Search results

In the present study, using a novel fractional logit model, the link between R&D (Research & Development) investment and shareholder value-based CEO (Chief Executive Officer) compensation has been examined within the non-financial sector in the Euro area economies using a firm-level dataset for 2002–2019.

The fractional logit model is utilized to examine the effects of corporate payment on R&D investment. The fractional logit model can be considered the empirical approach that takes into account R&D non-performer firms to avoid reducing the sample size. The fractional logit model is superior to the censored or truncated models, like Tobit, since the fractional logit model is useful to address the econometric limitations that are found in the censored and truncated models in the non-linear models.

The findings obtained in this study showed a significant and negative effect of short-term aim-based CEO payment on R&D expenditures in the Euro area economies using firm-level data. These findings are robust to different robustness checks and modeling alternatives.

To the author's knowledge, there is no study that examines the effects of short-term shareholder value maximization-based CEO compensation on R&D in the European context in the literature.

The purpose of this paper is to bridge the disciplinary divide between international finance and international business (IB) to realign academic research with business reality in which strategy and finance align to determine firms’ success or failures.

The authors discuss theoretical differences between the fields of international finance and IB strategy that caused the fields to develop in isolation with little fertilization across disciplines. The authors review scarce interdisciplinary contributions between the fields. Finally, the authors identify complementarities that suggest fruitful avenues for future research.

The authors find a persistent disconnect between finance and strategy/IB literature that can be explained by fundamentally different aims and assumptions about the markets. While finance theory seeks to explain typical effects under functioning markets, strategy and IB theories focus inherently on exceptional effects and market inefficiencies.

The fundamental theoretical differences that isolate finance and strategy/IB create avenues for interdisciplinary research that harness the complementarities of the two disciplines. These include strategic aspects of capital structure, internal capital market inefficiencies, corporate governance, capital market liability of foreignness and institutional aspects of financial management.

With this paper, the authors not only bring academic researchers in finance and strategy closer to corporate practice. The theoretical discussion also challenges the functional blind spots of practitioners and encourages more holistic decision-making.

Challenging market functioning and recognizing market inefficiencies using strategy and IB foundations connects financial economics with non-market topics such as environment, society and governance or impact investing.

The value and originality of the paper come from the qualitative, epistemological approach to study and analyse the divide between international finance and strategy/IB scholarship.