Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are science parks and incubators good “brand names” for spin-offs? The case study of Turin

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years there has been an increasing focus on universities’entrepreneurial orientation and their ability to exploit and transfer scientific knowledge to the commercial sector. Spin-off firms are recognised as an important opportunity for universities. This paper aims to examine the university spin-off firm context, with particular attention to the relationship with science parks-incubators and their importance as brand names. Evidence is taken from Turin case-study. Turin has a consolidated university framework: the University and the Polytechnic are examples of success all around Europe. A particular characteristic of Turin is given by the presence of two science and technology parks and two incubators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. On this topic see: Lockett et al. (2003, 2005), Moray and Clarysse (2005), Wright et al. (2004a), Thursby and Thursby (2002), Balconi et al. (2002), Goktepe and Etzkowitz (2005), Wright et al. (2004b).

  2. The term “science park” is more prevalent in Europe, while the term “research park” is more prevalent in the US and the term “technology park” is more prevalent in Asia (Link and Scott 2007, p. 661).

  3. An extensive review of the literature on incubators and a list of definitions culled from the literature is provided by Hackett and Dilts (2004b).

  4. For a comprehensive discussion on the distance between the science park and the university campus and the importance of proximity, see Link and Scott (2007, 2006, 2003), Wessner (2009).

  5. See Rowe (2002), ANGLE Technology (2003), Parry and Russell (2000), Siegel et al. (2003) for the UK; Mian (1996) and Rothaermel and Thursby (2005) for the US; Colombo and Delmastro (2002) for Italy.

  6. In this paper we include in the category all spin-offs coming from the research world with or without a university share and a patent, but established by university members and aiming to exploit research results.

  7. Three product spin-offs and four service spin-offs.

  8. Start-Cup competition has the goal to foster and support the creation of high knowledge companies, to promote regional economic development and to stimulate the entrepreneurial orientation of researchers. The outcome is in form of awards, cash, training and advice services. The best business plans are awarded with cash prizes of 20,000 euro (first prize), 15,000 euro (second prize) and 10,000 euro (third prize). Additional prizes and grants are available.

  9. Mettersi in Proprio (Start up your own business) is a support service to enterprise creation. It is made up of several integrated actions, with the aim to spread a culture of entrepreneurship, to stimulate new business ideas and to foster the start-up and development of successful companies. Mettersi in Proprio is a free service of the Province of Turin, funded by the European Union (European Social Fund), the Italian State (Ministry for Labour and Social Policy) and Piedmont Region.

  10. AIDA is a databank that provides company accounts, ratios, activities for 950,000 Italian companies; ownership and management for the top 20,000 companies. Consolidated accounts are available for over 3,800 companies. AIDA also incorporates a database of scanned images of the year end reports and accounts for over 300,000 companies. The accounts are in a detailed format and include 50 ratios as standard. News relating to companies is also included. AIDA offers personal data with a description of the company’s activity and it allows access to the detailed balance sheet of every Italian company following the complete scheme of the IV EC Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978. The balance sheets are available in historical series till 10 years. The search and analysis programme is developed by Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing.

  11. Since the 1st of January 2008 a new classification of economic activities called Ateco 2007 is in force as the single rule of classification for public administration. This new classification in Italy is published by Istat (National Institute of Statistics) and it is the national version of the European nomenclature NACE Rev. 2, established by the Regulation EC n. 1893/2006 of the European Parliament and the European Council, published on the Official Journal on the 30th of December 2006.

  12. This variable has been calculated as total assets minus fixed assets.

  13. Turin Wireless Foundation was established in December 2002 with the goal to promote the growth of the ICT District in Piedmont, in synergy with other local players.

  14. Docup is the “programming single document” of every Italian Region.

  15. Unionfidi was established in 1975 with the aim to facilitate the access to credit by associate SMEs through the granting of guarantees and through managerial and financial assistance.

  16. From this list we exclude the “Virtual Reality and Multi Media Park” of Turin, because it does not host spin-off firms.

  17. Finpiemonte spa was established in 1976 as a tool of the regional planning, with the goal to contribute to the regional economic development plan.

References

  • Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ananth, M. S. (2009). Indian science and technology parks. In C. W. Wessner (Ed.), Understanding research, science and technology parks: Global best practice: Report of a symposium (pp. 61–66). National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12546.html.

  • ANGLE Technology. (2003). Evaluation of the past and future economic contribution of the UK science park movement. London: UKSPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E. (1997). New, technology-based firms in innovation networks symplectic and generative impacts. Research Policy, 26(3), 263–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., & Lumme, A. (1998). Does the innovator role affect the perceived potential for growth? Analysis of four types of new, technology-based firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(1), 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., & Yli-Renko, H. (1998). New, technology-based firms in small open economies—an analysis based on the Finnish experience. Research Policy, 26(9), 973–987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2002). Il Trasferimento di Conoscenze Tecnologiche dall’Università all’Industria in Italia: Nuova Evidenza sui Brevetti di Paternità dei Docenti, Dipartimento di Economia Politica e Metodi Quantitativi, Università degli Studi di Pavia.

  • Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2007). Diffusion of organisational practices in turbulent environments: An empirical analysis of university-level patent regulations. Paper presented at the 2007 Academy of management meeting, Philadelphia, August 3–8.

  • Benghozi, P.-J., Bureau, S., & Massit-Folléa, F. (2009). L’internet des objets: quels enjeux pour l’Europe ?, Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris.

  • Benneworth, P., & Charles, D. (2004). University spin-off policies and economic development in less successful regions: Learning from two decades of policy practice. Paper presented at the conference Regionalization of innovation policy—options and experiences, Berlin, June 4–5.

  • Calabrese, G., & Erbetta, F. (2005). Factors of performance in a context of market change: The automotive district of Turin. In F. Garibaldo & A. Bardi (Eds.), Company strategies and organisational evolution in the automotive sector: A worldwide perspective (pp. 213–250). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantamessa, M. (2007). Come fare scouting di idee di impresa della ricerca. In M. Patrissi (Ed.), Ricerca, Spin-off, Incubatori: strategie ed opportunità per le università italiane (pp. 31–35). Torino: PNI Cube.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cesaroni, F., & Gambardella, A. (1999). Dai “contenitori” ai “contenuti”: i parchi scientifici e tecnologici in Italia. In C. Antonelli (Ed.), Conoscenza tecnologica: nuovi paradigmi dell’innovazione e specificità italiana. Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli: Torino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: The case of academic spin-off companies in Italy. R&D Management, 30(4), 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., Quince, T., & Van de Velde, E. (2002). Spinning off new ventures: A typology of facilitating services, Institute for the promotion of innovation by science and technology in Flanders. IWT-Observatory, Innovation, Science, Technology, 41.

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Mustar, P., & Knockaert, M. (2007). Academic spin-offs, formal technology transfer and capital raising. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 609–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities. (2003). The Role of the Universities in the Europe of Knowledge, Communication from the Commission COM (2003) 58 final, Brussels.

  • Crimmins, J. C. (2000). Better measurement and management of brand value. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(6), 136–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P. A. (2007). Innovation and Europe’s academic institutions—second thoughts about embracing the Bayh-Dole regime. In F. Malerba & S. et Brusoni (Eds.), Perspectives on innovation (pp. 251–278). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J. (2009). The English experience. In C. W. Wessner (Ed.), Understanding research, science and technology parks: Global best practice: Report of a symposium (pp. 70–74). National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12546.html.

  • Degroof, J.-J., & Roberts, E. (2003). Spinning-off new ventures from academic institutions in areas with weak entrepreneurial infrastructure: Insights on the impact of spin-off processes on the growth-orientation of ventures. MIT Sloan School of Management, Working Paper 4311-03.

  • Degroof, J.-J., & Roberts, E. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. MIT, Industrial Performance Center, Working Paper Series, MIT-IPC-04-005.

  • Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 269–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Trend Chart on Innovation. (2002). The changing role as public support to academic spin-offs, Policy Benchmarking Workshop, February 19–20, 2002, European Commission, Enterprise Directorate-General Innovation/SMEs Programme.

  • Fan, Y. (2002). The national image of global brands. Brand Management, 9(3), 180–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs. Location, survival and growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2009). Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: An assessment of Italian founders’incentives. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(4), 380–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. J., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goktepe, D., Etzkowitz, H. (2005). Towards an assisted linear model of innovation: An exploratory study of technology transfer offices in the USA. Paper presented at the conference: TripleHelix5, the capitalization of knowledge: Cognitive, economic, social & cultural aspects, May 18–21.

  • Gupte, M. (2007). Success of university spin-offs. Network activities and moderating effects of internal communication and adhocracy. Kiel: Deutscher Universitats-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004a). A real options-driven theory of business incubation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004b). A systematic review of business incubation research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 55–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. (2007). Dynamics of university spin-out companies: Entrepreneurial ventures or technology lifestyle businesses? In B. Clarysse, J. Roure, & T. Schamp (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and the financial community. Starting up and growing new businesses. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, C., & LaBahn, D. W. (1997). Observations: Creating effective brand names: A study of the naming process. Journal of Advertising Research, 37(1), 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35(10), 1599–1615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N. (2009). The evaluation challenge. In C. W. Wessner (Ed.), Understanding research, science and technology parks: Global best practice: Report of a symposium (pp. 117–120). National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12546.html.

  • Link, A. N., & Link, K. R. (2003). On the growth of US science parks. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 81–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). US science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1323–1356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2006). US university research parks. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 25(1–2), 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., Ensley, M. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy, 34(7), 981–993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities’spin-out strategies. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDougall, P., & Oviatt, B. (1996). New venture internationalization, strategic change and performance: A follow-up study. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(1), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahan, R. (2009). The role of SBIR and state awards. In C. W. Wessner (Ed.), Understanding research, science and technology parks: Global best practice: Report of a symposium (pp. 114–117). National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12546.html.

  • Mian, S. A. (1996). Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms. Research Policy, 25(3), 325–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moray, N., & Clarysse, B. (2005). Institutional change and resource endowments to science-based entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy, 34(7), 1010–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. et Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 209–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, F. (2004). The role as academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33(4), 643–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, P. (1997). Spin-off enterprises. How French academics create hi-tech companies: The conditions for success or failure. Science and Public Policy, 24(1), 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35(2), 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M. (2005). Finance and innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. et Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 240–265). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, M., & Russell, P. (Eds.). (2000). The planning, development and operation of science parks. UKSPA, Birmingham: The United Kingdom Science Park Association (UKSPA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez Pérez, M., & Sànchez, A. M. (2003). The development of university spin-offs: Early dynamics of technology transfer and networking. Technovation, 23(10), 823–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P. H. (2009). Importance of the right metrics. In C. W. Wessner (Ed.), Understanding research, science and technology parks: Global best practice: Report of a symposium (p. 67). National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12546.html.

  • Piccaluga, A., & Balderi, C. (2006a). Consistenza ed Evoluzione delle Imprese Spin-off della Ricerca Pubblica in Italia. Finlombarda: IN-SAT Lab.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piccaluga, A., & Balderi, C. (2006b). La Valorizzazione della Ricerca nelle Università Italiane. Quarto Rapporto Annuale. NetVal, CRUI, ProTon Europe.

  • Piedmont Region. (2004). DOCUP Piemonte.

  • Piedmont Regional Council. (2006). Sistema regionale piemontese per la ricerca e l’innovazione. Linee generali di intervento (L.R. n. 4/2006, art. 4), Piedmont Region.

  • Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 355–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. (2005). Policy orientation effects on performance with licensing to start-ups and small companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1028–1042.

    Google Scholar 

  • ProInnoEurope. (2006). European innovation scoreboard 2006. Comparative analysis of innovation performance. MERIT and Joint Research Centre.

  • Roberts, E. (1991). High stakes for high-tech entrepreneurs: Understanding venture capital decision making. Sloan Management Review, 32(2), 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). Incubator firm failure or graduation? The role as university linkages. Research Policy, 34(7), 1076–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, D. (2002). Science parks in the United Kingdom today and tomorrow. APTE conference proceedings.

  • Sancin, P. (Ed.). (1999). R&S, innovazione tecnologica e sviluppo del territorio: il ruolo dei parchi scientifici. Trieste: Area SciencePark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. (2009). Beyond incubation: An analysis of firm survival and exit dynamics in the post-graduation period. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(4), 403–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serazzi, G. (2005). University incubators. Journal of the Politecnico di Milano, (9), 18–31.

  • Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship. University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impact of science parks on the research productivity of firms: Exploratory evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1335–1369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2007). The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: Organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sofouli, E., & Vonortas, N. S. (2007). S&T parks and business incubators in middle-sized countries: The case of Greece. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(5), 525–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squicciarini, M. (2008). Science parks’tenants versus out-of-park firms: Who innovates more? A duration model. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 45–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E., Ozdemir, S. Z., & Ding, W. W. (2007). Vertical alliance networks: The case of university-biotechnology-pharmaceutical alliance chains. Research Policy, 36(4), 477–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verspagen, B. (2006). University research, intellectual property rights and european innovation systems. DIME Working Paper n. 2, Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies.

  • Wessner, C. W. (Ed.). (2009). Understanding research, science and technology parks: Global best practice: Report of a symposium. National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12546.html.

  • Wright, M., Birley, S., & Mosey, S. (2004a). Entrepreneurship and university technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Vohora, A., & Lockett, A. (2004b). The formation of high-tech university spinouts: The role as joint ventures and venture capital investors. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 287–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. (2009). The performance of university spin-offs: An exploratory analysis using venture capital data. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(3), 255–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the Centre de Recherche en Gestion (CRG) de l’Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, and the Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth, Italian National Research Council (Ceris-CNR), Moncalieri-Turin, for the hospitality provided during this research work. She is also grateful to Pierre-Jean Benghozi and Jean-Michel Dalle for their helpful suggestions. Financial support from the Italian National Research Council (CNR) under the ‘Promotion of Research 2005’ programme is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Programme in Institutions, Economics and Law (IEL), Collegio Carlo Alberto, University of Turin, Via Real Collegio 30, 10024, Moncalieri, Turin, Italy

    Elisa Salvador

Authors
  1. Elisa Salvador
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisa Salvador.

Appendix: Turin incubators and science and technology parks

Appendix: Turin incubators and science and technology parks

Since 1999 Turin has established two incubators: I3P (Innovative Enterprise Incubator of the Polytechnic of Turin) and 2I3T. Furthermore, Turin has two science parks.Footnote 16 The Environment Park is near the city centre and the Bio-Industry Park of Canavese is located in the province of Turin and precisely in Colleretto Giacosa (Ivrea).

I3P is a non-profit joint-stock consortium (S.c.p.a.) constituted by Turin Polytechnic, the Province, the Chamber of Commerce, Finpiemonte,Footnote 17 Turin Wireless Foundation, and the City of Turin.

I3P was established in 1999 with an area of nearly 3,000 sq.m. and with the goal to promote the creation and growth of new, knowledge-based enterprises that can benefit from the incubator’s close ties to Turin Polytechnic, and its capacity to catalyse, stimulate and drive cutting-edge business initiatives. Services provided include scouting of ideas, preincubation and incubation for a maximum of 3 years. Main sectors of tenant companies are automation and electronics, information technology, telecommunication, mechanic.

2I3T is the society that manages the incubator of Turin University, constituted by the Province, the City of Turin, Finpiemonte and Turin University. 2I3T was established in 2007 with an available area of 1,800 sq.m. It promotes the creation of new businesses, stimulating the technology transfer to valorize by an economic point of view scientific and technological research results. 2I3T has two tematic locations: the biotechnology one inside the MBC (Molecular Biotechnology Centre) in the city centre, and the chemical-pharmaceutical one in the suburbs. The services provided are the same as for I3P.

The Environment Park was founded in 1996, through an initiative of Piedmont Region, the Province, the City of Turin and the European Union. It represents an original experiment in the field of European Scientific and Technological Parks because it combines technological innovation and eco-efficiency. Environment Park also constitutes a centre of excellence for Information and Communication Technology companies. The Park’s goal is to provide SMEs with advanced solutions and innovative technologies in the fields of energy and environment, through partnerships, special projects, specific training activities and the organisation of thematic events. It is located in Spina 3, one of the main development areas in the city of Turin, just near the city centre, and it covers an area of about 50,000 sq.m. of which 35,000 consisting of laboratories, offices and service centers.

The Bioindustry Park of Canavese is a science and technology park located in Colleretto Giacosa, near Turin, with an area of 70,000 sq.m. equipped for production activities and 16,000 sq.m. of laboratories, offices and pilot production plants. It was established in 1998 and it has as shareholders public institutions and private companies. The project of the Park was adopted by Piedmont Regional Authority as a priority in the regional industrial policy. The Bioindustry Park has been realized in the context of European Union Structural Funds, with contributions from the European Fund for Regional Development, and is jointly financed by the State and the Regional Authority, who granted a total investment of 52 million Euro. The Park promotes and develops research in biotechnologies and life sciences, hosting enterprises of chemical, pharmaceutical, diagnostic, bioengineering and information science fields. It offers research facilities, scientific and support services, such as technology transfer, patent support, tutoring/mentoring of start-ups and spin-offs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Salvador, E. Are science parks and incubators good “brand names” for spin-offs? The case study of Turin. J Technol Transf 36, 203–232 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9152-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9152-0

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation