Creative Problem-Solving in Business: The Legal Perspective
- 1 School of Business, Leadership and Legal Studies (SBLL), Regent University College of Science and Technology, Accra, Ghana
- 2 Faculty of Business Management, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA
- 3 Faculty of Law Governance & International Relations, Kings University College, Accra, Ghana
Abstract
This paper looks to unearth the sophisticated relationship that exists between legal frameworks and creative problem-solving for businesses. It challenges the conventional view that the law is only a constraint on innovation. By qualitatively analysing existing literature, case studies and legal frameworks, the study shows how legal compliance can encourage businesses to think creatively within confines. “Creative Constraint” as a concept becomes increasingly relevant to this, as it suggests that legal limitations can stimulate rather than stifle innovation. The dual role of intellectual property (IP) protection as an inhibitor and enabler of innovation is also presented, highlighting the need to approach IP laws and their implantation with a balanced frame, in order to promote collaboration. Additionally, the study shows why early legal involvement in the creative process is important in ensuring that innovative solutions are effective and legally sound. The paper is concluded with recommendations that legal practitioners and policy makers can use to foster a harmonious co-existence of law and creativity, with the aim of arriving at sustainable business growth for implementers.
- Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Westview Press.
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
- Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
- Fenwick, M., & Vermeulen, E. P. M. (Eds.) (2021). Regulating FinTech in Asia: Global Context, Local Perspectives. Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5819-1
- Gervais, D. (2012). The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis (4th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
- Gilson, R. J. (2019). The Legal Infrastructure of High Technology Industrial Districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and Covenants Not to Compete. NYU Law Review, 74, 575-629.
- Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716-749. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393655
- Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2003). The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law . Harvard University Press.
- Lemley, M. A. (2021). Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age: 2021. Aspen Publishers.
- Ma, X. Y. (2022). The Tripartite Evolutionary Game of Intellectual Property Protection with Government Participation. Open Journal of Business and Management, 10, 2790-2804. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2022.105138
- Nweke, G., & Nweke, O. (2024). Harmonising Strategy, Innovation, and Law: Navigating the Path to Ethical and Sustainable Progress. Beijing Law Review, 15, 200-218. https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2024.151013
- Ren, D. Y., Song, X. Y., & Zhou, H. B. (2015). Research on Intellectual Property Benefits Allocation Mechanism—Using the Case of Regional-Development Oriented Collaborative Innovation Center of China. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 5, 428-433. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojapps.2015.58042
- Silverman, D. (2020). Interpreting Qualitative Data (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
- Wright, R. (2020). The Regulatory Landscape and Its Impact on Innovation in the Financial Services Sector. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 28, 36-54.