Are You Struggling To Write A Full Dissertation - Full Dissertation Sample in Tutors India

High Impact Firms
This Sample Work has been completed by Tutors India

Copyright Tutors India. All rights reserved.
www.tutorsindia.com
2016-2017 All Rights Reserved, No part of this document should be modified/used without prior consent
Tutors India - Your trusted mentor since 2001
www.tutorindia.com I UK # +44-1143520021, Info@tutorsindia.com
Page 1 of 49
Table of Contents
Introduction: .................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Introduction to the study: ...................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Description of research report ............................................................................................... 5
1.3 Background high impact firms: ............................................................................................ 6
1.4 Research Objective: .............................................................................................................. 6
1.5 Research question: ................................................................................................................ 7
1.6 Scope of the study: ................................................................................................................ 7
1.7 Significance of the study:...................................................................................................... 8
1.8 Implications for the industry: ................................................................................................ 8
1.9 Conclusion: ........................................................................................................................... 8
2.0. Literature review: ..................................................................................................................... 9
2.1. Defining High impact firms: ................................................................................................ 9
2.2. Factors influencing emergence of high growth firms: ....................................................... 10
2.2.1 Micro-level factors ..................................................................................................................... 10

2.2.2. Macro level factors: .................................................................................................................. 11
2.3 Patterns of growth in high impact firms: ............................................................................ 12
2.4 Effect of the Environment on high impact firms: .............................................................. 13
2.5 Barriers to growth of high impact firms: ............................................................................ 13
2.6 Competitive strategy in high impact firm growth: .............................................................. 14
2.7 Heterogeneity and high impact firms:................................................................................. 14
Page 2 of 49
2.7.1 Heterogeneity in firm growth measures:................................................................................... 15
2.7.2 Heterogeneity in the appropriateness of specific firm growth indicators: ............................... 15
2.8 High growth firms and employment growth:...................................................................... 16
2.9 HGF and economic growth: ................................................................................................ 16
2.10 Competence blocks in HGFs: ........................................................................................... 17
2.11 Innovation and growth of High impact firms: .................................................................. 19
2.12 Conclusion: ....................................................................................................................... 20
3.0: Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 21
3.0. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 21
3.1. Research Question ............................................................................................................. 21
3.2. Hypothesis.......................................................................................................................... 21
3.3 Research Design: ................................................................................................................ 21
3.4. Research population: .......................................................................................................... 22
3.5. Research Methodology: ..................................................................................................... 22
3.5.1. The Deductive versus the Inductive Approach: ........................................................................ 23

3.5.2. The Qualitative versus the Quantitative Approach: ................................................................. 24
3.6. Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 24
3.6.1. Quantitative approach through statistical databases:............................................................. 25

3.6.2. Qualitative analysis: .................................................................................................................. 25
3.7. Ethical Consideration: ........................................................................................................ 26
3.8 Conclusion: ......................................................................................................................... 26
4.0. Findings and Analysis: ........................................................................................................... 28
4.1. Introduction: ....................................................................................................................... 28
4.2. High impact firms in UK: .................................................................................................. 28
4.2.1 Financial source: ........................................................................................................................ 28

4.2.2 Location:..................................................................................................................................... 29
4.2.3. Sectoral composition: ............................................................................................................... 31
Page 3 of 49
4.2.4. Creation of employment: .......................................................................................................... 32
4.2.5. Summary of quantitative analysis and implications for the qualitative analysis:..................... 33
4.3. Policies and regulatory framework: ................................................................................... 34
4.3.1. Need for policy intervention: .................................................................................................... 34

4.3.2. Polices implemented by the UK government: .......................................................................... 34
4.3.3. Macro and micro economic policies: ........................................................................................ 35
4.3.4. Regulatory framework as a driver for high growth firms: ........................................................ 36
4.3.5. Proposed implications for policymakers to foster growth of high impact firms: ..................... 38
4.4. Conclusion: ........................................................................................................................ 39
5.0. Summary and Recommendations: ......................................................................................... 40
5.1. Introduction: ....................................................................................................................... 40
5.2. Summary: ........................................................................................................................... 40
5.3. Limitations of the study and reflective criticism: .............................................................. 41
5.4. Recommendations for further study: ................................................................................. 41
An analysis of the determinants of the prevalence of Start-ups which influence fostering

of High-Growth Firms .............................................................................................................. 42
5.5. Conclusion: ........................................................................................................................ 42
References: ................................................................................................................................ 43
Page 4 of 49
1.0 Introduction:
1.1 Introduction to the study:
Economic development can be described as a desired characteristic by all countries but very few actually
achieve it. It is a complex process involving many dimensions, each of these diverse facts with varying
scopes. It is important for the country governments to understand the different variables involved in
controlling of the various sectors of the economy, their contributions as well as their characteristics. One
of the important and under studied category is the high impact firms. There has been a lot of debate about
the definition of a high impact firm, it has been observed very clearly by a number of authors that their
importance to the growth of the economy is very high. Thriving businesses are very important for the
development of an economy and also the recovery of the economy of the country after a period of
recession.
Productivity growth can be decomposed between the effects of the reallocation of resources within firms
which often happens as a result of the existing conditions of internal reorganization and between different
firms which often occurs as a result of existing conditions of entry, exist, mergers and acquisitions
(NESTA 2009a). This process of restructuring is inhibited if the growth of highly impact firms is
constrained. This in turn results in a condition where they fail to replace low-productivity firms.
There is therefore a keen interest in learning more about the policy and institutional settings which help
create the most favourable conditions for firms to prosper and grow. It is seen that businesspeople,
investors and policymakers over the years have created jobs, wealth and wider prosperity. There is a
necessity of the government to create the right conditions for businesses to grow. Therefore it is very
important to understand how the growth can be the achieved as well as understand the factors required to
understand it. This dissertation examines growth of high growth firms primarily in the cities of the United
Kingdom. During the course of the investigation it also helps in the consideration of the wider benefits of
growth businesses and the relationship between growth and innovation. The importance of innovation to
business growth is acknowledged. The considerable socio economic benefits of high growth businesses
along with the different policies implemented are also studied. All this leads to the development of ways
to foster high growth firms.
1.2 Description of research report:
The present research report is organized in to five major chapters.
In Chapter one the concise background of the analytical problem and background on high growth firms.
There is also a discussion of the scope of the study as well as industry implications. In addition, the
chapter also sets the aims and objectives, outlines the research question which is discussed through the
course of the dissertation presentation.
The chapter two reviews the literatures on the different aspects of high growth firms. It provides an
analysis of the heterogeneity of the existing firms, the highlighting characteristics of these firms, the
competencies and barriers for growth of the firms. The chapter also rationalizes the need of the hour for
establishing more high growth firms in the country in order to promote the economic development of the
nation.
In chapter three the research methodology is discussed. This includes the research study design, data
collection techniques, research hypothesis and validation of the research design chosen.
Chapter four of the report focuses on data analysis. In this report there is a discussion of findings which
can be broadly brought under two different sections. The overview of the existing high growth firms in
Page 5 of 49
UK and their structural aspects is discussed. Secondly there is a concentration on the different policies as
well as reviews which can be made in order to foster high impact firms. There is a scrutiny of a number of
recent reports on high growth firm behavior and their characteristic features.
Chapter five of the report is the final chapter and it gives the executive summary of the study,
implications and further recommendation for future study.
Chapter six of the report contains the bibliography section that is used in the study.
1.3 Background high impact firms:
High impact firms (HIF) can be defined as those firms whose sales have at least doubled over a four
period. (Acs, Parsons and Tracy, 2008). OECD defines, namely that a firm with employment or turnover
growth of greater than 20% per year over a 3 year period is considered to be high growth.(OECD 2007).
The High growth firms are firms which are in found in all sectors of economy for ex, primary, secondary
and tertiary and they are not only subjected to high technology sectors. Successful innovation enables
high growth firms to outperform others, so innovative firms grow twice as fast as firms which dont
innovative. (NESTA October 2009).
Most of the HIF are relatively old, few in number and contribute the majority of overall economic growth.
The existing of the industries is in almost all regions, states, Metropolitan statistical areas and counties,
which account for almost all employment and revenue growth in the economy. It takes a company around
20 to 25 years to enter high impact stage or they are as old as 25 years but they are younger compared to
low impact firm. They exist for around this period of time before they impact the economy.
The job creation by high impact firms was 58% in 12 years in small firms. When they are classified as
high impact firms initially only 3% die most of them continue and grow to a certain extent. After a HIF
undergoes its high growth phase around 75% of these firms fail to sustain their high impact status. These
firms account for almost all private sector employment and economic growth in the economy but they
only represent 3% of all firms. The data provided by as per SBA office of advocacy 2009 suggest that
local economic development Officials would benefit from recognizing the value of cultivating high-
growth firms versus trying to increase entrepreneurship overall or trying to attract relocating companies
when utilizing their resources (Harpst G 2009 and SBA- High Impact Firms: Gazelles Revisited 2008).
1.4 Research Objective:
Government has taken many efforts in the past to benefit enterprises. However despite these efforts there
appear to be a number of barriers in the business as well as the regulatory environment towards fostering
of high impact firms. This research analyses the factors which influence the growth of a high growth firm
along with the different policy measures being promoted by government as well as a regulatory
framework required to foster the growth of more high impact firms.
This report aims to add to the piling evidence base by identifying common characteristics of high impact
firms and ensuring that the framework established could give rise to a business environment which
promotes the growth of high impact firms. The main aims and objectives of this research report are as
follows:
To study how high impact firms are more efficient than low impact firms.
To critically evaluate and analyze the literature available on high impact firms.
Page 6 of 49
To determine the relation between high impact firms and economic development during all
stages of an economy.
To study the effect of recession on high impact firms.
To focus on employment change, innovation and productivity
1.5 Research question:
There seems to be a consensus with regard to the magnitude of high impact firms in the UK national
economy. There is an existing debate about the efforts as well as effectiveness of the different policies put
forth by the directive bodies in the UK concerning high impact firms. This is very clear in the number of
comments made by academics with reference to the comparative performance of the UK firms with the
rest of the worlds. This research is intended towards bridging this over growing gap.
What are the different measures that can be adopted in order to promote measures to foster high
impact firms?
The answers to this questions helps in bringing about an explanation to this ongoing debate and help in
the provision of a firmer basis for judgment as well as decision making.
Table 1: Morphological analysis
Topic Aim Design Focus

High impact firms Identification of Reports, Journals and Single firm category:
measures to foster academic papers. High Impact
growth of high impact
firms
Adapted from Fisher, 2007
Therefore the hypothesis to be tested involves two components
A study of the existing structural behavior of the high impact firms in the UK is important to
arrive at measures to promote fostering of high impact firms.
Policies need to be directed at high impact firms to facilitate fostering of high impact firms.
1.6 Scope of the study:
Given the effective nature of high impact firms, it is important that better measures of undertaking
policies to foster the growth of high growth firms is important. There is a perception in the economic
world that the UK and Europe are failing to create innovative new firms that growth rapidly into world
leaders. There is a persistent belief that the UK government is taking enough measures to ensure
sustainable development of high growth firms.
For economists capital gaps occur when worthy business opportunities go unfunded even though capital
is available in the economy overall. With such claims attached to high impact firms, it is become more
binding for the government to act positively (Buss 2008). When faced with increased global
competitiveness and economic uncertainty it becomes important to focus on developing better measures
of managing businesses. There is a need to create more new business opportunities as well as accelerate
Page 7 of 49
the current existing business development projects. It is becoming increasingly important to concentrate
on small and midsized companies. It has been well documented that it is in these organizations that the
drivers of our local economies which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of economic and
employment are located (Harpst 2008).
It has been established that UKs long-term economic growth is underpinned by the vitality of its
businesses. In order to guarantee future economic performance of the country it is important that a
dynamic business sector is developed. This sector involves a situation where new firms continuously
enter the market, grow in size and displace weak firms. It is therefore important the government
encourage entrepreneurship and provides a range of help for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
These should include grants for business investment and research and development. \
Despite the growing interest in fast-growing firms very little is currently known about how businesses
grow in the United Kingdom and what their impact on the economic performance of the nation.This
report looks at measures for fostering high growth firms by looking at policies of the government as well
the existing structural behavior of high growth firm involving measures to promote advice and co-funding
for development of export capability, small loan guarantees and venture capital schemes.
1.7 Significance of the study:
High impact firms are called so due to their significant contribution to the economy they exist in. It has
been well established that they generate a very high percentage of jobs created in the UK economy
(Hoffman and Junge 2006). It has been shown by extensive research that high growth firms which
usually form about 3-4% of all firms in the economy generate more than half of the new jobs in the
United Kingdom (Storey 1994). Given the high correlation between high impact firms as well as the
economic activity of the country there is a need for suitable reforms and policies which can help promote
the growth of high impact firms. This research report is intended towards achieving this goal.
1.8 Implications for the industry:
High growth firms generate benefits for the whole economy which extend more widely than the profits
realized by the entrepreuner and investors (BERR 2008). These benefits can be enhanced by the analysis
of the structural behavior of the existing HGFs in UK and promoting policies by regulatory bodies to
ensure that these firms are fostered in a better manger. The implications of the findings will lay out a blue
print for the subsequent action to be taken by the regulators so as to maintain growth in the existing firms
and also facilitate entry of more number of high impact firms. This research report is aimed at providing
measures to bridge the gap in the percentage of high growth firms between UK and the US as denoted by
Hoffman and Junge 2006.
1.9 Conclusion:
As explained in this chapter, the study shall focus on the key determinants of methods to develop and
foster high impact firms. The next chapter presents the literature reviewed for this study.
Page 8 of 49
2.0. Literature review:
The main aim of this literature review is to obtain recently updated data with regard to high growth firms
in order to develop a holistic approach to the chosen area of research and highlight the overall importance
of high growth firms in the U.K. economy. This section reviews literature published by accomplished
authors who have researched the behavior of firm categories with similar features. The research
concentrates on defining high impact firms, Characteristics and growth patterns of these firms and
describing the different heterogeneity measures which have role to play in fostering existing high growth
firms and attracting the growth of newer firms.
The literature review has been organized into numerous subsections each detailing the different ways in
which they influence the fostering of high growth firms. The scope of literature in the area of high impact
firms is broad. It contains more fields than that can be managed in this literature of review. Hence this
chapter concentrates on the different factors which influence the fostering of high impact firms. Notice is
given to those sections which highlight the characteristics of high impact firms which in turn influence
their economic contribution. Factors influencing the creation and sustenance of firms have also been
highlighted.
2.1. Defining High impact firms:
High impact firms can be described quite easily. These are firms which can be considered as those which
grow at a rate much higher than other firms. This rate of growth is very prominent and contributes to the
economy of the country.
High-growth firms have attracted considerable attention from the industrial sector. These firms today are
considered to be exceptional and some authors consider these firms as being solely responsible for driving
economic growth through extreme rates of growth. These growth rates include employment, sales, profits
and engagement in innovative behavior (NESTA 2009b).
The term high impact firms has been used interchangeably with other terms like high growth and
Gazelles. It has been accepted by numerous authors that these terms are almost similar and can be
used alternatively (NESTA 2009b).
NESTA (2009b) report has indicated that recently conducted 19 different studies have noted that there is
no general agreement on the definition of high-growth firms and gazelles (Henrikson and Johannsen
2008). Definitions have always varied based on a number of factors which include:
1. Choice of growth indicator: These indicators include parameters like employment, sales or
profits.
2. Measurement of the growth achieved
3. The time period over which this growth is measured
4. The method in which this growth was achieved. Issues like whether the growth is through
acquisitions or is it through organic methods.
Leibenstein (1968) has indicated that high impact firms are those which help in improving and innovating
new processes or products. These processes and products are then brought into the market in order to
create new business opportunities. This definition has not covered any of the factors indicated previously
in the NESTA report hence cannot be used.
Birch (1981) used revenue growth as a factor to define high impact firms. This model was developed to
promote the value of the monetary benefits to prospective clients who would invest in the newly
Page 9 of 49
developed innovative products. A main constraint of this model is that though it considers a growth factor
a time period or the method of growth was not taken into consideration at all.
BERR(2008) report has used the term high impact firm very loosely. They have denoted that all firms
which sustain levels of growth in turnover or in employee numbers can be considered as firms which have
a high growth when compared to the majority of the business. This definition is again vague and does not
cover all the criteria.
OECD (2007) has proposed the following definition for a high growth firm:
A high-growth firm is defined as a firm with an average employment growth rate exceeding 20 per cent
per annum over a three-year period and with ten or more employees at the start of the period
Looking deeper into the definition by OECD one can note that this definition has supported all the criteria
proposed by NESTA (2009). It has covered the internal growth factor in terms of turnover in terms of
employee numbers. It has also included a time factor indicating that there should be 20% growth over a
period of three years. This looks at the consistency of the company. The contribution made to the
economy in terms of employment as well as productivity is clear and concise. These aspects indicate that
this definition is the best suited for this research.
2.2. Factors influencing emergence of high growth firms:
Delmar (1997) has showed that there is little agreement on what type of factors affect growth or on how
this growth is best measured. It was indicated that the choice of absolute versus relative growth criteria
has a substantial impact on the results when applied to high growth firms. Some factors which positively
affected absolute growth were unrelated to growth in relative terms. The same pattern was also discovered
when growth in sales as well as growth in numbers of employees were determined. The factors affecting
sales were found to be quite different from those which affect the number of employees. Most of the
studies in this section were found to be cross-sectional and relied on relatively small samples. These
limitations of the data thus lead to fractional insights into the reality of high-growth firms and it was
discovered by Murphy, Trailer & Hill (1996) that the different measures of performance should include
both macro level as well as micro level factors to establish a consensus on absolute and relative growth.
2.2.1 Micro-level factors
A review of the different micro level factors which influence the birth of high growth firms is very
important to this study. These factors help understand the importance of fostering high growth firms.
Entrepreneurship and innovation has been promoted as an important factor which helps in the growth of
firms by NESTA (2009a) report. This section of the review of literature looks at the different micro level
factors which influence the emergence of high growth firms.
Productive entrepreneurship is an essential explanatory factor which influences the economic

performance of a company. There are a number of reasons to believe in this factor which leads to a
number of cross country differences in the degree of productivity which is enhanced when there is
entrepreneurial activity. There are a number of other reasons which guide this type of difference in
economic performance (Flamholtz,1996).
The concrete manifestation of this type of vibrant entrepreneurial culture can give rise to the following
observation:
Page 10 of 49
1. The high prevalence of new entrepreneurs has led to a substantial increase in the rate of firm
formation.
2. The availability of a number of commercial ideas can be understood and translated into a good
sized number of high growth firms.
A number of empirical research which has aimed at the identification of the different micro level factors
which have influenced the emergence and high growth of firms. A number of different psychological as
well as socio demographic factors have been identified by a number of authors and they have all arrived
at different conclusions (Ardishivili, 1998).
There has been identification of thirty five different factors, classified under three different categories
namely (Flamholtz,1996):
1. The availability of starting resources for any entrepreneur. This includes factors like motivation
as well as education
2. The different characteristics of the firm. This includes factors like size of the firm and age.
3. The different strategies which are developed and implemented by the firm. This includes
management training as well as market positioning.
It has also been identified by Barringer et al., (2005) that there are four very important categories of
variables which influence rapid firm growth. These include founder characteristics, firm attributes,
business practices as well as human resource management.
2.2.2. Macro level factors:
Macro-level factors which influence high growth firms include study of the effects of public policy, like
tax policy and financial assistance, aimed at stimulating the growth of small and medium sized firms
(Storey 1994; Storey 2006). The effects of institutions on firm growth in a broader sense encompasses
the different business climate has been studied by Demirg-Kunt and Maksimovic (1998) and his
literature specifically addressing the effects of public information on high growth firms which indicates is
scarce. Davidsson and Henrekson (2002) have analyzed the effects of institutions on the incentives for
entrepreneurs to establish and rapidly expand enterprises. Stam et al. (2007) has discussed the policy
implications of the fact that entrepreneurs with high growth ambitions contribute relatively more to
economic growth than the average entrepreneur.
Endogenous growth theories have developed models that come closer to making explicit what drives
long-term economic development. Explicit incentives of innovations have been considered as macro level
factors have been included so as to explain why individuals would engage in creating new technologies
and better ways of producing goods and services (Barro and Sala-i-Martin 1995).
The study of the macro and micro level factors is important to this study because, the factors in turn
influence the growth characteristics of the firm. The characteristics of high impact firms are discussed in
the following section.
Characteristics of a high impact firm:
While studying the methods of fostering high impact firms one must understand the characteristics of
these firms. The characteristics of high impact firms have been studied and discussed extensively in
BERR (2008), NESTA (2009a) and Henrikson and Johannsen (2008). This section details the different
views of academicians as to what characters are inherent to high impact firms.
Page 11 of 49
It can be assumed that the definition of what precisely governs a high impact firm is meaningful in terms
of the different policies that it employees. When one looks at the various definitions extended with
respect to high impact there is no accepted version by academics or practioners Caves (1998). There is
no agreed definition and particular application and there is often recourse to a subjective and pragmatic
classification at different levels of industrial disaggregation.
High growth firms have been characterized over the past based on their employee turnover rates.
Determination of the different employment changes is one of the most important standard ways to
measure and determine growth. It was observed that at least ten to twenty percent of change over a period
five years may account for a high growth firm (Birch, 1998). White and Reynolds (1996) observed that
measures like the growth observed in the profit of material, the increase in the marketing and sales, book
value as well as future expectations may also influence the definition of a high growth firm.
There are three approaches to the definition of a high impact firm as indicated by Harris and McArthur
(1975). These measures include purely subjective ideas, drawing a distinction between the products
produced and the different product innovation strategies, using different surrogative measures to increase
the impact of the firms.
Weiss (1985) discovered the association between high technology as well as high impact firms. He
proposed that most high technology firms develop into high growth firms not only because of their
research and development but also because of their high growth in output and sales. It has also been
observed that high impact firms are influenced by ideas like employment growth, employment
composition which may not necessarily be a correct indicator (Langridge, 1984).
The study of the different characteristics which influence the growth of a high impact firm is very vital to
this research report, as these characteristics are the ones which set the platform to determine measures to
foster growth of high impact firms.
2.3 Patterns of growth in high impact firms:
This section of the review of literature concentrates on the different growth patterns of high impact firms.
The NESTA (2009b) report has indicated that all the factors which affect a firms growth should be taken
into account while defining a high impact firm. These factors are reflected only when one analyses the
pattern of growth in these different firms.
Firms grow in many different ways and that these patterns of growth, over time, can vary significantly
and have different causes (Davidsson and Wiklund, J., 2000). The search for an explanation for why firms
grow without knowledge of how firms grow has lead to a number of conflicting theories about the causes
of firm growth over the years. It has been argued that firm growth patterns are often very closely related
to the demographic characteristics of the different firms. There is a well-established view that a firms
growth pattern is dependent on its age, its size, and its industry affiliation (Davidsson and Wiklund, J.,
2000).
The concept that firms grow in different ways has lead to the assumption that the reasons leading to this
type of growth and the outcome of this growth is going to be completely different (Donckels and
Lambrecht, 1995). The expansion of the evidences provided which includes pertinent information about
the demographic profile of each growth firm has suggested that the presence of these different
characteristics can definitely affect the probability of the type of growth that occurs and how the firm will
expand. The firm growth is not static in nature and this view has been supported widely in previous
literature. This type of previous research has included en cross sectional designs which have focused on
the occurrences of growth and not on the dynamic evolution of changes which have occurred over time
Page 12 of 49
within these growing firms (Dunne and Hughes, 1996). Cross-sectional evaluation of growth firms is,
therefore, problematic in nature as researchers have been unable to understand which parameter to focus
on. Such analyses have always precluded the examination of the ordering of the development of each
firm. This is important for accurate estimation of how a firm actually achieved growth (Hoy et al., 1996).
The patterns of growth of a high growth firm also play a role in the determination of the effect of
environment and the barriers to growth of high impact firms which is discussed in the following sections.
2.4 Effect of the Environment on high impact firms:
This section details the factors apart from growth patterns which influence high impact firms. The effect
of environment on any business organization has been discussed by a number of academicians. Therefore
it stands to reason that a study of the effects on the environment on high impact firm will help in the study
of fostering high impact firms.
Theories have been proposed and empirically supported which suggest that the growth of all
organizations are affected by their environments ( Dunne et al., 1992). There are three dimensions of
environment namely dynamism, munificence, and complexity which have influenced the growth of a
firm. Dynamism which in turn refers to negative stability deals with the level of environmental
predictability. This is manifested in the rate of market and industry change and the level of uncertainty
about forces that are beyond the control of individual businesses ( Hoy et al., 1992).
It is always assumed that stable environments are easier to navigate and this can in turn lead to an
environmental stability. This is postulated to be positively related to venture growth. Munificence refers
to the environments support for organizational growth (Dunne et al., 1992). High munificence enables
firms to cope with challenges by providing resources from outside the firm. Complexity represents the
concentration or dispersion of organizations in the environment (Dunne et al., 1992). Complex
environments, composed of many firms, may be more difficult for entrepreneurs to comprehend.
2.5 Barriers to growth of high impact firms:
While the previous sections have detailed the different factors which promote a firm into a highly
growing one, one must also account for the different barriers which will prevent fostering of a high
growth firm as they have a bearing on the growth of the firms.
Access to finance has been listed as a major barrier to growth for a small minority of firms. The BERR
report on the Annual Small Business Survey has indicated that businesses aspiring to grow consistently
are more likely to seek finance. This indirectly indicates that these firms are more likely to experience
certain difficulties when compared with those businesses not seeking growth.
Firms which embark on a phase of growth have larger financing requirements than those which do not
seek growth. These growth plans may be risky and the return of profit may be delayed. These factors
indicate that the different equity investments are the most appropriate type of finance for high growth
firms (BERR 2008).
There have been a number of studies which have examined the effect of the founders gender on growth
performance. A research by Stam and Garnsey (2008) has determined that male founders have a positive
impact on growth while women entrepreneurs are found to have lower growth ambitions when compared
to their male counterparts.
Page 13 of 49
BERR (2008) reports some evidences which indicate that firms which are innovative and have larger
management teams are most likely to form strategic alliances. Therefore those firms which do not form
Strategic alliances may not achieve as much success as those which enter into such alliances.
There has been an evidence of a positive correlation between research and development investments
which intensity the companys performance measures such as sales growth Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven
(1996). High growth firms tend to be innovative and inhabit niche areas and this reason why their main
product or service is differentiated from others in the market. Those firms which do not try new
innovations in their products or their services face the barrier to high growth Littunen and Virtanen
(2004).
2.6 Competitive strategy in high impact firm growth:
This section indicates the different strategies which can help remove the above mentioned barriers to the
growth of a high impact firm. These strategies are to be discussed because they throw light on the
different policies and competencies which can be taken up by firms to foster their growth into a high
impact firm.
Competitive strategy was conceived to be an important factor which promoted the growth of firms. This
strategy was discussed in depth by a number of researchers over a long time (Porter 1980).There has been
a conception of strategies in terms of three broad business-level choices namely focus, low cost, and
differentiation. Focus is also called as narrow scope and it refers to competitive strategies that target a
particular set of customers, segment of the product line, or geographic market. The adaptation of the low
cost strategy involves the construction of efficient scale facilities (Dess & Davis, 1984).. It also requires
an aggressive pursuit of cost reduction and cost minimization in all functions of the organization. There is
a need to understand and promote different products offered to customers who are price sensitive (Dess &
Davis, 1984). Differentiation strategies are designed to create and market innovative/high quality products
and/or services industry-wide (Porter, 1980). According to Porter, the three competitive strategies are
alternative viable approaches for dealing with environmental forces. Firms that fail to select one of these
strategies are stuck in the middle and, therefore, almost always doomed to failure (Porter, 1980: 42).
Porter has also determined that the firms which are stuck in the middle lack the investment in low cost
structure to compete on price. They also do not have the industry-wide differentiation to necessarily offset
the need for a low cost position. They need to focus to achieve differentiation or a low cost within a
limited market space.
2.7 Heterogeneity and high impact firms:
This section deals with one of the main factors which have made the study of high impact firms more
difficult for academicians. This factor is the heterogeneity of high impact firms. There is detailing of the
reasons for this heterogeneity and its importance in fostering the growth of high impact firms.
Any study that involves high firm studies are by themselves heterogeneous in nature They include a
number of variations like the variation in measures used in organizational growth studies, the variation in
growth indicators, the variation in the measurement of firm growth over time (Delmer et al., 2003). Other
areas like the variation in the processes by which firm growth occurs including areas like organic vs.
acquisition and the variation in the characteristics of these firms and their environments are all important
features of organizational growth as a phenomenon (Delmer et al., 2003). The different heterogenous
factors which influence the growth of high impact firms are indicated below.
Page 14 of 49
2.7.1 Heterogeneity in firm growth measures:
It has been observed by a number of scholars that the diversity of measures used to determine the
organizational growth studies have made it extremely difficult and has caused a lot of issues when it
comes to the ability of scholars to accumulate and compare results (Delmar, 1997; Murphy et al., 1996;
Weinzimmer et al., 1998).
The growth of an organization can be measured with regard to the absolute increase in the marketing and
the growth in sales which is measured over a period of five years (Dunne and Hughes, 1996; McCann,
1991; Merz and Sauber, 1995; Miller, 1987). The relative employment growth over a time period of three
years (Cooper et al., 1994; Donckels and Lambrecht, 1995; Peters and Brush, 1996; Vaessen and Keeble,
1995; Zahra, 1993).
The choice of absolute or relative growth is especially important for the relationship between sizeand
anything correlated with sizeand growth. Absolute measures tend to ascribe higher growth to larger
firms whereas smaller firms more easily reach impressive growth in percentage (i.e., relative) terms. The
implication of the choice between relative and absolute measures is much discussed in the literature and
seems to be reasonably well understood by researchers when designing their studies, but frequently
forgotten when results are compared with other studies. The issue of time frame has achieved even less
attention (Delmar, 1997).
2.7.2 Heterogeneity in the appropriateness of specific firm growth indicators:
An overlapping problem to the heterogeneity in growth measures of firms is the ideas and choices of
validity, and reliability of different growth measures. These have been determined from theoretical and
methodological perspectives by a number of authors (Chandler and Hanks, 1993; Weinzimmer et al.,
1998).
Some authors have concentrated on different growth indicators which influence the growth of any firm
within a short interval. Ardishvili et al. (1998) along with Delmar (1997) have arrived at almost identical
lists of possible growth indicators. These include assets, employment, market share, physical output,
profits, and sales. Among these listed indicators, sales and employment have found to be the most
important indicators. The use of sales and employment measures are the most widely used in empirical
growth research as indicated by Delmar (1997). The other indicators that have been studied and a number
of authors have discovered different shortcomings that limit their applicability outside of very special
contexts. If we consider indicators like market shares and physical output it can be determined that these
can only be compared within industries for firms with a similar product range (Delmar 2003). Using this
as an indicator along with other indicators like total asset value is highly related to the capital intensity of
the industry and sensitive to changes over time. And, while profits are an important indicator of success,
the relationship of profits to size is only evident in aggregates of firms or over long periods for individual
firms (Delmar 2003).
There seems to be an emerging consensus that if only one indicator is to be chosen as a measure of firm
growth, the most preferred measure should be sales (Ardishvili et al., 1998) and (Hoy et al., 1992). It is
relatively easily accessible and firms which come under any category and can it applies to almost all
sectors of firms. It is also identified that sales is a relatively insensitive factor when it comes to capital
intensity and degree of integration. There have been arguments made that sales are the best indicator and
can be considered to be highly suitable indicator when used across different conceptualizations of the firm
(Davidsson and Wiklund, 2000). It is also the indicator favored by entrepreneurs themselves (Barkham et
al., 1996). The demand and, therefore sales is a precursor of growth in other indicators, i.e., the nature of
the growth process itself points to sales as a natural choice (Delmar, 1997) (Flamholtz, 1986).
Page 15 of 49
2.8 High growth firms and employment growth:
High growth firms were also referred to as Gazelles by David Birch about a quarter of a century ago. He
indicated that this small group of high growth firms will help generate the bulk of new net jobs and help
in boosting the economy (Landstrm 2005). These firms were contrasted with the vast majority of firms
which start out small and grew very less. The majority of firms contributed quite less to the growth of
employment and some other firms which had large employment share but employment growth. These two
types of firms were aptly denoted Mice and Elephants, respectively.
However his claim was not substantiated by empirical proof. Henrekson and Johansson (2008) identified
a total of twenty studies published after 1990. The studies vary in their scopes and methods and have used
different metric methods and investigate different industries over different time periods and in different
countries. They discovered that there was no uniform definition or defining factors with regard to the
importance of high growth firms in boosting the economy of the country.
Some general findings of Henrekson and Johansson (2008) report with regard to the role of high impact
firms on the economy particularly in are as follows:
1. An analysis of different studies on high growth firms have indicated that net job growth is a
crucial factor when compared to non-HGFs. They generate a large share of all the new net jobs.
During recession this factor has been found to be particularly pronounced. During these periods
of recession HGFs continue to grow when compared to non-HGFs which decline or exit.
2. Several studies in the United States have indicated that in the U.S. the HGFs provide a large share
of new net jobs. This is relative to total job growth in the economy and total net unemployment in
the population.
3. Small firms are overrepresented among HGFs, but HGFs are of all sizes. It is seen that larger
firms are important job contributors when analyzed in absolute terms. A small subgroup of large
HGFs has been identified. These are called as Superstars or Super Gazelles and are considered to
be the major job creators in the sector.
4. Age is undisputedly of great importance when it comes to the analysis of high growth firms. Most
of the studies summarized have reported that high growth firms are younger on average. Super
Gazelles are also reported to be relatively young. HGFs are overrepresented in young and
growing industries which in turn influence the high employment growth.
5. Young and small high growth firms grow organically to a larger extent when compared to large
and old high growth firms. They make a much larger contribution to net employment growth with
this steady growth.
6. HGFs are present in all industrial sectors. So far there is no evidence that they are
overrepresented in any type of high-tech industry. There is ample evidence of high growth firm in
many sectors thereby contributing to employment growth.
Henrekson and Johansson (2008)
2.9 HGF and economic growth:
Canada (1998) identified fourteen different variables below related to the substantiating growth of a high
growth firm which in turn lead to the growth of the economy. These factors include product life cycle
status, new product introductions, emerging technologies, investment in R&D, distribution of R&D
expenditures including ideas of new product, improved product and improved production, market, sales,
planned expansions, export sales growth, regulatory changes, projected employment needs, projected
utility service needs, jobs added, and space added.
Page 16 of 49
HGFs are instrumental to economic growth specially those high growth firms that start growing rapidly
when young and small. Recent evidence has been identified by Henrekson and Johansson (2008) which
supports this conclusion. High growth potential can be measured by looking at the total entrepreneurial
activity. This is measured according to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) study. This study
had indicated that entrepreneurship in High growth firm sector has positive effect on differing rates of
economic growth across nations (Wong et al. 2005).
Sternberg and Wennekers (2005) have indicated that these findings influence the implications for
entrepreneurship policy in highly developed economic countries. From an economic growth perspective
there is a need for policies to focus primarily on potentially fast growing new firms which will in turn
lead to the economic growth of the nation.
There are empirical findings which have shown that high growth firms on an average are both younger
than other firms as well as over represented in new and rapidly growing industries. It has also been found
that young firms seem to be more prone to explore new fields of knowledge with inspiring innovations
which lead to a growth in the economic potential of the firm, while large and mature firms though
dominate established areas may not see a drastic growth in observed economy (Almeida 1999). Analysis
of these findings by Henrekson and Johansson (2008) has shown that high growth firms can firmly
promote the economic growth in a much faster rate when compared to the other firms.
Acs et al (1999) and Acs and Audretsch (2005) have discovered that old and large firms dominate process
innovations. It is also seen that young and small firms play a greater role in product innovations. This
distinction is important because product innovations appears to be more important than process
innovation for long-run growth and improved economic potential.
2.10 Competence blocks in HGFs:
The following figure establishes the different competence bloc and the role of the various actors
in the process of fostering HGFs as indicated by Henrekson and Johansson (2008) . This figure gives a
representation of the different categories of actors in the competence bloc. It also clearly depicts the
growth phases of HGFs which include the development of a business idea, introduction, early growth,
rapid growth into a large-scale firm. This is depicted in the form of an S curve. Most high growth firms
do not display sustained growth, but follow a more complex pattern (Parker et al. 2005)
The figure also shows at which stage of a firms growth different categories play key roles. The order in
which the categories appear beneath the boxes denotes which actor has the main coordinating
responsibility and who support this main actor. Some categories of growth may be important in several
phases. A certain individual can fulfill several functions either simultaneously or at different points in the
individuals or firms life cycle (Henrekson and Johansson 2008)
The first phase of commercialization which includes the introduction and early growth of firms stage
mainly involves entrepreneurs while skilled workers are involved to a very small extent. Industrialists are
active in the phase of industrialization and rapid growth as they have the financial backing to make it
possible however one cannot discount the need for a great deal of skilled labor. Venture capitalists are
important financiers in the earlier phases mainly during the business idea development as well as the
introduction of the firm. In later phases when the firm is larger, this role is taken over by players in
secondary markets who are capable of investing a lot more when compared to venture capitalists.
Competent customers are typically involved in all phases and ultimately along with other customer finally
determine the demand for the good in the market (Henrekson and Johansson 2008).
Page 17 of 49
.
There are also spatial dimensions to the theory of competence blocs which are discussed by (Henrekson
and Johansson 2008). They have reviewed these dimensions discussed by a number of other authors. One
spatial dimension is that some industries cluster around certain sources of raw material availability which
includes forest, agriculture, mining and other sources. The stages of the product life cycle as depicted in
the figure may be geographically separated. This is because different areas may be more conducive to
different kinds of knowledge discovery and knowledge exploitation (Stam , 2007).
Competent
consumers
Developmen Industrialization
t of Commercialization, Stagnation
through rapid
competent industrialization and and decline
growth into large
ideas early growth
scale firms
Entrepreneurs, Venture Action in Action in

Inventors and Capitalists secondary market secondary market
Venture Entrepreneurs Industrialists Industrialists
Capitalists Skilled Labour Entrepreneurs Skilled Labour
Skilled Labour
Page 18 of 49
Firm size
Rapid
growth
Development Early
of a business growth
idea Introduction
Time
Figure: Competencies and Blocs fostering High growth firms
Adapted from (Henrekson and Johansson 2008).
Duranton and Puga (2001) note that cities favorable for diversified knowledge are more suited in the early
phases of the product cycle when generation of ideas is crucial, while cities advantageous for specialized
knowledge are more suited for production stages. Local institutional conditions may affect the workings
of competence blocs. It may also influence the ability to generate HGFs..
These competencies and blocs also contribute to the analysis and arrival of the different factors
influencing the growth of high impact firms.
2.11 Innovation and growth of High impact firms:
It is important to study the importance of innovations as they are the key stones which contribute to the
development of high impact firms. Economic literature has shown a strong relationship between
innovation as well as growth (Jones and Williams 1997).This is an extension of the firm heterogeneity
theory which has stated that for one firm to perform better than another there is a need for some very
specific attributes. These special attributes can be obtained using innovation.
Acs (2008) has defined innovation as the introduction of a new good or service into the market with the
presence of a distinctive quality improvement and possessing economic rent.
Innovative firms are said to make the most of invention help in generation of productivity and distinctly
help in the contribution to the economic growth of the country (Acs, 2008). High growth firms have been
observed to contain more innovations than low impact firms and it is seen that these firms tend to explore
Page 19 of 49
niche areas (BERR Report 2008). The products and services provided by these firms have been found to
be visibly different from those of the competitors (Litunnen and Virtanen, 2004).
There are four main principles which drive high impact innovation of the in high growth firms as
indicated by Acs (2008). These include:
A clear challenge statement which can express aspirations to a worthy goal. This cannot be carried out
without prescribing the means to achieve this end. This statement should be expressed in terms of a
customer need and not a business need.
There should be establishment of a well-designed, well-facilitated process. This process should include
multidisciplinary participation and sources of cutting-edge ideas to promote economic inflow.
There should be emphasis on developing concepts that combine multiple elements of innovation. These
concepts often include business models, IT platform, and channels to increase impact and distinctiveness.
The establishment of different techniques and structures that ultimately counterbalance the forces of risk
aversion in the market.
Cameron (1998) has surveyed and discovered empirical evidence between innovation and growth. He has
determined that there are number of different measures of innovation which include R and D spending,
patenting, innovation counts, pervasive effect of technological spillovers between firms, industries and
countries. This helped Cameron make two conclusions.
Innovation makes a significant contribution to growth
Significant spillovers are seen between countries, firms, industries and to a lesser extent
government funded industrial research.
Acs and Armington (2006), Cameron (1996), Audretsch et al (1996) have all recognized that one of the
crucial contributions to firm level growth influencing the economic welfare and prosperity is innovation.
Acs (2008) has determined that innovation and growth can be interpreted as something which is much
more than state guided efforts to ameliorate static market failures. Innovation has allowed the economy to
lift individuals out of poverty and has enabled in the provision of an improvement of the market. Cameron
et al (1996) has determined that firms with market dominance, like high impact firms, are more likely to
engage in innovative ideas. This is because it is more feasible for them to balance the risks of innovation
with their super normal profit.
Finally the importance of innovation in the research has been highlighted in order to indicate the need for
entrepreneurs in the quest for measures to foster high impact firms.
2.12 Conclusion:
The above critical review has established the importance as well as the sustenance of high growth firms.
The research hence forward would extract the available secondary literature with regard to high impact
firms and their performance in the United Kingdom. The research would also concentrate on the proposed
policies and regulatory frameworks available in this section. The research would then try to link the
various factors identified in this literature review employment growth, innovation, finance,
entrepreneurial choice, competencies and other miscellaneous features to measures to foster high growth
firms. The factors on the applicability of these factors on the latest distribution of high growth firms in the
UK will be considered. It will help identify suggestive guidelines for methods to foster high growth firms.
Page 20 of 49
3.0 Methodology:
3.0. Introduction:
This chapter presents the studys selected research methodology. As shall be seen, the methodology is
influenced by the purpose of this study and is based on an assessment of the optimal strategy for
responding to the research objectives as well as the research questions. As such, the current chapter
reviews the purpose of the study, presents the research questions and hypothesis, and discusses the data
collection and data analysis procedures and the limitations of the research.
3.1. Research Question:
The research questions proposed at the introduction of this hypothesis is what are the different methods to
foster the growth of different high growth firms?
3.2. Hypothesis:
From the literature review section, it is clearly seen how high impact firms through enhanced productivity
and job creation have contributed significantly to the economy of the country. It has also been highlighted
on the different characteristic features of these firms which influence the way they function as well as
dictate their chances of growth. Given their economic importance, the research hypothesis proposes that
in order to promote the fostering of high impact firms it is necessary to look at two impact implications.
Therefore the hypothesis to be tested involves two components
A study of the existing structural behavior of the high impact firms in the UK is important to
arrive at measures to promote fostering of high impact firms.
Policies need to be directed at high impact firms to facilitate fostering of high impact firms.
3.3 Research Design:
The study, like it is clear from the research question, hypothesis and Chapter One, examines a single
problem. This problem is the determination of the measures by which fostering of different high growth
firms can be brought about. Problem of the study emerges from this focus. In a realist research the
hypothesis is more of an explanation rather than a set law to be tested. Research can be objective oriented,
whereby the objective is the focus of the research or it could be hypothesis oriented, where the testing of
the hypothesis is the most important focus of the research. The researcher is set to be of the former kind
and it sets out to derive the facts rather than help in their induction. A design is used to structure the
research to show how all of the major parts of the research project the samples or groups, measures,
treatment as well as programs. These methods of assignment work together to address the issue of the
central research problem.
The research design is basically a plan which has been taken up to answer the research questions
previously put forth in this report. This design aims at answering the questions validly, objectively and
accurately. It is therefore the arrangement of conditions for collection and analysis of data. This
arrangement is often done in a manner which enables us to combine relevance to the research purpose.
The research design undertaken basically has two important functions. They relate to the identification
and development of protocols as well as the logistic arrangements made to make sure the study goes on
Page 21 of 49
uninterrupted. Another important function of this procedure involves establishing the validity and
objectivity of the research. The research design adopted aids in the following:
1. Conceptualizing the operation plan and putting in place the research design and schedule
required to complete the project undertaken.
2. Validating the procedure, obtaining accurate and acceptable answers to the put forth research
questions.
3.4. Research population:
Hair et al., (2007) states that research data can be obtained in a number of ways. It has been clearly
indicated in the review of literature that high impact firms often form only 3% to 4$ of the entire firm
population (Storey 1994). However these high impact firms are often present in a number of different
sectors it is observed that it is very difficult to conclude on their different features. It is also observed that
there are many more common characteristics which can be attributed to the different firms in these
categories. A criterion which has been established to determine these high impact firms has been
established earlier and high impact firms which fit this criteria are to be studied in this research report.
For the purpose of this research it is also clearly established that the OECD definition of high growth
firms has discussed in the literature review has been used in order to shortlist the target population.
In order to ensure the quality of the data generated authenticated sources like US Small Business
Administration, Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) and previous
evidences have been used in this study. In order to avoid numerical bias, a suitable sample size has also
been maintained in this study. It has been established by Economist (1997) that a minimum number for
statistical analysis needs to be established in economics as it helps in the provision of a useful rule of
thumb for the smallest category in each category.
The literature review has highlighted how the different characteristics of firm as well as entrepreneur
characteristics have played a very important role when it comes to the determination of the style of
functioning and performance of the firms. The features of sampling units have been analyzed for
determination of inferences with regard to the research hypothesis proposed. The research on high
growth firms is an emerging field where there is extensive literature lining up. This research design of a
realist approach involves both a quantitative versus qualitative analysis as well as deductive versus
inductive approach. These approaches help in arriving at a subjective study. Therefore the results
presented in the following chapter of Findings and Analysis should be regarded as a suggestion proposed
by the researcher and not as a conclusion.
3.5. Research Methodology:
The methodology adopted should enable the promotion and understanding on an in depth analysis of the
impact of high growth firms. This research will involve bringing out the different measures to promote
fostering of high impact firms and how they in turn would influence the national economy. Thus the
realist approach as proposed by Fisher (2007) is determined to be the best course of study. The research is
broken into constituent parts which makes it easier to establish cause and effect relationship between the
firms characteristics as well as the probable methods to promote fostering of high impact firms. This
helps in displaying specific patterns which can be observed across the cases and common behavioral
pattern can be established. These patterns can suggest the research pattern to promote fostering of high
growth firms.
Page 22 of 49
Table 2: Type of research proposed
Type of Research Action proposed Characteristics
Realist Research Identification as well as Cause and Effect

evaluation of the different
options to promote fostering of Qualitative vs Quantitative
high growth firms approach
Inductive vs Deductive approach
Source: Adopted from Fisher (2007)
It has been established by Bryman and Bell (2007) that there are two research strategies which can
promote this realist design:
1. Qualitative versus quantitative approach

2. Inductive versus Deductive approach
3.5.1. The Deductive versus the Inductive Approach:
Marcoulides (1998) defines the deductive approach as a testing of theories to promote their area of
research. The researcher begins with a set of theories in mind which help in the formation of the
hypotheses and their basis. After that, the research tests the hypotheses. The inductive approach, on the
other hand, follows from the collected empirical data and forms concepts and theories on the basis of this
data (Marcoulides, 1998).
Figure 1: Deductive Versus Inductive Approach
Source: adapted from Trochim (2001)
Like the figure above shows, the difference between the deductive and the inductive approaches is that
one follows a top-down and the other a bottom-up approach. This study follows the deductive approach
for two reasons. In the first place, it is beyond the expertise and the academic knowledge of the researcher
to propose a theory and then test it through observation. In the second place, the deductive approach
appears more appropriate to the purpose of this study which is to gather the key determinants which help
in fostering high growth firms from the literature and then determine how they translate into practice in an
effort to evaluate current practices and propose strategies for improvement.
Page 23 of 49
3.5.2. The Qualitative versus the Quantitative Approach:
The quantitative tools for data analysis generally borrow from the physical sciences, in that they are
structured in such a way so as to guarantee as far as possible objectivity, generalization as well as
reliability (Creswell, 2003). Here the researcher is objective and the research results are. Qualitative tools,
on the other hand, are based on content analysis, among other things and are presented in non-numerical
format. Most of the results obtained by this method have been classified to be subjective in nature.
The value of qualitative data analysis cannot be denied. Creswell (2003) has explained it allows
researchers to conduct in-depth explorations of a particular phenomenon. . It has also been indicated by
him that qualitative research allows researchers to conduct in-depth explorations of a particular
phenomenon. This method is useful to identify key determinants of operational research (Bogdan and
Biklen, 1992). It is also indicated that qualitative analysis of the data enables the researcher to make the
process of the study accessible and write descriptively so tacit knowledge may best be communicated
through the use of rich, thick description (Myers, 2002).
The objectives of this research combine quantitative as well as qualitative research methods. With the
quantitative method it is possible to classify features count them as well as bring about different statistical
models which explain what has been observed (Miles and Huberman 1994). It has also helped in the
measurement of frequency of aspects and helps in answering the questions of structural behavior of high
impact firms. This is applicable to my research because they enable tracking the number, age of firms as
well as measuring their contribution to the economy.
The qualitative approach is used in order to determine the different policies proposed and the regulatory
frameworks established which help in the determination of how these mechanisms link one variable to
another (Fisher 2007). This will enable portrayal of the findings of the study which influence the firm
behavior as well as specify the policy implications. This directly leads to determination of methods to
foster high growth firms. Thus data sets from the different commercial sources, regulatory bodies and
previous papers have been used to promote this deductive, qualitative and quantitative study. These
sources have been determined as one of the most conventional as well as safe source of data (Saunders,
Lewis and Thornhill, 2003).
3.6. Data Collection:
An ideal approach to studying high growth firms would be to specify a definition of high growth firms
and seek identification of the populations of these firms within UK. This helps in finding comprehensive
data on the characteristics of these firms and comparing them to other firms across the countries. In
addition the different policies and regulatory framework proposed helps in determination of the different
stages of high growth firm life cycle.
Secondary data is primarily collected through desk-based research. According to Jackson (1994) the value
of a research is related to its data collection methods and importantly, whether or not it includes both
secondary and primary data.
As Creswell (2003) states, secondary data, which is an unobtrusive data collection method, depends on
the location of pertinent and verifiable previously published academic studies and theories. After locating
such data, the researcher should critically evaluate it in order to make sure that it is valid and reliable.
This means that the researcher should only include in his study secondary data which is presented in
academic researchers and articles which are verifiable and well-referenced (Creswell, 2003). Out of this
Page 24 of 49
consideration, the researcher of this study only used data which was obtained from electronic databases or
libraries, articles or books and which was scholarly.
As mentioned in the methodology above the research aim is to achieve depth in the subject of research.
Therefore a case study approach is the most appropriate. It is quite evident from the literature review that
the data regarding high impact firms, their traits as well as the contribution to the growth of the UK
economy is progressing.
Data availability and its quality have been the main hindrances to this research report. With many
definitions of high growth firms existing, it is difficult to directly use collected data.
The chief sources of data for my research are the following:
BERR report (2008)

NESTA report (2009a) NESTA report (2009b)
Journals and Papers
The BERR report contains different particulars with regard to firm behavior in the high growth category.
It contains statistical evidence for various features and trends in the high growth category. It is also
contains statistical evidence for various features and trends in this particular category. The NESTA report
is an unpublished working paper which again gives highlights to the structural behavior of the growth of
high growth firms.
3.6.1. Quantitative approach through statistical databases:
Datasets from commercial databases and reports and findings of previous work has been one of the prime
sources of data. The data listings used in the BERR Report (2008) is directly relevant to the contents of
this report. They are a genuine source of data belonging to a recent time period which provides us with
ample information about the well assembled data. The data from NESTA (2009) has been used
extensively. These data are to be studied from the angle of a role in economic development and structural
behavior which will lead to methods of fostering high growth firms.
3.6.2. Qualitative analysis:
In this section the data from previous papers, journals and the quantitative analysis were scrutinized to
study category wise behavior and their reasons. Miles and Huberman (1994) stated that in order to
classify the processes in a qualitative data analysis. These include data collection, data reduction, data
display, drawing a conclusion and verification of the above mentioned findings.
The data was collected from the various reports and journals. This data was then reduced to filter those
which dont satisfy the criteria specified. The data was then simplified and transformed to make the data
more manageable in analysis. Data was displayed in forms which enable deeper understanding of the
different features studied. The necessary conclusions of fostering methods were determined and finally
data verification was carried out to ensure that the initial conclusions were realistic, supported as well as
validated.
Page 25 of 49
Figure 2: Steps in Qualitative data analysis
Data filtering and editing

Data Collection
Data Display
Conclusion and verification
Adapted from Hair J Money, A Samuel P and Page M (2007), Research methods for business, John Wiley
and Sons, England
3.7. Ethical Consideration:
Ethical issues arose at different stages in the research. Out of the main areas of ethical consideration as
identified by Diener and Crandall (1978) the following are related to this research. These include, whether
there is a lack of informed consent, where there is a misuse of information and whether there is deception.
These aspects were taken into account throughout the period of this research.
Ethical standards play a very important role in my dissertation and hence high consideration will be
given. It is seen that all the data used has been properly referenced and quoted in the bibliography. The
author has also taken efforts to ensure that the views presented in this document are subjective and do not
have any set conclusions.
3.8 Conclusion:
A research hypothesis which is related to the factors influencing high impact firms and their inference for
fostering high impact firms, was developed in terms of the research objectives and literature review. The
realist approach was adopted successfully as it suits the nature of the research. The research population
was decided upon and accordingly a combination of quantitative and qualitative research was applied to
realize the research objectives as well as testing the hypothesis. Ethical issues were considered through
every step of the research. The collected data are now analyzed to derive relevant conclusions.
As this chapter has argued, the research methodology that is most suited for this study is a qualitative,
quantitative, deductive one which uses a major amount of secondary data. The next chapter will present
the results of the qualitative and quantitative analysis as obtained from the different sources mentioned in
this study.
Page 26 of 49
Figure 3: Over view of research methodology
Literature Review
Hypothesis
Qualitative
Quantitative
Methodology Realist
Approach
Ethical Consideration
Data sources:
Secondary data
Data analysis
Page 27 of 49
4.0. Findings and Analysis:
4.1. Introduction:
This chapter of the report focuses on data analysis. In this report there is a discussion of findings which
can be broadly brought under two different sections. The overview of the existing high growth firms in
UK and their structural aspects is discussed. Secondly there is a concentration on the different policies as
well as reviews which can be made in order to foster high impact firms. There is a scrutiny of a number
of recent reports on high growth firm behavior and their characteristic features.
This section can be discussed broadly in two different ways:
1. Quantitative analysis: Provides the characteristics of the existing high growth firms in UK and
their structural analysis providing reasons to promote growth of high impact firms.
2. Qualitative analysis: Analysis of different secondary data to arrive at policies and regulatory
frameworks which will influence the growth of high impact firms.
4.2. High impact firms in UK:
This section studies the impact of high impact firms on a number of issues of the economy. These factors
are justified in the literature review and the detailed analysis in this section reflects the different policies
and regulatory frameworks which have been proposed by the UK government discussed in the next
section.
4.2.1 Financial source:
The different micro and macro factors discussed in the literature review also showed the importance of
finance as a significant pillar of high growth firms. The degrees of risk and level of information
asymmetry influences the cost of capital that influences the start up of a business. This is found to be very
crucial in times of credit crunch. The BERR Analysis (2008) has clearly pointed out the limited data
available with regard to the methods of finance used by high impact firms.
The importance of venture capital which is the savior for high impact firms has also been discussed in
depth earlier in this dissertation report. BERR analysis has shown that about 14 percent of the UK HGFs
firms had accessed venture capital which compared to that to 7 percent in the United States. BERR (2008)
report gave the results of the Kingston
University research which indicated that U.S. firms are often much older than the UK firms therefore they
have access to debt based finance rather than external equity. The US firms are found to have better
access to finance and some of them even contain self financing capabilities. This may be considered as
indication of personal wealth in the startup stages of a firm (indicated in Table).
Page 28 of 49
Table 3: Use of external equity finance among UK and US high growth firms
sof External Equity UK US
Use of External Equity UK US

External equity 13 6
No external equity 8 12
ALL 21 18
Source: Kingston University (2008)
The research report by Kingston University has also indicated that the US firms were more likely to have
obtained, or be seeking business angel finance when compared to venture capital finance. The reasons
behind this can be indicated by the need for the US firms to consider the fact that angel finance can be
perceived as a factor which has provided greater flexibility, patience for returns as well as valuable
business advice. It can also be seen that the technology companies in the UK were considered to be more
likely to favour venture capital and view it as a crucial factor to promote growth.
An analysis of this research conducted by Kingston University has implied that there are significant
differences in the finance choices of the high growth firms in the UK and US. This difference can be seen
particularly in terms of the use of venture capital. This makes the researcher conclude that US firms have
a greater access to personal wealth, as a result of the presence of the wealth of US entrepreneurs while
there is a greater desire for business angel finance among the UK founders.
This indicates the need to develop policies which promotes more entrepreneurs which in turn will directly
foster the growth of high impact firms. There may be many more factors which are specific to specific
high growth industries which may affect the mode of finance for fostering high growth firms. These have
to be studied in detail as they bear implications for policy directions especially with regard to financial
institutions.
The researcher has also pointed out certain important pertinent factors. There has been an exaggerated
concentration of innovative industries and their clusters which seem to relate directly to investments as
well as supportive policies. However the researcher strongly believes that these policies are not reflective
of the nature of reality in the high growth sector.
4.2.2 Location:
With regard to the location of high impact firms in the UK, it can be observed that the BERR Report
(2008) has discovered a very heavy concentration of high impact firms in the South east and London
regions. After the adjustment was carried out to factor in the regional economy sizes it was found that
London and south east accounted for 33% of UKs GVA.
Page 29 of 49
Figure 4: Regional distribution of UK high growth firms: Number of high growth firms per 1bn
regional GVA
Source: Inc, Fast Track and BERR analysis
This analysis has been found to be consistent with regard to the results of Mason (1985) and Miller
(1991). This concentration of high impact firms in both London as well as the South east region of the
UK has been indicated in the NESTA report (2009). The NESTA report has tracked the region wise
distribution of firms attaining the 10 employee threshold as indicated in the following table. The
dominance of London and South east regions of the UK has been highlighted in this finding too.
Table 4: Locational classification of HGFs
High growth firms Number of firms Number of firms

location in 2005 in 2008
East Midlands 740 720
East of England 979 1025
Greater London 2103 2219
North East 357 389
Northern Ireland 364 303
North West 1151 1199
Scotland 830 1030
South East 1583 1689
South West 883 900
Wales 596 335
West Midlands 904 851
Yorkshire & 879 870
Humberside
United Kingdom 11,369 11,530
Source: ONS Business Structure Database, NESTA 2009a Report
Page 30 of 49
The above table also reveals certain other findings. It can be seen that certain regions like Wales and
Northern Ireland in 2005 and Scotland and North East regions in 2009 have exhibited above average
presence of high growth firms. Therefore the researcher tries to relate this growth and provide better
policy attention as well as give a distinctive regulatory framework in order to foster more high impact
firms.
4.2.3. Sectoral composition:
The literature review has discussed in depth the importance of heterogeneity in high growth firms. The
report by BERR (2008) as well as NESTA (2009) has suggested that high growth firms exist in all sectors
of the economy. However it has been seen that there are many heavily concentrated firms in the different
dynamic sectors of the country. This was analysed by BERR (2008) in the UK and US samples. The
following table shows the sectoral composition of the UK and US samples can be classified to be broadly
similar.
Table 5: Sectoral breakdown of UK and US firms

K US
Sector UK US
Business and recruitment 20 25
services
Telecommunications 15 7
IT services 12 19
Finance 9 7
Leisure and media 9 4
Retail 7 1
Engineering and 6 4
manufacturing
Construction 4 5
Food and drink 4 1
Health 3 7
Consumer goods 3 1
Energy 1 4
Education 1 2
Government services 0 7
Other 4 5
Source: Inc, Fast Track and BERR analysis
Page 31 of 49
On analysis if the above table certain striking differences may be observed. It is seen that about 10% of
the HGFs in the US belong to governmental services however this is significantly absent in the UK.
Despite the fact that a number of the UK firms have a number of governments contracts and are in sense
working for the government. While this may indicate that the government of UK has a certain role to play
in promoting to the success of the UK firms, the availability of government contracts are found to form
only parts of the firms business therefore these firms are not classified as belonging to the government
services sector.
The analysis of the sectoral composition of the high growth firms is important because there is a need to
concentrate on ideas to foster high growth firms in IT services, health and business services as growth of
HGFs in these sectors are not as high as the growth of high impact firms in the areas of
telecommunications, media and retail sectors.
4.2.4. Creation of employment:
It has been discovered that firms employing below 50 employees have accounted for over 80% of high
growth firms in the UK (NESTA 2009a).
Figure 5: Employment profile
Source: ONS Business Structure Database, NESTA 2009a Report
However it has also been discovered that with regard to job creation it can be seen that half of the 2.67
million jobs in the 11369 high growth firms as listed in 2005 has more than 250 employees.
Page 32 of 49
It was also discovered in the NESTA (2009a) report that firms with more than 250 employees increased
their average size threefold from just over 1,000 employees on average to around 3000 employees in just
three years.
The pattern of job creation as a result of high growth firms was also analysed in the NESTA report
(2009a). It was discovered that firms which employ more than 250 employees were found to be
responsible for creating atleast 45% of jobs as depicted in the following table.
Table 6: High Growth Firms in 2005-2008 (Job Creation)
Source: NESTA 2009a report
It can be seen that small High Growth Firms which employ less than 50 employees create atleast 400,000
jobs in 2008. Therefore the researcher indicates that there is a need to look at policies to foster the growth
of high growth firms in order to promote job creation especially in times of the subprime crisis.
4.2.5. Summary of quantitative analysis and implications for the qualitative analysis:
It was seen how high growth firms despite being spread across all the sectors not much of high impact
firms in the IT and the high tech sectors. This indicates that there is a need to foster growth of these firms.
It has also been discovered that there while there is the promotion of venture capital as a preferred mode
of finance in the UK HGF development a concentration on promotion of entrepreneurs may in turn help
in fostering more number of high impact firms.
It has also been seen that high growth firms with less than fifty employees form about 80 percent of the
total population in the HGFs in UK. However they contribute less than 26% to employment when
compared to firms with more than 250 employees which has created more than 50% of the HGF jobs.
This quantitative analysis has indicated a need to qualitatively analyse the current policies established as
well as the regulatory framework established.
Page 33 of 49
4.3. Policies and regulatory framework:
There has been considerable progress in promoting high growth firms in the UK over the past ten years.
At the end of the year 2006 there were a record number of businesses standing at 4.5 million which is
seven hundred and fifty thousand more than in 1997 (HM Treasury, BERR, 2008). The United Kingdom
today is recognized by numerous international organizations to have the best possible business
environment in the World for promoting the growth of any business:
The OECD considers the UK to have the lowest barriers to the growth of any firm among all the
countries in the OECD panel (OECD, 2005).
The UK has been ranked second in Europe by the World Bank in the top ten countries on
measures of the ease of doing business (World Bank 2008).
Over the last few years it has been established that the UKs finance market can be ranked third
best in the world for supporting a fast growing businesses financial needs (Milken Institute
Capital Access Index 2006).
Keeping this in mind, in this section the researcher has examined the different policies as well as
regulatory frameworks which have helped high growth firms in the UK. This section also discusses the
ideas that policy makers should keep in mind while framing regulations which impact high growth firms.
4.3.1. Need for policy intervention:
Every year when the government puts forth policies or regulatory framework they concentrate on the
reasons why there is market failure. Over the last few decades the occurrence of a number of market
failures has provided justification for policy response to support high growth firms (Colombo and Grilli
2005).
High growth businesses are a key driver of economic growth as they grow themselves and generate
significant employment growth. Their dynamism stimulates competition and innovation throughout the
economy as a whole. High growth businesses exert the greatest competitive threat to other businesses.
They are also likely to provide a stimulus to promote productivity growth amongst rival businesses. High
growth firms can be seen as those organizations which promote benefits for the whole economy
(Davidson et al., 2005).
There have been evidences which show that many firms have growth aspirations but fail to realize these
due to barriers and market failures. This section has highlighted the different barriers that need to address
to foster high growth firm growth. These barriers can be overcome if set policies and regulatory
frameworks are issued by the government in order to promote the productivity of these firms thereby
increasing their ability to progress into a high growth firm (Schreyer, 2000).
4.3.2. Polices implemented by the UK government:
Over the last decade the government has introduced a number of important enterprise policy reforms.
These reforms have improved the environment in which business operates and have helped to promote
firms to grow. Some of these reforms areas as indicated in the HM Treasury BERR report (2008) are as
follows:
Page 34 of 49
The launch of the first phase of Enterprise Capital funds which has helped many small high
growth firms grow and develop
The Small firms Guarantee loans have be reduced to decrease the barriers in accessing finance by
growing businesses.
The introduction of administrative burden reduction targets has helped newer firms achieve
greater growth. There is also the establishment of just two annual commencement dates for new
legislation affecting business.
Establishment of Enterprise week which has helped more people to think seriously about starting
a business and develop their existing enterprising skills to contribute to the economy.
The improvement of the performance management of different business link operators to

improve high levels of business satisfaction thereby causing a doubling of the existing customer
base and to ensure different entrepreneurs have access to the high quality support they require to
establish themselves as small high growth firms (HM Treasury, BERR, 2008).
This section has highlighted the different governmental policies with regard to improving status for
entrepreneurs which in turn can reflect on the business angel requirements indicated in the quantitative
section.
4.3.3. Macro and micro economic policies:
Alongside the existing macroeconomic framework which has concentrated on improving the employment
rates in the country the UK Government has delivered ways of improving the existing microeconomic
reforms. These reforms have been focused on raising growth of existing firms mainly with the purpose of
increase in productivity. The Government has introduced certain specific policy reforms which are aimed
at improving the contributions of the other drivers of productivity, competition, innovation, skills and
investment.
These are the current micro economic policies proposed in the House of Lords in the 29 th session of
2007-2008.
Identification of R and D along with different innovations and encouragement of details with
regard to entrepreneurship are important micro economic challenges which are facing the
different High impact firms and the authorities have identified these matters. They have shared
their analysis of existing conditions and given ideas to improve the quality and the efficiency of
the transport infrastructure. This is because improvement in these conditions is what will lead to
productivity and growth (European committee report 2008).
There has been a mix of measures for improving the existing research and development functions
which may help in the improvement of UK policy priorities. The presence of the current existing
ten year science and innovation investment framework has helped rectify a period of consistent
under investment and promoted the growth of more high impact firms. The NRP has indicated
that the existing schemes, measures are not enough and further policy initiatives are required in
order to promote the governments existing target of 3.5% increase in the number of high impact
firms especially in the R and D industry. There has to be means to promote the development of
innovations and clusters which are linked to universities and existing cross border knowledge
transfers (European committee report 2008).
Page 35 of 49
The UK government has identified the need to encourage entrepreneurship and promote better
regulations. The NRP has mentioned a number of current existing SME initiatives which when
implemented successfully will help in the promotion of Structural Funds to improve the growth of
existing firms and promote the growth of new ones. Currently proposed regulations are aimed at
initiatives which help improve the regulatory impact assessment guidelines and cross
governmental initiatives. These will help enable reduction of existing administrative costs for the
different companies (European committee report 2008).
This section further strengthens the importance given to micro and macro factors influencing the fostering
of high growth firm. The importance given to the development of entrepreneurs who have the ability to
foster more high impact firms has been identified by the government.
4.3.4. Regulatory framework as a driver for high growth firms:
All market economies have the requirement of a regulatory framework. Regulation plays an important
role in ensuring the efficient functioning of markets. Good regulation will prevent market failures,
promote healthy competition and has a role in protecting workers and consumers (Owen 2004). Obtaining
a clear and concise regulatory framework is essential for strong productivity growth. It is therefore
essential that the Government delivers a regulatory framework which promotes competition, innovation,
investment and supports the formation of skills in the labour market. All these in turn can lead to the
promotion of high growth firms (Owen 2004).
The UK regulatory environment has been consistently recognized as amongst the best in the world. The
World Bank ranks the UK 6th overall out of 178 economies in terms of ease of doing business. The UK is
ranked second amongst G7 members and second among European Member States (World Bank 2008).
Figure 7: World Bank Report
Source World Bank 2008
The OECD ranks the UK second overall, and first in the G7, based on the availability of indicators in the
product market. It also reported that the UK has the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship in all OECD
countries (OECD, 2007). All of these factors indicate that the regulatory framework is well established
and promotes the productivity of the existing firms.
The following regulatory frameworks have been proposed for the improvement of regulatory framework
with regard to high growth firms:
Page 36 of 49
The government of UK has introduced a new approach to regulating small growing firms in line
with its think small first policy. The government has taken measures to examine whether these
small firms can be fully exempted from new regulatory requirements or need to be subjected to a
simplification of enforcement. The government had also review existing legislation to ensure the
Hampton principles have been followed. They enable identification and delivery of new or
increased exemptions for high growing firms (HM Treasury, BERR, 2008).
The global economy is becoming more competitive. Many formerly heavily regulated countries
are following the UKs lead and simplifying and eliminating regulation. While this presents
opportunities for UK businesses in terms of new markets and access to new consumers, it also
presents challenges. To remain competitive it is clear that the UK must keep its regulatory burden
as light as possible and has taken up the following measures to promote growth in its companies
(HM Treasury, BERR, 2008).
The Government has taken an initiative to set a target for reducing administrative
burdens by 25 per cent by 2010 . This can help increase GDP by 0.9%. (Gelauf et
al., 2002)
Research into the macroeconomic impacts of regulation suggests that reform of
regulation of product markets is positively correlated with total factor productivity
growth, with the strongest impact from reforming administrative burdens (Nicolleti
et al., 2003)
Other research found a strong negative association between regulation and growth
although this relationship is less strongly negative if the quality of institutions
improves (Loyaza et al., 2005).
These reforms and regulatory frameworks in the currently existing macroeconomic and microeconomic
policy proposed by the UK government have played a role in improving the countrys productivity
performance over the last decade. Trend productivity growth which gives the output per hour worked is
estimated to have increased from 1.9% per annum over the previous two cycles, to 2.4% in the current
cycle (Budget 2008) as depicted in the chart below. This has supported the narrowing of the productivity
gap between the UK and other countries which have been the main industrial competitors
Figure 7: Output of work per hour:
Page 37 of 49
Source: HM treasury, BERR Report, 2008.
However more progress is required in order to further close the gap with other economies. This can be
promoted by improvement of the current existing policies and regulatory frameworks to increase the
number of high growth firms in the country.
4.3.5. Proposed implications for policymakers to foster growth of high impact firms:
The previous section in this analysis has clearly shown that the significant growth is seen in this section.
The following thoughts are to be kept in mind while framing policies with regard to high growth firms as
indicated in NESTA ( October 2009a) report:
Focus on the firms with the potential for significant growth
There have been numerous small firms which have been successfully nurtured over the last few years in
the UK. Policymakers till date have traditionally focused on the existing number rather than the quality of
small firms. In order to achieve greater economic prosperity and higher rates of employment there is a
need to focus on those firms with the greatest potential to grow (NESTA 2009a).
Promote existing firms
Young firms are more likely to grow fast however there is a chance that only a very small proportion of
new firms succeed in achieving high-growth status. A number of mature firms today constitute a large
proportion of high growth firms. Policy makers should keep in mind that giving support for small and
medium sized firms would probably enable their growth. And this support can be extended to all those
firms which have demonstrated some capacity or ambition to grow, regardless of their age (NESTA
2009b).
Encourage innovation
It is not only important to promote innovation, but it is also critical that there is enough financial capital
available to enhance the existing innovative measures. The links between innovation and growth suggest
that supporting innovation is a crucial channel to foster business growth.
These reasons indicate that it is important to continue improving the availability of finance for growing
innovative firms (NESTA 2009b).
According to the realist research approach as adopted in the research methodology, the policy
implications of the above findings have been discussed after a qualitative analysis. It is important to note
that this discussion provided is suggestive and subjective to some assumptions made based on previously
available literature. The significant contributions made by high growth firms to the economy possible
benefits to the economy can be identified. The views of Acs has been indicated in the review of literature
and has clearly shown that the importance of public policies and regulation in developing high impact
entrepreneurship. As Hahn (1988) has indicated it can be seen that government intervention is justified
when there is fostering the growth of the economy.
Page 38 of 49
4.4. Conclusion:
This chapter has presented the findings of this research in relation to the following details:
1. Quantitative analysis: The main factors which have a distinctive influence on the growth of high
impact firms including finance, employment, sectorial distribution and location have been
discussed.
2. Qualitative analysis: The different policy implications which influence this structural analysis
have been analyzed.
The next chapter provides an overall summary as well as the recommendations and limitations.
Page 39 of 49
5.0. Summary and Recommendations:
5.1. Introduction:
In this chapter a summary of the analysis along with different measures to promote fostering of high
impact firm which have been born out of the previous chapter have been discussed. The limitations of the
study and ideas and recommendations for future research have also been highlighted.
5.2. Summary:
This entire dissertation had discussed in depth the field of high impact firms while highlighting the
importance of political as well as regulatory attention which is required by these firms. However it has
also been observed that thee relative rarity of high-growth firms in the current UK economy is common
across the developed economies. Therefore it is an important task to find ways to foster growth of more
high impact firms. There have been a number of researchers who have indicated that it is impossible to
identify the measures to foster their growth. One of most strong views was expressed by Hakim (1989)
who indicated that the distinctive features of fast growth firms, involves a selective policy of support for
small firms which is defined to be unworkable as they do not provide operational grounds, either at the
start up stage or the later stage when the company has grown and expanded into a sizeable firm.
However over the period of years distinctive research reports by BERR and NESTA has used a number of
methods to indicate the current situation of high impact firms. Buss (2002) has indicated that there is a
need for tailor made policies to foster the growth of high impact firms in booming sectors.
It has also been discovered by NESTA Report (2009 a) that in the UK growth of high growth firms has
been tremendous in the last five years. Brophy (1996) and Cameron and Muellbauer (1996) have
discovered the following salient features with regard to high impact firms:
High impact firms are found to have a much lower failure rate than other firms.
High impact firms are found to create more wealth in the form of profit, sales or value.
High impact firms are also likely to export products as well as services.
High impact firms also lead the way in production, innovation as well as job creation.
This research report has revisited some of the important conclusions concurred with regard to high impact
firms conducted by a number of previous authors. This report specifically has tried to give a picture of the
factors which have the most influence on fostering high impact firms and has considered different policy
initiatives required to foster the growth of these firms.
Governments need to have strategies which focus on an economic development platform. Therefore this
dissertation report has influence on the measures to foster growth of high impact firms specially with
regard to improving employment rate and promotion of entrepreneurs.
The following are the key questions answered in this research:
1. What characteristics of firm growth influence further fostering of high impact firms?
2. What are the policy measures adopted in order to foster high impact firm growth?
Throughout this report it has been established that the individual entrepreneurial features have a strong
impact on business ambitions and growth. This should be the focus of the government ad they try to
nurture these features by directing timely policies. During challenging times of the economy, like the
Page 40 of 49
current situation where the world is trying to get over the subprime crisis of the dollar, it is important that
a specific actionable plan is established in order to foster growth of high impact firms which in turn will
lead to increase in productivity, employment creation as well as wealth creation.
There are many implications suggested in the NESTA report (2009) and BERR (2008) findings. They
have indicated that there should be a shift to include all industries in the sectorial composition of high
impact firms. There is also the key impact of finance where reports on company compiled by venture
capitalists should be made available and accessible to the public to create an efficient market and also
promote more business angel investors.
Overall the research has highlighted that there is need for distinctive policies and regulatory frameworks
to foster more high impact firms rather than the growing dependence on minority super growth firms
termed as the gazelles.
5.3. Limitations of the study and reflective criticism:
One of the main limitations of this study is that it involves a distinctive qualitative approach along with
the quantitative analysis. This is a corpus analysis and the conclusions arrived at cannot be extended to
wider circles with the same level of confidence as quantitative analyses. This is because the conclusions
of the research are not investigated to ascertain whether they are statistically significant when applied
globally.
Another limitation of this research is that any conclusion arrived at is subjective, and cannot be thought of
as conclusive. All the thoughts reflected in this study represent the thoughts of the researcher and can in
no way be established as a conclusive analysis of the existing conditions of the high impact firms in UK.
Adopting a realist approach this research has believed from the beginning that the knowledge acquired
about a certain field can give us an idea of the policies that are required to be implemented. Following this
path the research has adopted a cheerful and optimistic outlook assuming that the data available through
secondary methods are accurate. This is just a supposition and a limitation because a first analysis of the
presence of high impact firms has not been carried out.
Users of this research should also bear in mind that the data used has been during the period of 2005-
2008. Since then a lot of changes have occurred and this may influence the results and analysis of the
findings of this report.
There are a number of policies which are being framed in order to foster high impact firms even as this
report is being composed. Therefore this report has not considered their implementations and
consequences.
5.4. Recommendations for further study:
A number of ideas come to mind while recommending further research:
A detailed analysis of the impact of entrepreneurs on organization and the political course of
action to be addressed in order to promote more entrepreneurs.
An analysis of the influence of capital market on fostering the growth of high impact firms.
Comparison of the UK firms with those worldwide, including developing countries like
India and China will provide a broader view.
Page 41 of 49
An analysis of the determinants of the prevalence of Start-ups which influence fostering of High-
Growth Firms
5.5. Conclusion:
This research had set out to follow the importance of high impact firms and various measures to fostering
their growth. A broad range of topics have been converged in this research and the overall objective
achieved is based on the availability of theoretical literature. The research explanations arrived at is only
provisional and inclusive and is in no way exhaustive and conclusive.
Page 42 of 49
References:
Acs, Zoltan (2008). Foundation of High Impact Entrepreneurship. Jena Economic Research Papers.
Germany
Acs, Zoltan J. and David B. Audretsch (2005), Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Technological
Change. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship 1(4), 149.
Acs, Zoltan J., Bo Carlsson and Charlie Karlsson (1999), Entrepreneurship, Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises and the Macroeconomy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Almeida, Paul (1999), Semiconductor Startups and the Exploration of New Technological Territory. In
Zoltan J. Acs, ed., Are Small Firms Important? Their Role and Impact. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 3950.
Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, S., Harmon, S., Vadakath, S., 1998. Towards a theory of new venture growth.
Paper presented at the 1998 Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Ghent, Belgium.
Audertsch and Maryann (1996). R and D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovations and Production.
American Economic Review. June. 86:3
Audertsch (2007). The Entrepreneurial Society. Oxford. UK.
Barkham, R., Gudgin, G., Hart, M., Hanvey, E., 1996. The Determinants of Small Firm Growth, vol. 12.
Athenaeum Press, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, UK.
Barro, Robert J. and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (1995), Economic Growth. McGraw-Hill, New York.
BERR (2008) High growth Firms In the UK: Lessons from an analysis of comparative UK performance,
BERR Economics Paper No 3. November 2008, Available at
BERR, Annual Small Business Survey 2006/07, available atwww.berr.gov.uk/files/file42727.doc
BERR, Why R&D matters, available at http://www.berr.gov.uk/dius/innovation/randd/why-invest-in-

randd/page10549.html
Berringer Terry (2005). Federal subsidies for New Entrepreneurial High Growth Firms, Encyclopedia of
Public Administration and Public Policy, Second Edition.
Birch, D.L. (1987) Job Generation in America. New York: The Free Press.
Birch, D.L (1981). Who creates Jobs? The public interest. Vol 65:32-34
Bogdan, R. F., & Biklen, S. (1992). Eight common questions about qualitative research. In Qualitative
research for education: An Introduction to theory and methods (pp. 39-48). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brophy D J (1996), U S Venture Capital Markets. Venture Capital and Innovation (pp 39-51). Paris:
OECD.
Buss Terry F (2002), Emerging High Growth Firms and Economic Development Policy, Economic
Development Quarterly 2002,Sage publications.
Byman A and Bell E (2007), Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press, New York.
Page 43 of 49
Cameron G and Muellbauer J (1996). Knowledge, Increasing returns and the UK production function.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canada Eric P. What's a Gazelle?The Economic Development Marketing Letter," e-mail marketing letter,
28 February 1998, Volume: 1, Issue: e/2 SPECIAL EDITION
Chandler, G.N., Hanks, S.H., 1993. Measuring the performance of emerging businesses: a validation
study. J. Bus. Venturing 8, 391408.
Colombo, M.G., Grilli, L. (2005) Young Firms growth in high-tech sectors: The role of founders
human capital available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=772965
Crafts Nicholas , Regulation and Productivity Performance, , Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol 22,
No. 2, 2006
Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches.
California: Sage Publications.
Davidsson, P., Achtenhagen, L., Naldi, L. (2005) Research on Small Firm Growth: A Review. Available
at http://wwwapp.iese.edu/eisb/papers/full/paperEISB101.
Davidsson, P., Wiklund, J., 2000. Conceptual and empirical challenges in the study of firm growth. In:
Sexton, D. Landstrom, H. (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, pp. 2644.
Davidsson, Per and Magnus Henrekson (2002), Determinants of the Prevalence of Start-ups and High-
Growth Firms. Small Business Economics 19(2), 81104.
F. Delmar et al. Journal of Business Venturing 18 (2003) 189216.
Delmar, F., 1997. Measuring growth: methodological considerations and empirical results. In: Donckels,
R., Miettinen, A. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and SME Research: On its Way to the Next Millennium, pp.
199216.
Demirg-Kunt, Asli and Vojislav Maksimovic (1998), Law, Finance and Firm Growth. Journal of
Finance 53(6), 21072137.
Donckels, R., Lambrecht, J., 1995. Networks and small business growth: an explanatory model.
Small Bus. Econ. 7, 273289.
Dunne, P., Hughes, A., 1992. Age, size, growth and survival revisited. Working Paper No. 23.
Small Business Research Centre, University of Cambridge, England.
Dunne, P., Hughes, A., 1996. Age, size, growth and survival: UK companies in the 1980s. J. Ind.
Econ. XLII (2), 115140.
Page 44 of 49
Eisenhardt KM and Schoonhoven CB (1996), Resource based views of strategic alliance
formation: strategic and social explanations in entrepreneurial firms. Organizational Science, Vol
7, pages 137-139
European committee 29th Report (2007-2008), European Strategy for Job and Growth, presented
at House of Lords, HL Paper 138.
EUROSTAT-OECD (2007) Business Demography Manual. Paris: EUROSTAT-OECD.
Fisher Colin (2007). Researching and Writing a Dissertation. Prentice Hall, London.
Flamholtz, E.G., 1986. Managing the Transition from an Entrepreneurship to a Professionally

Managed Firm. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Gelauf, G. M. M. and A. M. Lejour, The Lisbon Strategy An estimation of the economic

impact of reaching five Lisbon targets Industrial and Economic reforms Papers No. 1.
Hair, Joseph Jr, Money A H , Samouel P and Page M (2007). Research Methods for Business.
John Wiley and sons, London.
Hakim C (1989), Identifying fast growth small firms. Employment Gazette. January, 29-41.
Harris and McArthur (1984): This issue of high technology and high impact: an alternative view.
Working paper 16, North West Industry Research Unit, University of Manchester.
HM Treasury, BERR, (2008) Enterprise: unlocking the UKs talent, available

athttp://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file44992.pdf
Hoy, F., McDougall, P.P., Dsouza, D.E., 1992. Strategies and environments of high growth
firms. In: Sexton, D.L., Kasarda, J.D. (Eds.), The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship. PWS-
Kent Publishing, Boston, pp. 341357.
Kirchhoff, B.A., 1994. Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capitalism: The Economics of Business
Firm Formation and Growth. Praeger Publisher, Westport, CT.
Laffont, Jean-Jacques and Jean Tirole (1993), A Theory of Incentives in Regulation and
Procurement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Page 45 of 49
Landstrm, Hans (2005), Pioneers in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research. Berlin:
Springer.
Langridge R.J. (1984) Defining high tech for locational analysis. Discussion paper 22, Series
C, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
Leibenstein 1968. Foundations of High Impact entrepreneurship. Journal of political economy.

Vol 79, pg 232-256
Littunen, H., Virtanen, M. (2004) Explaining performance of high growth new firms in Finland
available at http://web.bi.no/forskning/ncsb2004.nsf/23
e5e39594c064ee852564ae004fa010/a6cb7066ea59eda6c12567f30056ef4d/$FILE/pdf.
Loayza, N.V., Oviedo, A.M. & Serven, L Regulation and Macroeconomic Performance., World
Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.3469. 2005.
Marcoulides (1998). Valuing employees: a success strategy for fast growth firms and fast paced
individuals. In: Reynolds, P.D., Bygrave, W.D., Davidsson, P., Gartner, W.B., Mason, C.M.,
McDougall, P.P. (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Center for Entrepreneurship
Research, Babson Park, MA, pp. 1731.
Mason CM (1985). The geography of successful small firms in the United Kingdom.
Environment and Planning.
Merz, G.R., Sauber, M.H., 1995. Profiles of managerial activities in small firms. Strategic
Manage. J. 16, 551564.
Miles M B and Huberman A M (1994). Qualitative data analysis 2nd edition. Thousand oaks.
CA: Sage.
Milken Institute Capital Access Index 2006, the UK was just behind Hong Kong and Singapore.
Miller, D., 1987. Strategy making and structure: analysis and implications for performance.
Acad. Manage. J. 30 (1), 732.
Murphy, G. B., Trailer, J. W., and Hill, R. C. 1996. Measuring Performance in

Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 36: 1523.
Page 46 of 49
Murphy, G.B., Trailer, J.W., Hill, R.C., 1996. Measuring performance in entrepreneurship. J.
Bus. Res. 36, 1523.
Nicoletti, G. & Scarpetta. Regulation, Productivity and Growth: OECD Evidence, , S., OECD
Economics Department Working Paper 347. 2003.
NESTA (2009a): Measuring Business Growth High-growth firms and their contribution
to employment in the UKResearch report: October 2009
NESTA (2009b). Business Growth and Innovation. Geoff Mason, Kate Bishop and Catherine
Robinson. Research report: October 2009
OECD (2007) High growth enterprises and gazelles available

athttp://ice.foranet.dk/upload/highgrowth.pdf\
OECD 2005 , Product Market Regulation in OECD Countries: 1998 to 2003, April 2005,
available at:
http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2005doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00000BA2/$FILE/JT00181518.PDF
Owen, G. (2004) Where are the Big Gorillas? High Technology and Entrepreneurship
Penrose, E., 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
Product Market Regulation in OECD countries: 1998 to 2003, OECD Economics Department
Working Papers No. 419 (2005). Barriers to entrepreneurship are one aspect of the PMR
indicator.
Stam E Garnsey (2008). Entrepreneurship in the Knowledge economy. Available

athttp://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/dbs/faculty/centre_entrepreneurship/publications/ResearchPap
er018.pdf
Stam, E., Garnsey, E. (2008) Entrepreneurship in the Knowledge Economy available at

http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/dbs//faculty/centre_entrepreneurship/publications/ResearchPaper
018.pdf
Page 47 of 49
Sternberg, Rolf and Sander Wennekers (2005), Determinants and Effects of New Business
Creation Using Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Data. Small Business Economics 24(3), 193
203.
Stinchcombe, A.L., 1965. Social structure and organization. In: March, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of
Organizations. Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 142193.
Storey, D.J., 1994. Symposium on Harrisons Lean and mean: a job generation perspective.
Small Bus. Econ. 7 (5), 58.
Storey, David J. (1994), Understanding the Small Business Sector. London: Routledge.
Storey, David J. (2006), Reflections on Public Policy on Entrepreneurship and SMEs.

Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship 2(3), 245251.
Trochim W (2000). The research methods knowledge base, 2nd edition. Atomic Dog
Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
Weinzimmer, L.G., Nystron, P.C., Freeman, S.J., 1998. Measuring organizational growth: issues,
consequences and guidelines. J. Manage. 24 (2), 235262.
Weiss, M.A (1985). High technology industries and the future of employment. In P. Hall and A.
Markusens (eds) Silicon Landscapes: Allen and Unwin, London.
Weiss, M.A (1985). High technology industries and the future of employment. In P. Hall and A.
Markusens (eds) Silicon Landscapes: Allen and Unwin, London.
White and Reynolds (1992). Organizational Innovation: Review, Critique and Suggested
directions. Journal of Management Studies 31(3): 405-431.
Wiklund, J., 1998. Small firm growth and performance. Entrepreneurship and beyond.
Dissertation, Jonkoping
Wong, Poh, Yuen Ping Ho Kam and Erkko Autio (2005), Entrepreneurship, Innovation and
Economic Growth: Evidence from GEM Data. Small Business Economics 24(3), 335350.
Page 48 of 49
World Bank 2008, Doing Business in 2008, available at:
http://www.doingbusiness.org/documents/FullReport/2008/DB08_Full_Report.pdf
Page 49 of 49

Are You Struggling To Write A Full Dissertation - Full Dissertation Sample in Tutors India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Are You Struggling To Write A Full Dissertation - Full Dissertation Sample in Tutors India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Impact Firms

This Sample Work has been completed by Tutors India

1.1 Introduction to the study: ...................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Description of research report ............................................................................................... 5

1.3 Background high impact firms: ............................................................................................ 6

1.4 Research Objective: .............................................................................................................. 6

1.5 Research question: ................................................................................................................ 7

1.6 Scope of the study: ................................................................................................................ 7

1.7 Significance of the study:...................................................................................................... 8

1.8 Implications for the industry: ................................................................................................ 8

1.9 Conclusion: ........................................................................................................................... 8

2.0. Literature review: ..................................................................................................................... 9

2.1. Defining High impact firms: ................................................................................................ 9

2.2. Factors influencing emergence of high growth firms: ....................................................... 10

2.2.1 Micro-level factors ..................................................................................................................... 10

2.4 Effect of the Environment on high impact firms: .............................................................. 13

2.5 Barriers to growth of high impact firms: ............................................................................ 13

2.6 Competitive strategy in high impact firm growth: .............................................................. 14

2.7 Heterogeneity and high impact firms:................................................................................. 14

2.9 HGF and economic growth: ................................................................................................ 16

2.10 Competence blocks in HGFs: ........................................................................................... 17

2.11 Innovation and growth of High impact firms: .................................................................. 19

2.12 Conclusion: ....................................................................................................................... 20

3.0: Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 21

3.0. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 21

3.1. Research Question ............................................................................................................. 21

3.3 Research Design: ................................................................................................................ 21

3.4. Research population: .......................................................................................................... 22

3.5. Research Methodology: ..................................................................................................... 22

3.5.1. The Deductive versus the Inductive Approach: ........................................................................ 23

3.6.1. Quantitative approach through statistical databases:............................................................. 25

3.8 Conclusion: ......................................................................................................................... 26

4.0. Findings and Analysis: ........................................................................................................... 28

4.1. Introduction: ....................................................................................................................... 28

4.2. High impact firms in UK: .................................................................................................. 28

4.2.1 Financial source: ........................................................................................................................ 28

4.3.1. Need for policy intervention: .................................................................................................... 34

5.0. Summary and Recommendations: ......................................................................................... 40

5.1. Introduction: ....................................................................................................................... 40

5.2. Summary: ........................................................................................................................... 40

5.3. Limitations of the study and reflective criticism: .............................................................. 41

5.4. Recommendations for further study: ................................................................................. 41

An analysis of the determinants of the prevalence of Start-ups which influence fostering

5.5. Conclusion: ........................................................................................................................ 42

1.1 Introduction to the study:

1.2 Description of research report:

The present research report is organized in to five major chapters.

1.3 Background high impact firms:

1.4 Research Objective:

To study the effect of recession on high impact firms.

To focus on employment change, innovation and productivity

1.5 Research question:

Table 1: Morphological analysis

Topic Aim Design Focus

Adapted from Fisher, 2007

Therefore the hypothesis to be tested involves two components

1.6 Scope of the study:

1.7 Significance of the study:

1.8 Implications for the industry:

2.1. Defining High impact firms:

2.2. Factors influencing emergence of high growth firms:

2.2.1 Micro-level factors

Productive entrepreneurship is an essential explanatory factor which influences the economic