Release date: July 24, 2024
Skip to text
Text begins
About Research to Insights
The Research to Insights series
of presentations features a broad range of findings on selected research
topics. Each presentation draws from and integrates evidence from various
studies that use innovative and high-quality data and methods to better
understand relevant and complex policy issues.
Based on applied research of valuable data,
the series is intended to provide decision makers, and Canadians more broadly,
a comprehensive and horizontal view of the current economic, social and health
issues we face in a changing world.
Context
- Increases in labour productivity are closely associated with long-run improvements in living standards. Since the early 1980s, over 90% of the increase in Canada’s real gross domestic product per capita has reflected improvements in labour productivity. While slower labour productivity growth over much of the past decade stems largely from declines in business investment, concerns persist over the extent to which businesses are harnessing the benefits of innovation and advanced technologies.
- Statistics Canada’s recent estimates of multifactor productivity suggest that innovation and advanced technology use have not translated into sustained improvements in labour productivity beyond their measured impacts on capital and labour.
- This is consistent with the “innovation paradox.” While many businesses report developing new products and processes, the payoffs from innovative activity, insofar as they pertain to the aggregate economic returns from the commercialization of new knowledge, have been comparatively modest.
- This presentation highlights data and analysis at Statistics Canada that can be used to explore linkages between innovation, technology adoption and productivity. It draws on new estimates from the agency’s productivity research program, along with recent surveys that examine the innovation and technological stance of Canadian businesses. The presentation is intended to support ongoing research on the competitiveness of Canada’s economy.
Description for Figure 1
The title of Figure 1 is Framework: Innovation, productivity growth and living standards. There are 3 circles, the first one is labelled A and says “Capital intensity (investment per worker), the second one is labelled B and says “Labour composition (skills upgrading)” and the third one labelled C says “Growth in multifactor productivity”. All A, B and C circles have a red arrow that points to a box that says “Labour productivity growth”. The box for “Labour productivity growth” has a red arrow that points to another box that says “GDP per capita”. On top of The box for “Labour productivity growth” there is a circle that says “Work intensity (hours per employee)”. On the bottom of the box for “Labour productivity growth” there is a circle that says “Employment rate (percentage of the population that is employed)”. Both of these top and bottom circles have red arrows that point to the box that says “GDP per capita”.
There is a note at the bottom of the figure that relates to the “C” circle, it says “The residual portion of labour productivity growth that is not attributable to gains in capital intensity (A) and skills upgrading (B) is called growth in multi-factor productivity (C). It measures the efficiency with which inputs are used in production. Growth in multi-factor productivity is often associated with innovation and technological progress”.
Less productivity growth from capital investment coupled with low contributions from multifactor productivity, which partly reflect modest returns from innovation and technology
- Non-residential business investment scaled back sharply after the oil price shock in the mid-2010s. Real capital outlays in early 2024 were 22% below peak levels a decade earlier.
- Slower labour productivity growth since 2015 has been largely attributable to weak capital investment, which was pervasive across industries. Investment per worker in 2022 was nearly 20% below 2014 levels.
- Large and medium-sized firms have accounted for nearly the entire decrease in investment per worker. Declines in capital intensity were more pronounced among foreign-controlled firms.
Data table for Chart 1
1980 to 2000 | 2000 to 2015 | 2015 to 2022 | 2019 to 2022 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
percentage point contributions to the average annual growth in labour productivity | ||||
Capital intensity | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
Labour Composition | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
Multifactor productivity growth | 0.5 | -0.2 | 0.1 | -0.1 |
Labour productivity growth | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
Over the past two decades, increases in multifactor productivity—which are improvements in business efficiency that stem from innovation and technology use, organizational change, and scale economies—have not translated into sustained improvements in labour productivity.
For more information: The Daily—Multifactor productivity growth estimates and industry productivity database, 2022.
Gap in labour productivity growth between Canada and the United States reflects lower productivity north of the border in several high-tech sectors
- Since 2000, labour productivity in Canada has increased at an average annual rate of 0.8%, less than half the average annual pace (1.9%) observed in the United States.
- From 2001 to 2019, the information and cultural services industry, which includes telecommunications, was the largest contributor to widening the labour productivity growth gap between Canada and the United States.
- Lower productivity in Canadian computer and electronic product manufacturing also contributed to widening the gap, while higher productivity in Canadian financial services tempered the productivity divergence between the two countries.
- Business demography matters—ongoing research on the productivity gap between Canada and the United States shows that Canada has a larger share of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) than the United States, but that SMEs in Canada are less productive.
Data table for Chart 2
United States | Canada | |
---|---|---|
index (1980=100) | ||
1980 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
1981 | 102.13 | 101.99 |
1982 | 101.55 | 104.56 |
1983 | 105.01 | 108.00 |
1984 | 108.00 | 111.50 |
1985 | 110.47 | 112.83 |
1986 | 113.58 | 112.02 |
1987 | 114.19 | 112.99 |
1988 | 115.91 | 114.78 |
1989 | 117.23 | 115.34 |
1990 | 119.56 | 115.40 |
1991 | 121.46 | 115.25 |
1992 | 127.10 | 117.90 |
1993 | 127.22 | 119.86 |
1994 | 127.95 | 122.81 |
1995 | 128.84 | 124.03 |
1996 | 131.98 | 123.38 |
1997 | 134.83 | 127.24 |
1998 | 139.44 | 130.43 |
1999 | 145.12 | 135.54 |
2000 | 149.68 | 141.62 |
2001 | 153.62 | 143.87 |
2002 | 160.12 | 146.00 |
2003 | 166.23 | 146.58 |
2004 | 171.45 | 147.45 |
2005 | 175.28 | 150.58 |
2006 | 177.01 | 152.98 |
2007 | 179.91 | 153.37 |
2008 | 182.37 | 151.76 |
2009 | 189.83 | 150.22 |
2010 | 195.95 | 152.32 |
2011 | 195.59 | 155.83 |
2012 | 196.95 | 155.73 |
2013 | 199.06 | 158.79 |
2014 | 200.58 | 164.55 |
2015 | 203.00 | 164.31 |
2016 | 204.58 | 165.57 |
2017 | 207.30 | 168.46 |
2018 | 210.35 | 169.04 |
2019 | 214.71 | 169.90 |
2020 | 225.68 | 185.45 |
2021 | 229.79 | 175.09 |
2022 | 225.43 | 173.94 |
2023 | 228.67 | 170.19 |
For more information: The post-2001 productivity growth divergence between Canada and the United States: The role of the information and cultural services industry.
Opportunities to improve productivity through investment
and innovation
- Less competition allows dominant firms to gain market
power and set higher prices without the threat of being undercut by
competitors, leading to higher prices for consumers and businesses - Less competition may be contributing to weaker
investment while hampering innovation.-
Business entry rates have trended lower, while
market concentration has increased since 2015. The Competition Bureau recently
found that overall competitive intensity has declined over the past two
decades. - Businesses that face more competitors are more
likely to introduce innovations than those with fewer competitors (Survey of
Innovation and Business Strategy, 2022).
-
- Higher regulation weighs on growth—Transport
Canada and KPMG, with contributions from Statistics Canada, have developed a
measure of regulatory requirements at the federal level.- The number of regulatory requirements rose by
40% from 2006 to 2021. - Rising regulatory requirements were found to
have a negative effect on output and productivity growth.
- The number of regulatory requirements rose by
Data table for Chart 3
Average entry rate | Average exit rate | |
---|---|---|
percent | ||
2000 | 14.60 | 10.26 |
2001 | 14.70 | 10.29 |
2002 | 11.86 | 9.59 |
2003 | 10.90 | 9.37 |
2004 | 12.96 | 9.36 |
2005 | 12.34 | 8.62 |
2006 | 11.85 | 9.42 |
2007 | 12.94 | 8.75 |
2008 | 10.79 | 9.27 |
2009 | 9.98 | 9.57 |
2010 | 9.60 | 8.63 |
2011 | 9.69 | 8.58 |
2012 | 10.21 | 7.88 |
2013 | 9.54 | 8.13 |
2014 | 9.42 | 8.80 |
2015 | 9.06 | 8.91 |
2016 | 8.75 | 9.14 |
2017 | 9.24 | 10.15 |
2018 | 9.37 | 9.04 |
2019 | 9.57 | 9.35 |
2020 | 7.75 | 10.68 |
2021 | 7.34 | 12.17 |
For more information: Competition
Bureau report finds Canada’s competitive intensity in decline and The
Daily—Survey of Innovation and Business Strategy, 2022.
Businesses invest in innovation and technology adoption—especially in response to competition
-
More than four in five businesses that used
advanced technology reported innovations, compared with three in five
businesses that did not use advanced technology (Survey of Innovation and
Business Strategy, 2022). - In responding to changes in competition in their
main market, over one-third of businesses (38%) introduced or accelerated the
introduction of new goods or services. Over one-half (55%) responded by
introducing new technology or new processes. - Nearly two in five businesses that developed and
introduced product innovations registered to protect their intellectual
property. - In the second quarter of 2024, almost 3 in 10
businesses (28.3%) reported that technology adoption and innovation improved
their ability to operate efficiently over the previous 12 months.
Data table for Chart 4
percentage of businesses reporting innovations | |
---|---|
Users of advanced technology | 85.2 |
All businesses | 71.9 |
Non-users of advanced technology | 60.0 |
For more information: The
Daily—Survey of Innovation and Business Strategy, 2022 and Aspects
that improved the ability of business or organization to operate efficiently
over the last 12 months, second quarter of 2024.
Business research and development spending is ramping up,
but overall R&D intensity remains well below that of other major industrial
economies
- In 2021, most of the growth in industrial
R&D spending reflected higher outlays by the largest R&D performers,
both domestic and foreign-owned. Early data for 2022 and 2023 point to steady
increases in business R&D spending. - Canada’s R&D spending as a share of gross
domestic product (GDP) lags well behind the G7 average and, in 2021, fell two
spots to 19th in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Canada’s business-sector R&D spending as a share of GDP was the second
lowest in the G7. - R&D intensities for domestic and foreign-owned
producers vary across industries.- The average R&D-to-sales ratio for
Canadian-owned manufacturers was 2.2% in 2021, compared with 1.6% for
foreign-controlled manufacturers. - Canadian-owned information and communications
technology (ICT) businesses had an average R&D-to-sales ratio of 5.9%, well
below the average for foreign-controlled ICT firms (12.9%).
- The average R&D-to-sales ratio for
-
Foreign multinationals accounted for over 40% of
all intramural research and development (R&D) spending by corporations in
2021, and one-third of all corporate expenditures on intellectual property (IP)
in 2022.
Data table for Chart 5
2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
index (2016=1) | ||||||
Less than $500,000 | 1.00 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 0.99 |
$500,000 to $9,999,999 | 1.00 | 1.02 | 1.18 | 1.22 | 1.29 | 1.32 |
$10,000,000 and more | 1.00 | 1.04 | 1.11 | 1.20 | 1.28 | 1.65 |
For more information: The
Daily—Industrial research and development, 2021 (actual), 2022
(preliminary) and 2023 (intentions) and Activities
of multinational enterprises in Canada, Canadian and foreign multinationals, as
a share of the Canadian economy.
Many businesses benefited from federal support for
innovation and growth during the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic
-
In 2021, as Canada recovered from the
COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government provided
over 33,000 businesses with innovation and growth support, valued at
$4.5 billion, through 134 federal programs. - In 2021, small and medium-sized enterprises
(those with fewer than 500 employees) accounted for 96% of all program
recipients and over three-quarters of total support value. - Several indicators are consistent with the
notion that business innovation and growth support (BIGS) programs
helped businesses recover from the pandemic. - The revenues of BIGS-supported corporations
expanded by 16% in 2021, three times higher than in 2020. Their
export revenue rose 15% during the same period, after declining by 4%
from 2019 to 2020. - BIGS recipients continued to innovate
in 2021, as their research and development expenditures rose by 12%,
comparable with the 11% increase from 2019 to 2020.
Data table for Chart 6
Enterprises | Total value of support | |
---|---|---|
percent | ||
Small- and medium-sized enterprises | 96 | 77 |
Large enterprises | 4 | 23 |
For more information: The
Daily—Business innovation and growth support, 2021.
Patent activity scaled back prior to the COVID-19 pandemic
-
Growth in patent applications in Canada and
applications abroad by Canadians stagnated in the years leading up to the
pandemic, falling to levels observed in the early 2000s. - While over one in five businesses owned an
intellectual property (IP) asset in 2022, only about 6% owned patents (Survey
of Innovation and Business Strategy, 2022). - New research at Statistics Canada shows that
Canadian multinationals demonstrated superior IP generation than foreign-owned
multinationals, with four in five high-tech patent applications originating
from Canadian-controlled entities. - Revenues for IP rebounded in 2021. Businesses in
Canada performing research and development generated more revenue
from the use of their IP than ever before, as receipts rose 37%
to $8.9 billion. At the same time, payments
for IP increased 34% to $2.2 billion.
Data table for Chart 7
2001 to 2005 | 2006 to 2010 | 2011 to 2015 | 2016 to 2019 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
number of patents | ||||
CIPO | 2,914 | 3,004 | 3,038 | 2,625 |
USPTO | 2,569 | 3,458 | 5,217 | 5,133 |
Other international patent office | 4,538 | 4,758 | 3,834 | 2,631 |
For more information: The
Daily—Survey of Innovation and Business Strategy, 2022 and Innovation
in focus: Exploring trends in the development of advanced technology through
patent applications.
Adoption of disruptive technologies is in its early stages
-
According to the 2022 Survey of Advanced
Technology, almost two-thirds of businesses (62.1%) have adopted at least one
type of advanced technology. However, spending levels are modest, and take-up
rates for disruptive technologies are comparatively low. - Only 3.1% of businesses reported using
artificial intelligence, while 2.1% reported using robotics. - The top three obstacles reported by enterprises
that did not adopt advanced technologies were low returns on investment or long
payback periods from such investments (40.6%), challenges recruiting skilled
staff (36.7%) and difficulties integrating new advanced technologies with
existing systems (34.7%).
Data table for Chart 8
percentage of advanced technology spending | |
---|---|
Advanced design and information control technologies | 23.4 |
Additional advanced technologies | 15.2 |
Advanced business intelligence technologies | 14.9 |
Clean technologies | 11.7 |
Advanced processing and fabrication technologies | 11.4 |
Advanced material handling, supply chain and logistics technologies | 8.0 |
Internet-connected smart devices or systems | 5.5 |
Other | 4.7 |
Robotics | 3.9 |
Artificial intelligence technologies | 1.3 |
For more information: The
Daily—Survey of Advanced Technology, 2022.
Comparatively low spending on advanced technologies
- While a majority of businesses covered by the 2022 Survey of Advanced Technology adopted at least one type of advanced technology, capital outlays on advanced technologies from 2020 to 2022 totalled only $6 billion. By comparison, private sector expenditures on research and development during this three-year period amounted to $79 billion.
- Of businesses that did not incur any capital
expenditures on advanced technologies from 2020 to 2022, about 6 in 10 reported
that they were not applicable to the enterprise’s activities. Similarly, one in
five non-investing businesses reported that investments in advanced technology
were not necessary for continuing operations. - In the second quarter of 2024, about one-half of businesses reported that they did not have any plans to adopt or incorporate AI or other advanced digital technologies over the next 12 months (a group that includes non-adopters and past adopters). One-third of these businesses reported that digital technologies were not relevant to their organization.
- Low adoption rates and expenditure levels for disruptive
technologies raise questions about how well-positioned businesses are to reap
the benefits of major technological advances. In the second quarter of 2024, 6%
of businesses reported using artificial intelligence for producing goods or
delivering services over the previous 12 months.
For more information: The
Daily—Survey of Advanced Technology, 2022, The
Daily—Non-residential capital and repair expenditures, 2022 (revised), 2023
(preliminary) and 2024 (intentions), Reasons
for not investing capital expenditures in advanced technologies, by industry
and enterprise size, Technologies
the business or organization plans to adopt or incorporate over the next 12
months, second quarter of 2024 and Analysis
on artificial intelligence use by businesses in Canada, second quarter of 2024.
Impacts of artificial intelligence on the workforce may be
more far-reaching than earlier technological transformations
- Previous waves of automation mainly affected
workers performing routine and manual tasks—artificial intelligence (AI) is
expected to impact a larger segment of the workforce because of its increasing
capacity to perform cognitive and non-routine tasks. - New research at Statistics Canada has produced
experimental estimates of potential AI occupational exposure and
complementarity in Canada, and it was found that 40% of workers have low
exposure to AI. The remaining 60% are split into two groups: workers with high
exposure that have high complementarity with AI technologies (29%), and workers
with high exposure and low complementarity with AI (31%). - High earners are more likely to be in jobs that
have high exposure and high complementarity with AI, while middle earners are
more likely to be in high-exposure jobs with low complementarity.
Artificial intelligence is expected to have far-reaching
impacts on business productivity and the nature of work
Description for Figure 2
This chart shows a scatter plot with the AI occupational exposure index ranging from 5 to 7 on the horizontal axis and the complementarity index ranging from 0.4 to 0.8 on the vertical axis. There are 490 data points. Each data point represents an occupation as per the 4-digit National Occupation Classification version 2016 and are colour-coded with three different colours. The colours are used to distinguish the occupations according to their minimum educational requirement. Occupations requiring a bachelor’s degree or higher are represented by blue, occupations requiring some postsecondary education below bachelor’s degree are represented by green, and occupations requiring high school or less education are represented by red. The chart shows the relationship between AI occupational exposure and the extent to which AI can play a complementary role in a given occupation. A higher AI occupational exposure index is associated with greater potential occupational exposure to AI. A higher complementarity index is associated with greater potential complementarity with AI. The median AI occupational exposure index score of 6 and the median complementarity index score of 0.6 are used to group the various occupations into four quadrants. The top-left quadrant contain data points representing occupations which might be relatively less exposed to AI and highly complementary with AI. The majority of occupations in that quadrant require some postsecondary education below bachelor’s degree but there are also a few which require high school or less education. Some examples include firefighters, plumbers, and carpenters. The bottom-left quadrant contain data points representing occupations which might also be relatively less exposed to AI but also less complementary with AI. The majority of occupations in that quadrant require high school or less education but there are also a few which require some postsecondary education below bachelor’s degree. Some examples include food and beverage servers, labourers in processing, manufacturing and utilities, and welders and related machine operators. The top-right quadrant contain data points representing occupations which might be highly exposed to AI and highly complementary with AI. The majority of occupations in that quadrant require a bachelor’s degree or higher education but there are a few which require some postsecondary education below bachelor’s degree. Some examples include general practitioners and family physicians, secondary school teachers, and electrical engineers. The bottom-right quadrant contain data points representing occupations which might be highly exposed to AI but less complementary with AI. This quadrant has fewer data points than the other quadrants and the occupations represented by the data points have a mixture of educational requirements. Some examples include data entry clerks, economists, computer network technicians, and computer programmers and interactive media developers.
Takeaways
- There is little evidence from Canada’s official
productivity statistics that innovation and advanced technology adoption are
translating into sustained improvements in business efficiency beyond their
measured impacts on capital and labour. This aligns with a longstanding
concern: the need for businesses to more fully exploit the benefits of
innovation and advanced technology to expand output and increase labour
productivity. - Recent data from innovation and technology
surveys highlight the positive linkages between competition, innovation and
business efficiency. While business expenditures on research and development (R&D)
and receipts from intellectual property are rising, concerns over the intensity
with which businesses are investing in knowledge capital persist, especially in
relation to many competitor economies. R&D intensity remains low, while
patent applications scaled back measurably prior to the pandemic. - Business investment in disruptive technologies, widely touted as a potential game changer for productivity, is in its early stages. Artificial intelligence (AI) adoption rates were about 3% in 2022, with little capital spending on emergent technologies. While 6% of businesses reported using AI in the second quarter of 2024, over one-half of businesses were not planning to adopt or incorporate AI or other advanced digital technologies over the coming year (a group that includes both non-adopters and past adopters).
For more information, please contact
[email protected]
link