrial districts and knowledge acquisition. Therefore, we can accept hypothesis 4
since we see that the industrial district has an indirect effect on knowledge acquisition
through cognitive social capital. This effect has a value of 0.1206.
The model shows a high consistency, since the value is over the 0.1 established by Falk
and Miller (1992). Thus, the model allows us to explain 31.7% of the total variance of
the dependent variable, in our case firms’ external knowledge acquisition.
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper analyzes how the cognitive dimension affects knowledge acquisition by
clustered firms. Firstly, findings show how firms belonging to an industrial district
acquire a significant amount of knowledge from contacts inside the district. In fact,
there is a positive and significant association between district membership and cognitive
social capital and also with knowledge acquisition. However, when we introduced all
the factors into an integrated structural model, we observed a significant indirect effect
6
This value is computed by multiplying the significant structural paths.
17

18. of district membership on knowledge acquisition through the development of cognitive
social capital. Moreover, the mediator effect of the cognitive dimension is particularly
strong. In fact, the significant association between membership and knowledge
acquisition now disappears under the effect of the cognitive variable.
Specifically, this paper has focused on the cognitive dimension of social capital, rarely
studied, yet indubitably related to the other two structural and relational dimensions
(Tsai and Ghoshal 1998). This dimension is particularly relevant to explain the
connection between location inside the district and valuable knowledge acquisition
through external contacts7. Therefore, our findings underline the decisive role played by
shared goals, values and culture in the capacities and knowledge acquisition process in
the context of the industrial district.
The main contribution of this research is the way it identifies and proves that the
cognitive dimension of social capital explains why firms take advantage of the common
knowledge generated in contexts of territorial proximity. It has been suggested that
contexts like industrial districts are appropriate for efficient knowledge acquisition;
however, this acquisition only occurs when firms are immersed in a common cultural
context, sharing visions and goals with other firms in the local neighborhood. In fact
individual firms vary in their access to knowledge and market power (Boschma and
Lambooy 2002). These findings support previous research suggesting that the degree to
which firms use external networks to acquire and exploit knowledge is conditioned by
the amount of social capital they possess (Yli-Renko et al. 2001). Our proposal provides
theoretical linkages between key concepts of three different theoretical
conceptualizations, namely the industrial district (Marshall 1925; Becattini 1979), social
capital (Putman 1993; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998) and the knowledge-based view
(Nonaka 1994; Grant 1996).
Our findings also at least partially contradict some of the industrial district literature that
focuses exclusively on the district-level or systemic advantages (Signorini 1994),
without considering the relevancy of the individual firm. In contrast, our findings are in
line with recent research emphasizing internal heterogeneity inside the district (Giuliani
2002; Giuliani and Bell 2005; Morrison and Rabellotti 2005). The social capital
7
We undertook exploratory tests on the indirect effect of the two other dimensions, with the result that
the structural and relational dimensions have a minor significance.
18

19. perspective in particular provides a solid base from which to explain heterogeneity
among firm members in industrial districts in order to access common knowledge and
capacities.
Moreover, this research supports the conceptualization and delimitation of the industrial
district. Following Becattini (1990), we have used both objective elements to identify
the district and perceptual elements such as the feeling of belonging. In addition, by
considering the whole Spanish footwear industry we reduce risks in the generalization
of findings. This study therefore overcomes some of the traditional limitations of
empirical studies in the district field, such as potential specific case bias.
These research findings support the competitiveness of firms in mature industries such
as the footwear industry, since they can still offer potential knowledge and specific
abilities for member firms. However, a firm’s membership of a district is not sufficient
on its own to ensure advantages are harnessed. Firms must engage in actions and
develop specific strategies to exploit the opportunities districts offer. Particularly, firms
should address their efforts to building common norms, values and cultural elements
with their contacts to efficiently acquire relevant knowledge. In this vein, firms must
promote cooperative relationships and favor understandings with others in order to
facilitate knowledge transmission.
On the other hand, local institutions involved in districts, such as universities,
technological institutes, policy agencies, trade associations and others, must coordinate
their actions to encourage flows of valuable and non-redundant knowledge between
firms. These actions may be complemented with institutional efforts to boost collective
representation as well as common goals and vision (Keeble, Lawson, Moore and
Wilkinson 1999), in order to strengthen shared norms and values in the district. In this
way, the promotion of commercial and technological projects that bring together efforts
and interests between firms will foster the climate of trust necessary to integrate and
exchange abilities and knowledge.
One of the limitations of our cross-section analysis refers to its static nature. However,
longitudinal studies could be much more demanding because of the data and
information required for a study like this one. Moreover, in spite of our efforts to assure
robustness in the validation of data and constructs, potential bias cannot be dismissed.
Finally, the study focuses on the footwear industry in Spain, specificities that can
restrain possible generalization of the findings. However, similarities with other cases in
19

20. terms of maturity of the industry and social context permit, with obvious caution,
conclusions to be generalized.
As a final remark, our findings question the more simplistic approach sometimes found
in the literature on knowledge acquisition among clustered firms. A complementary line
of research may consist of analyzing the role played by relational and structural
dimensions of social capital to improve knowledge acquisition. Further research might
continue the analysis of the heterogeneity or asymmetric distribution of advantages
inside districts. In this vein, variables such as absorptive capacity, innovative capacity
or individual knowledge bases can provide a more precise explanation about why firms
vary in exploiting district externalities.
7. REFERENCES
Adler, P., and S. Kwon. 2002. Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Academy of
Management Review 27(1): 17-40.
Ahuja, G., and R. Katila. 2001. Technological acquisitions and the innovation
performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal
22: 197-220.
Antonelli, C. 2000. Collective knowledge communication and innovation: the evidence
of technological districts. Regional Studies 34(6): 535-547.
Autio E., H.J. Sapienza, and J. Almeida. 2000. Effects of age at entry, knowledge
intensity and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal
43: 909–924.
Barabel, M., I. Huault, and O. Meier. 2007. Changing nature and sustainability of the
industrial district model: the case of Technic Valley in France. Growth and Change
38(4): 595-620.
Barclay, D., C. Higgins, and R. Thompson. 1995. The Partial Least Squares (PLS)
Approach to Causal Modelling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an
Illustration. Technology Studies Special Issue on Research Methodology 2(2): 285-
309.
Baron, R., and D. Kenny 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173-1182.
Becattini, G. 1979. Dal settore industriale al distretto industriale. Alcune considerazioni
sull’unita di indagine dell’economia industriale. Rivista di Economia e Politica
Industriale 5(1): 7-21.
Becattini, G. 1990. The marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion. In
Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Co-operation in Italy, ed. F. Pyke, G. Becattini, and
W. Sengenberger, W., 37-51. Geneva: International institute for Labour Studies.
20

21. Becattini, G. 2005. La oruga y la mariposa. Un caso ejemplar de desarrollo en la Italia
de los distritos industriales: Prato (1954-1993). Valladolid: Universidad de
Valladolid.
Bellandi, M. 1996. Innovation and change in the Marshallian industrial districts.
European Planning Studies 4(3): 357-68.
Belussi, F., A. Sammarra, and S. Sedita. 2008. Managing Long Distance and Localized
Learning in the Emilia Romagna Life Science Cluster. European Planning Studies
16(5): 665-692.
Boix, R., and V. Galletto. 2006. Sistemas locales de trabajo y distritos industriales
marshallianos en España. Economía Industrial 359: 165-184.
Bolino, M.C., W.H. Turnley,and J.M. Bloodgood. 2002. Citizenship behaviour and the
creation of social capital in organisation. Academy of Management Review 27(4):
505-522.
Boschma, R., and J. Lambooy. 2002. Knowledge, market structure, and economic
coordination: dynamics of industrial districts. Growth and Change 33: 291-311.
Boschma, R., and A. ter Wall. 2007. Knowledge networks and innovative performance
in an industrial district. The case of a footwear district in the south of Italy. Industry
and Innovation 14(2): 177-199.
Bourdieu, P. and L.J. Wacquant 1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago:
Univesity of Chicago Press.
Brusco, S. 1990. The idea of the industrial district: its genesis. In Industrial Districts
and Inter-firm Co-operation in Italy, ed. F. Pyke, G. Becattini, and W. Sengenberger,
W., 10-19. Geneva: International institute for Labour Studies
.Caloghirou, Y., I. Kastelli, and A. Tsakanikas. 2004. Internal capabilities and external
knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance?
Technovation 24(1): 29-39.
Carmines, E.G., and R.A. Zeller. 1979. Reliability and validity assessment, Sage
University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, N. 07-
017. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Chen, C., and J. Huang. 2008. Strategic human resource practices and innovation
performance – The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of
Business Research 62(1): 104-114.
Dakhli, M., and D. De Clercq. 2004. Human capital, social capital, and innovation: a
multicountry study. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 16: 107-128.
DeCarolis, D.M., and D.L. Deeds. 1999. The impact of stocks and flows of
organizational knowledge on firm performance: an empirical investigation of the
biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal 20(10): 953-968.
Dosi, G. 1988. Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal
of Economic Literature 26: 1120-1171.
Dyer, J., and K. Nobeoka. 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance
knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal 21: 345-
367.
21

22. Dyer, J., and H. Singh. 1998. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(4):
660-679.
Falk, R.F., and N.B. Miller. 1992. A Primer for Soft Modeling. Akron, Ohio: The
University of Akron.
Fornell, C., and D.F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research 18:
39-50.
Gargiulo, M., and Benassi, M. 2000. Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion,
structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science 11: 183-
196.
Giuliani, E. 2005. Cluster absorptive capacity—Why do some clusters forge ahead and
others lag behind? European Urban and Regional Studies 12(3): 269–288.
Giuliani, E. and M. Bell. 2005. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and
innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy 34: 47-68.
Grabher, G. 1993. The weakness of strong ties: The lock-in of regional development in
the Ruhr area. In The embedded firm: on the socioeconomics of industrial networks,
ed. G.Grabher. London: Routledge.
Grant, R.M. 1996. Toward a knowledge based theory of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal 17 winter special: 109-122.
Grant, R. M. 2000. Shifts in the world economy: the drivers of knowledge management.
In Knowledge Horizonts: the present and the promise of knowledge management, ed.
C. Despres and D. Chauvel, 27-53. Massachussets: Butterworth-Heinemann .
Gulati, R. 1995. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for
contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal 38: 85-112.
Haenlein, M., and A.M. Kaplan. 2004. A beginner’s guide to partial least squares
analysis. Understanding Statistics 3(4): 283-297.
Huber, G. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literature.
Organization Science 2(1): 88-115.
Hundley, G., and C. Jacobson. 1998. The effects of the keiretsu on the export
performance of japanese companies: help or hindrance? Strategic Management
Journal 19: 927-937.
Inkpen, A., and E. Tsang. 2005. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer.
Academy of Management Review 30(1): 146-165.
Jaffe, A.B. 1989. Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review 79(5):
957-970.
Jaffe, A.B., M. Trajtenberg, and R. Henderson. 1993. Geographic localization of
knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of
Economics 108(3): 577-598.
Kale, P., H. Singh, and H. Pelmutter. 2000. Learning and protection of proprietary
assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal
21(3): 217-237.
22

23. Keeble, D., C. Lawson, B. Moore, and F. Wilkinson. 1999. Collective learning
processes, networking and institutional thickness in the Cambridge region. Regional
Studies 33: 319-332.
Krause, D.R., R.B. Handfield, and B.B. Tyler. 2007. The relationships between supplier
development, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance
improvement. Journal of Operations Management 25: 528-545.
Krugman, P. 1991. Geography and trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lane, P.J., J.E. Salk, and M.A. Lyles. 2001. Absorptive capacity, learning and
performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal 22: 1139-
1161.
Lane, P.J., and M. Lubatkin. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational
learning. Strategic Management Journal 19: 461-477.
Lazerson, M.H., and G. Lorenzoni. 1999. The firms that feed industrial districts: a
return to the Italian source. Industrial and Corporate Change 8(2): 235-266.
Malecki, E. 1995. Culture as mediator of global and local forces. In Human Resources
and Industrial Spaces: A Perspective on Globalization and Location, ed. B. Van der
Knaap, and R. Le Heron, 105-127. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Marshall, A. 1925. Principles of economics (1890). 8th ed. London: Macmillan.
Martin, R. 1994. Economic Theory and Human Geography. In Human Geography.
Society, Space, and Social Science, ed. D. Gregory, R. Martin, and G. Smith, 21-53.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Maula, M., E. Autio, and G. Murray. 2003. Prerequisites for the creation of social
capital and subsequent knowledge acquisition in corporate venture capital. Venture
Capital 35(2): 117-134.
McEvily, B., and A. Zaheer. 1999. Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in
competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 20: 1133-1156.
Molina-Morales F.X. 2005. The territorial agglomerations of firms: a social capital
perspective from the Spanish tile industry. Growth and Change 36(1): 74-99.
Molina-Morales, F.X., and M.T. Martínez-Fernández. 2006. Industrial Districts:
Something more than Neighborhood. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development
18: 303-324
Molina-Morales, F.X., and M.T. Martínez-Fernández. 2004. How much difference is
there between industrial district firms? A net value creation approach. Research
Policy 33: 473-486.
Morrison, A., and R. Rabellotti. 2005. Knowledge and information networks: evidence
from an italian wine local system. Working Paper 174/2005, CESPRI. Milano:
Universitá Bocconi.
Mowery, D.C., J.E. Oxley, and B.S. Silverman. 1996. Strategic alliances and inter-firm
knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal 17: 77-92.
Nahapiet, J., and S. Ghoshal. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the
organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(2): 242-266.
23

24. Nelson, R., and S. Winter 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change.
Cambridge: Belknap.
Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization
Science 5(1): 14-37.
Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric theory. 2ª ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, C. 1996. The institutional embeddedness of economic activity. Advances in
Strategic Management 13: 163-186.
Paniccia, I. 1998. One, a hundred, thousands of industrial district. Organizational
variety in local networks of small and medium-sized enterprises. Organization Studies
19(4): 667-699.
Rowley, T. 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder
influences. Academy Management Review 22(4): 887-910.
Signorini, L.F. 1994. The price of Prato, or measuring the industrial district effect.
Paper in Regional Science 73(4): 369-392.
Simonin, B.L. 1999. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic
alliances. Strategic Management Journal 20(7): 595-623.
Spanos, Y.E., and S. Lioukas. 2001. An examination into the causal logic of rent
generation: contrasting Porter’s competitive strategy framework and the resource
based perspective. Strategic Management Journal 22: 907-934.
Storper, M. 1992. The limits of the globalization: Technology districts and international
trade. Economic Geography 68: 60-93.
Storper, M. 1997. The regional world. Territorial development in a global economy.
New York: Guilford Press.
Tsai, W. 2000. Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of
intraorganizational linkages. Strategic Management Journal 21: 925-939.
Tsai, W., and S. Ghoshal. 1998. Social capital, and value creation: the role of intrafirm
networks. Academy of Management Journal 41(4): 464-478.
Triglia, C. 2001. Social capital and local development. European Journal of Social
Theory 4(4): 427-442.
Utterback, J. 1974. Innovation in industry and the diffusion of technology. Science 183:
620-626.
Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness of the economic
performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review
61(4): 674-698.
Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of
embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 35-67.
Wolfe, D. 2002. Social capital and cluster development in learning regions. In
Knowledge, clusters and learning regions, ed. J.A. Holbrook, and D. Wolfer.
Kingston: School of policy, Queen’s University.
24

25. Yli-Renko, H., E. Autio, E., and H. Sapienza 2001. Social capital, knowledge
acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firm. Strategic
Management Journal 22(6-7): 587-613.
Young-Ybarra, D., and M. Wiersema 1999. Strategic flexibility in information
technology alliances: the influence of transaction cost economics and social Exchange
theory. Organization Science 10(4): 439-459.
Zahra, S., R. Ireland, and M. Hitt. 2000. International expansion by new venture firms:
International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and
performance. Academy of Management Journal 43(5): 925-950.
Appendix I
Feeling of belonging
In general, I strongly identify with organizations from my local area.
Cognitive social capital (shared goals)
We share the same ambition and vision as our contacts.
My firm is enthusiastic about pursuing the collective goals and missions of our relationships.
We share our goals and objectives with our contacts.
We understand our contacts’ strategy and needs.
My firm’s employees and my contacts’ employees have positive attitudes toward a cooperative
relationship.
My firm and my contacts tend to agree on how to make the relationship work.
Cognitive social capital (shared culture)
The business practices and operational mechanisms of your contacts are very similar to yours.
The corporate culture and management style of your contacts is very similar to yours.
Knowledge acquisition
Your company has learnt or acquired new or important information from your contacts.
Your company has learnt or acquired critical capability or skill from your contacts.
Your relationships or contacts have helped your company to enhance its existing capabilities/skills.
Your contacts have been an important source of information/know-how for you on customer needs
and trends.
Your contacts have been an important source of information/know-how for you on competition.
Your contacts have been an important source of information/know-how for you in technical issues.
25