• On MovieTome: Who is directing GOD OF WAR THE MOVIE?
April 22, 2008 4:21 PM PDT

The world's 50 most innovative companies

Posted by Tim Leberecht
  • Font size
  • Print
BusinessWeek has published its annual The World's 50 Most Innovative Companies list, a survey put together in collaboration with the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). Of course Apple is the no.1. Yet there are some surprises:

- Two Indian companies made the top 20: Tata is #6 and Reliance came in at #19.

- General Motors made it on the list (for "products"), thanks to "concept cars like the electric Chevrolet Volt and the Detroit auto maker's renewed focus on design."

- For the first time, a Wall Street firm made the top 25: Goldman Sachs (for "processes & business models").

- Nintendo, a game maker, is at #7.

- Microsoft maintained its place among the top five.

- Sony, despite all the talk about a need for reinvigoration, is still among the top 10.

- Facebook came in at #25 (for "customer experience" -- seems ironic given the customer turmoil following the Beacon disaster...).

- There are only nine European companies among the top 50, three of which are German car makers: Audi, BMW, Daimler.

Bruce Nussbaum provides some interesting commentary, identifying the companies that have fallen most sharply in this ranking since 2006:

- Starbucks: 2006- #9; 2007- #14; 2008- #32

- Intel 2006- #17; 2007- #19; 2008- #48

- Cisco 2006- #28; 2007- #25; 2008- #35

- Dell: 2006- #14; 2007- #22; 2008- #46

- Virgin 2006- #11; 2007- #18; 2008- #28

The question of course is: Does innovation matter? In other words, does it have a positive impact on revenue and profit growth? Well, here's an interesting figure (via Bruce Nussbaum again): Based on The World's 50 Most Innovative Companies list, the S&P/BusinessWeek Global Innovation Index tracked the performance/stock price of the top 50 innovators from 2007. A look at the performance of this Innovation Index over the past 12 months shows that innovative companies outperformed the average by more than 7% in 2007 and have done 5% better since the middle of 2005:

- S&P/BusinessWeek Global Innovation Index -- up 2.16%

- S&P 500 Index -- down 7.76%

- S&P Global 100 Index -- down 3.2%

In a similar vein, but more design-focused, the British Design Council maintains an index that tracks the performance of design-savvy companies over time. It showed that the share prices of a group of more than 150 quoted companies recognized as effective users of design out-performed the stock market by 200 per cent between 1994 and 2003.

Tim Leberecht is frog design's vice president of marketing and communications and has worked in the media, entertainment, and high-tech industries. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET.
Recent posts from Matter/Anti-Matter
The paradox of loyalty
Fake Times
TEDGlobal coming back to Europe in 2009 - and staying
We Feel Fine
Gadget-less Bond
Jan Chipchase and Design Research
Disruptive Realism
The marketing of a president
advertisement

In the news now

Slowing expectations at a green-tech start-up

Six months ago, biofuels start-up Mascoma had the wind in its sails, as did the rest of the clean-tech sector. Now, the company is treading carefully and scaling back.


With JavaFX, Sun seeks new coders, new revenue

With the launch of JavaFX 1.0, Sun is trying to reclaim Java's strength as a foundation for rich Internet applications. But it's no longer the incumbent.


Tim Lincecum, motion capture star

San Francisco Giants pitcher, who won the Cy Young award last month, dons a motion capture suit for 2K Sports' Major League Baseball 2K9 video game.


About Matter/Anti-Matter

Tim Leberecht and Adam Richardson both work for frog design, a consulting firm specialized in designing innovative products and services for Fortune 500 clients. On the Matter / Anti-Matter blog, they engage in a debate around questions they face day-to-day in their work, using convergence/divergence as a lens through which to look at the pressing issues in business, culture, and technology. What makes a successful convergent product or a successful divergent innovation? Is convergence a myth that users don't really care about, or is the current state of convergence just not satisfying enough for them to embrace? How much divergence of innovation is good, and when does it just become confusing? How do you stay on top of people's ever changing needs and wants?

They are members of the CNET Blog Network and are not employees of CNET.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Matter/Anti-Matter topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right