Introduction
The creative industry in Hong Kong has experienced significant growth recently. Factors like mass communication, urban planning, online promotion activities, motion pictures, video gaming, and audio have experienced substantial growth in Hong Kong. Small and medium-sized businesses significantly influence Hong Kong’s business growth (Scarborough and Cornwall 2018). For this reason, the creative industry’s growth in Hong Kong results from growth in small and medium-sized enterprises. Small and medium-sized enterprises promote innovation, creating new business ventures and supporting economic development. This report aims to investigate the impacts of small and medium-sized enterprises and intrapreneurship on the creative industry in Hong Kong. Additionally, the report will analyze the economic implication of SMEs for the country and the region.
Impact of Small and Medium Enterprises on the Economy
SMEs are businesses in which whose amount of revenue and the number of personnel are estimated to be below a certain limit. Due to their flexibility and easy management, SMEs are higher than large companies in most countries (Scarborough and Cornwall 2018). In Hong Kong, there has been a significant increase in the number of SMEs contributing significantly to the creative industry. According to recent data, over 80% of SMEs are engaged in the creative industry. These SMEs are involved in the digital advertisement, entertainment, and design. For this reason, SMEs have many advantages in the Hong Kong creative industry.
Figure 1: GDP growth rate contributed by SMEs
SMEs have contributed to the general increase in the GDP, with a steady rise in 2016 and 2017. However, since 2018, there has been a decline in the GDP despite the general figure being high (Moy and Luk 2003). This is because SMEs in the creative industry are facing challenges that have led to a reduction in their profit. The difficulties experienced by SMEs include the high cost of rent, lack of government support in terms of finance, and increased competition. Despite these challenges, SMEs have contributed to the growth of the economy through the creation of employment.
Figure 2: Monthly unemployment Rate in Hong Kong
In 2008, the Census and Statistics Department of Hong Kong reported low employment rates between January and September (Moy and Luk 2003). This was contributed by the involvement of SMEs in the creative industry. However, the unemployment rate was high from January 2009 to January 2010. This could have been attributed to the factors that affect SMEs’ operation and the creation of employment in Hong Kong (Moy and Luk 2003). From the above data, it is evident that the creative economy relies heavily on the contributions of small and medium-sized enterprises in terms of their innovative products and services and the economic benefits they provide through job creation and income generation.
Intrapreneurship in Public and Corporate Sectors
Innovation and Intrapreneurship
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the area, including Grand Motors Limited, a manufacturer of electric cars, have significantly contributed to the artistic community in the region. The establishment of Grand Motors in the area has increased employment prospects and pioneering methodologies in the automotive sector (Burns 2016). The creative sector’s contribution to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) experienced a rise from 4.2% in 2005 to 5.3% in 2019, indicating an increase of one percentage point. The Hong Kong Productivity Council has concluded above. The creative sector’s revenue in 2019 amounted to HKD 92.2 billion (USD 11.8 billion), indicating a 38% growth from the 2005 figure of HKD 66.7 billion (Burns 2016). The amount in question is 8.5 billion US dollars.
Public and Corporate Intrapreneurship
Innovation serves as a crucial driving force for the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises and the creative industry at large. The results encompass growth, sustained survival, and the potential to introduce novel offerings (Drucker 1985). To foster innovation within small and medium-sized enterprises, one viable approach is the implementation of intrapreneurship. Intrapreneurs are individuals employed by an organization who uphold an entrepreneurial mindset while operating within the confines of the company (Drucker 1985). The individuals exhibit a propensity to undertake risks in pursuing novel products and services and exercise prudence in assessing the associated risks.
The notion of “intrapreneurship” is gaining prevalence in private and public domains. Public and corporate intrapreneurship are two distinct forms of intrapreneurship that are integral to fostering innovation within the creative industry. Public intrapreneurship is the term for promoting innovation within the public sector (Drucker 1985). The CreateSmart Initiative (CSI) is a government-led program in Hong Kong that provides financial support and additional resources to companies operating within the creative industries. The Creative Industries Foundation (CSI) has allocated funding for approximately two thousand creative projects across diverse domains such as advertising, architecture, design, digital entertainment, music, printing and publishing, television, and more (Drucker 1985). The concept above has rendered the realm of creative enterprise a more secure environment for individuals to explore novel ideas.
The practice of corporate intrapreneurship is actively encouraged among employees to foster imaginative thinking and generate ideas for improving the firm. To cultivate intrapreneurship, businesses must motivate their employees to experiment with novel concepts and be ready to undertake certain risks (Drucker 1985). Tencent has fostered a culture of intrapreneurship by implementing a campaign titled “fox spirit.” This initiative motivates employees to adopt an entrepreneurial mindset and corresponding behavior. Furthermore, Tencent has made significant investments in enterprises that exhibit ingenuity and originality, providing backing and monetary assets to established and burgeoning enterprises.
Similarities and differences between corporate and public intrapreneurship
The use of entrepreneurial principles in various contexts characterizes corporate intrapreneurship and public intrapreneurship as distinct concepts. While both theories focus on developing and implementing new ideas to propel progress and creativity, they do it in different ways and with different ends in mind (Bridge, O’Neill and Martin 2008). This section analyzes the similarities and differences between corporate and government intrapreneurship.
Public Intrapreneurship
“Public intrapreneurship” describes incorporating entrepreneurial thinking and methods into public sector organizations like governments and nonprofits. In the public sector, intrapreneurship is developing new ways of doing things that benefit society and encourage transparency and accountability in government (Yu 1997). Social justice and raising the general standard of living are common goals of public intrapreneurship. Those who engage in intrapreneurship in the public sector do so out of a deep conviction that they can make a difference in the world. A public intrapreneur’s drive comes from a desire to help others and bring about positive change in the world. Due to its ability to support the development and implementation of unique ideas that meet the needs of the public, the public sector is seen as an ideal environment for intrapreneurship.
Public intrapreneurship cannot be implemented without skillful management of complex bureaucratic norms, legal requirements, and political considerations. Entrepreneurial intrapreneurs in the public sector must distinguish between encouraging creative risk-taking and ensuring compliance with existing regulations and policies (Bridge, O’Neill and Martin 2008). Aside from the organization’s standing in the community and its financial stability, stakeholders and the public must be considered.
There has been much talk about intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship within an existing business in recent years. Intrapreneurship is the term used to describe the use of entrepreneurial thinking within established organizations. To improve an organization’s development, financial viability, and market position, a corporate intrapreneur may use a methodical technique known as “corporate intrapreneurship” (Bridge, O’Neill and Martin 2008). Financial success, market share expansion, and increased shareholder returns are typical goals of intrapreneurship initiatives.
The drive behind intrapreneurship is the quest for untapped market potential and a strategic advantage for the organization. In business, intrapreneurs desire to innovate new products and services, explore new markets, and boost the company’s overall success (Burns 2016). Corporate intrapreneurship creates a setting conducive to innovation because it encourages developing and implementing novel business models and approaches from inside the company’s ranks.
Among intrapreneurs’ difficulties is navigating the company’s internal politics, culture, and reporting structures. To successfully manage competing priorities and limited resources, businesses often rely on in-house entrepreneurs who can expertly negotiate complex internal systems and procedures (Yu 1997). Everyone should consider how their activities affect the company’s image, reputation, and bottom line.
This research aims to examine and compare public and corporate intrapreneurship. Different situations, desires, and motivations characterize public and corporate intrapreneurship. Public intrapreneurship seeks to promote social impact and public welfare, as opposed to the growth, profitability, and competitive advantage that characterize corporate intrapreneurship (Yu 1997). Public intrapreneurs, on the other hand, are inspired to make a positive difference in the world by a desire to do good, as opposed to corporate intrapreneurs, who are motivated by the desire to create new economic opportunities and acquire a competitive edge.
Unlike public intrapreneurship, which occurs inside a complicated regulatory framework involving various stakeholders, corporate intrapreneurship occurs in a market setting characterized by adaptation and dynamism. Corporate intrapreneurs are tasked with managing organizational structures, political dynamics, and cultural norms, whereas public sector intrapreneurs are responsible for managing complex bureaucratic procedures, regulations, and political issues (Blackburn, De Clercq and Heinonen 2018).
In the private sector, intrapreneurship refers to developing projects to increase revenue, market share, and shareholder profit. In contrast, in the public sector, intrapreneurship refers to developing projects to prioritize social responsibility and the common good (Blackburn, De Clercq and Heinonen 2018). In contrast to corporate intrapreneurship, public intrapreneurship is primarily concerned with tackling social and environmental challenges rather than producing creative business models, goods, and services.
Despite their differences, public and private intrapreneurship share certain similarities. Both variants of intrapreneurship endeavor to cultivate ingenuity within an enterprise by prompting employees to devise innovative resolutions to pre-existing predicaments. This study aims to investigate intrapreneurship within the commercial and governmental sectors and establish a comparative analysis.
Innovative Ideas
To achieve success in intrapreneurship, it is imperative that both the public and private sectors embrace a mindset that prioritizes innovation. Intrapreneurs are employees who exhibit entrepreneurial qualities, such as a willingness to challenge the existing norms and experiment with innovative methods (Drucker 1985). To attain this objective, it is imperative to cultivate a work setting that incentivizes employees to take risks and views errors as opportunities for growth rather than grounds for termination. Public and commercial entities can cultivate a favorable setting for intrapreneurship through the provision of autonomy and encouragement for innovative thinking among their workforce.
It is imperative to concentrate extensively on fulfilling the requirements of the customer.
Intrapreneurship places customers at the core of its operations, whether in the public or private domains. Intrapreneurs generate innovative products and services that cater to genuine consumer demands instead of pursuing novelty for its own sake (Drucker 1985). Both public and private enterprises must prioritize identifying customer needs and subsequently engage in innovative practices to develop new products, services, and processes that cater to these needs. Intrapreneurs can assist firms in achieving their objectives by closely attending to consumer needs and devising inventive solutions.
The ease of accessing materials is highly convenient. Access to funding is a crucial requirement for intrapreneurs operating in both public and commercial sectors, as it enables them to implement their innovative ideas effectively. The aforementioned encompasses monetary and personnel resources, including proficient individuals who can aid in the conception and implementation of innovative concepts (Blackburn, De Clercq and Heinonen 2018). To implement their ideas, intrapreneurs necessitate resources such as research and development laboratories, data analysis software, and financial support.
Professional assistance
Collaboration between the corporate and public sectors is imperative to assist intrapreneurs. The program’s success hinges on providing requisite resources by top-level executives. To foster innovation, it is essential to create a conducive environment and equip intrapreneurs with the resources required while eliminating any obstacles they may face (Blackburn, De Clercq and Heinonen 2018). Leaders must be willing to take risks and provide backing to intrapreneurs, even in cases where their endeavors do not yield an immediate financial gain.
It is advisable to remain up-to-date with the latest happenings and developments worldwide. Continuous improvement should be a top priority for intrapreneurship in both the public and private sectors. Intrapreneurs do not prioritize the development of novel products or services (Blackburn, De Clercq and Heinonen 2018). Rather than diverting their attention elsewhere, the emphasis is placed on enhancing their organization’s existing products and services. To attain this objective, it is imperative to adopt a mindset centered on perpetual enhancement and incorporating novel functionalities into pre-existing provisions. It is essential to motivate intrapreneurs to question the existing norms and seek opportunities to improve established protocols, commodities, or amenities.
The importance of collaboration
Entrepreneurs operating in both the public and private domains comprehend the significance of collaborative efforts. To effectively execute their innovative concepts, intrapreneurs must engage in collaborative efforts with a diverse array of individuals (Blackburn, De Clercq and Heinonen 2018). Engaging in collaborative efforts with internal and external teams, including clients, vendors, and other partners, is imperative to achieve this objective. Collaboration among intrapreneurs enhances the likelihood of achieving successful solutions by pooling their resources and talents.
Conclusion and recommendations
In conclusion, over 80% of SMEs are engaged in the creative industry. These SMEs are involved in the digital advertisement, entertainment, and design. SMEs have contributed to the general increase in the GDP, with a steady rise in 2016 and 2017. The SMEs in the creative industry are facing challenges that have led to a reduction in their profit. To promote SMEs and entrepreneurship in the creative industry, the Hong Kong government should provide financial assistance, foster partnership, encourage creativity, and provide a supportive ecosystem. To promote entrepreneurship, organizations should encourage innovation and risk-taking, support small-scale entrepreneurs, and foster a culture of collaboration and communication.
Bibliography
Blackburn, R., De Clercq, D. and Heinonen, J. 2018. The Sage Handbook of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, London: Sage.
Bridge, S., O’Neill, K. and Martin, F. 2008. Understanding Enterprise, Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 3rd Ed. London: Macmillan.
Burns, P. 2016. Entrepreneurship and Small Business. 4th Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Drucker, P. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. London: Heinemann.
Moy, J.W. and Luk, V.W., 2022. The life cycle model as a framework for understanding barriers to SME growth in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Business Review, 10(2), pp.199-220.
Scarborough, N. and Cornwall, J. 2018. Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 9th Ed. Harlow: Pearson.
Yu, T.F.L. 1997. Entrepreneurship & economic development in Hong Kong, London: Routledge.
write