Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine efficiency differences among petroleum firms based on their ownership status, with the aim of helping these firms understand how specific levels of state-ownership affects efficiency and to bring new perspective to the ownership-performance literature.

The study uses ten-year data (2001-2010) of 32 global petroleum firms categorized into four groups based on ownership types. The metafrontier analysis is used with the dynamic slack-based measure to estimate dynamic efficiency differences among the groups while respectively, accounting for carryover variables such as oil and gas reserves.

Fully state-owned firms outperformed private, majority and minority state-owned firms, indicating that not all types of state-owned petroleum firms are outperformed by private firms. Additionally, firms with shared ownership between state and private are seen to have a lesser comparative advantage in the industry than those with full private or state ownership.

Jointly owned petroleum firms should consider converting ownership to either full private or full state control. Conflict management measures should be used to handle possible conflicts between different shareholding groups.

This is among the first studies to sub-group state ownership into various levels to comprehensively examine specific levels of state ownership that is detrimental to the performance of petroleum firms. It is also the premier oil efficiency study to use the metafrontier framework to cater for group heterogeneity. The study treats oil and gas reserves as interconnecting variables that are not consumed only in the period for which they are discovered to ensure fair assessment.

This study seeks to examine how agency problems and internal capital markets in group‐affiliated firms are mutually influenced by the ownership structure, capital structure, and performance. It also aims to examine the endogeneity in group affiliation.

Using panel data, this study employs two‐stage least squares regression with the instrumental variable technique to examine the relationship among capital structure, ownership structure, and performance of group‐affiliated firms. Simultaneous equation models are constructed to identify the effects of interdependent decisions.

The empirical results indicate a U‐shaped relationship between insider ownership and performance. Moreover, the alignment of ownership and control rights determines the relationship between ownership structure and performance for group‐affiliated firms. The capital structure decisions of group‐affiliated firms are independent of firm performance and insider ownership, supporting the view that capital structure decisions of group‐affiliated firms are determined by the overall characteristics of the business group, rather than those of the individual firms.

Business groups can reduce the agency problems that occur in group affiliation by increasing the insider ownership (after a certain tunneling point), debt financing, and dividend payout.

Previous studies have paid little attention to the effects of the agency problem and the internal capital market on group affiliation. Whether endogeneity is a consequence of the common characteristics of group affiliation or a result of the simultaneity existing among ownership structure, capital structure, and performance is also unknown. This paper fills some of these gaps.

To test the hypothesis of increased specialisation during the 1980s in the aggregate pattern of intercorporate ownership in the Canadian economy.

The network of ownership between enterprises and subsidiaries is characterised for the period 1976‐1995 using data for the population of medium‐sized and large Canadian corporations collected by Statistics Canada.

Aggregate diversification declined slightly over the period in terms of the average number of industry groups in which enterprises have subsidiaries. However, there was an increased likelihood that subsidiaries were outside of the core industry group of the enterprise.

The data provide insight into ownership changes across the economy and are not sensitive to changes in a few very large firms. However, a weakness of these data is that the ownership linkages are not weighted to reflect the economic importance of the enterprises involved. There is evidence that the pattern of inter‐corporate ownership is different between manufacturing and service sectors. Future research should treat these separately.

Increased specialisation to the core industry of an enterprise has implications for the management skills required to design and manage networks of independent firms (for example, through strategic alliances), the performance expectations and risks taken by shareholders, and the commercial and tax policies set by government. At an aggregate level, a reduction in diversification may change the industrial structure of the economy, with sectors less integrated through ownership relationships, and thus potentially more sensitive to patterns of market exchange.

Much of the literature on the effect of ownership restructuring on aggregate diversification is focused on the US economy, and there is little empirical evidence in the Canadian context. The data are unique, representing a population of medium‐sized and larger firms. To our knowledge there are no published analyses of the ownership structure represented in these data.

Energy efficiency is critical for global sustainability (International Energy Agency, 2019). The purpose of this paper is to examine how agency conflicts arising from pyramidal ownership structures impact the energy intensity (EI) of group-affiliated Indian firms. Group-affiliated firms face unique governance challenges. For instance, parent owners (promoters) may transfer profits from one group-affiliated firm to another firm in which they have greater ownership. The authors hypothesize that such governance issues will lead to underinvestment in energy-saving projects among group firms in which promoters have a low ownership stake, resulting in their greater EI.

The authors measure EI as the ratio of total energy expense to total sales revenue (EI) and as the industry-adjusted version of this ratio. Group-affiliated Indian firms are divided into high- and low-stake firms based on the sample’s median promoter ownership.

Results support the authors’ prediction: group firms in which promoters have low ownership are more energy intensive, consistent with these firms being exposed to greater governance challenges and agency conflicts that result in operating inefficiencies and/or underinvestment in energy-saving projects.

Given energy efficiency will be key in addressing climate change, this study could raise awareness among activists, motivate regulators to consider agency problems among group-affiliated firms in emerging markets and may underscore the importance of environmental-related corporate disclosures.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to identify the significant impact that firm ownership structure and associated governance challenges have on corporate EI.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the additive and differential effects of short-term-oriented group incentives (STOGIs) and long-term-oriented group incentives (LTOGIs) on psychological ownership and organizational commitment.

This study analyzed data from 17,255 US employees in the 2005 data set of the National Bureau of Economic Research Shared Capitalism Research.

Both additive indices of group incentives have direct positive relationships with psychological ownership and organizational commitment, as well as indirect positive relationships with organizational commitment through psychological ownership. STOGIs have a stronger relationship with organizational commitment and LTOGIs have a stronger relationship with psychological ownership.

The value of this research lies in exploring the differential effects of short-and long-term group incentives, which provides new insight into the theory of group incentives and practical implications for their effective utilization.

Diversified business groups have become active players in Chinese economy in the recent years. While several studies have been conducted to examine the role of external factors such as market imperfection on firms' decisions to diversify, relatively few efforts have been made to investigate the impact of internal factors such as ownership structures on such decision. Building on agency theory, this paper attempts to examine the impacts of ownership type and ownership concentration on Chinese business groups' diversification strategies.

Year 2000 annual reports of publicly traded companies on Shenzhen Stock Exchange were used to identify business groups and collect data. Multiple regression analysis was used to conduct the data analysis.

The results indicate that compared to other ownership structures, government‐owned business groups tend to be more diversified, while ownership concentration seems to be related to lower levels of diversification. Industry membership also plays a significant role, but previous performance is not significantly related to diversification levels. Implications and future study directions are also discussed.

This study contributes to the understanding of the impact of ownership structure on companies' diversification strategies in a transitional economy such as China.

Prior literature shows that income shifting is widely performed by multinational groups, but no research as yet has studied alignment between controlling and minority interests on tax avoidance in multinational groups with high ownership concentration. This study aims to analyze the effect of high ownership concentration on cross-jurisdictional tax-motivated income shifting.

To test the hypotheses, this study focuses on European multinational groups. Data are collected on European parent firms and each subsidiary. The model considers the natural logarithm of profit before tax and tax incentive.

Findings show that subsidiaries shift income for tax avoidance purposes. The alignment of shareholders’ interests and ownership concentration leads to higher levels of tax avoidance through subsidiaries’ infra-group transactions. High ownership concentration decreases the influence of minority interests and allows parent company shareholders to choose a tax avoidance strategy more freely.

The results suggest that taxation levels need to be harmonized to reduce the incentive for tax avoidance and the incentive of governments to reduce their statutory tax rate, to shift profits inwards and reduce outward flow. Without international coordination, this approach may lead to the unevenness of legislative frameworks around the world, and bring significant disadvantages for some countries, influencing economic growth and business development.

This study extends prior findings showing that tax-motivated income shifting as a method of tax avoidance in European multinational groups is stronger in groups with high levels of ownership concentration. This means that managers have the incentive to shift income between subsidiaries for tax and ownership benefits in favor of the parent company’s shareholders and against minority interests.

This paper aims to explore the roles different ownership structures, the joint effect of related and unrelated diversification strategies, and previous performance levels have on the restructuring strategies of such firms.

Annual reports of publicly traded firms in the two Chinese stock exchanges are used to collect data. Multiple regression and ANOVA analysis are used to examine the impact of ownership structure types, match between diversification strategies, and previous performance on the change of business scopes of the sample business groups.

Compared to other ownership types, government owned business groups tend to increase their business scope during asset restructuring, while private business groups tend to decrease their scopes through divestitures and spinoffs. Poor previous performance is also found to be negatively related to change in business scopes. The “match” between related and unrelated diversification strategies of the business groups leads to increase in business scopes, while “mismatch” between these two strategies tends to lead to decrease in business scopes.

This study provides some recommendations to managers and public policy makers in emerging economies. There is a need to monitor the changing institutional environment a firm operates in. It is up to the managers of business groups to determine the degree of market imperfections they are facing and the need to compensate with internal market mechanism and social exchange mechanism within the group structure. As China opens its door further to private ownership and foreign ownership, the pressure to increase efficiency and effectiveness along with the continuous improvement of the institutional environment will require that managers adopt strategies that can enhance the competitiveness of the firms, whether it is through further diversification or scope reduction.

This research deepens our understanding of restructuring strategies of Chinese business groups, by linking factors such as ownership structure, diversification strategies, and past performance to scope changes in these groups. It can broaden our understanding of corporate restructuring in transitional economies, such as China and India.

In the advertising strategy called pseudo-ownership advertising appeal, ownership-implying language (e.g. my, our or your) is used to induce consumers’ “ownership” of a brand. This study aims to investigate the influence of pseudo-ownership advertising appeal on brand psychological ownership and consequent brand attitude, purchase intention and choice. This study also assessed the relative effectiveness of different types of possessive pronouns in different customer segments.

Four experiments, involving both students and non-students, were conducted to test the hypotheses. Experiments 1 and 2 investigated the effects of the first-person singular and plural possessive pronouns (“my” and “our”) on psychological ownership and on brand attitude, purchase intention and choice. Experiment 3 investigated the interacting effects of self-construal (independent vs interdependent) and possessive pronoun (singular vs plural) on psychological ownership and brand attitudes. Experiment 4 investigated the interacting effects of customer type (potential vs current) and possessive pronoun (first-person vs second-person) on psychological ownership and brand attitudes.

Pseudo-ownership advertising appeal resulted in the development of brand psychological ownership, as well as inducing favorable attitudes, purchase intentions and brand choice. Furthermore, consumers with interdependent self-construal developed stronger psychological ownership when pseudo-ownership advertising appeal incorporated plural possessive pronouns, and consumers with independent self-construal developed stronger psychological ownership when pseudo-ownership advertising appeal incorporated singular possessive pronouns. Potential consumers developed stronger psychological ownership when pseudo-ownership advertising appeal incorporated second- vs first-person possessive pronouns, and current consumers developed the same psychological ownership for first- and second-person possessive pronouns.

Possessive pronouns used in advertising can enhance brand psychological ownership. Conditions that moderate the relative effectiveness of first- vs second-person and singular vs plural possessive pronouns on brand psychological ownership and consequential consumer responses can be identified. These findings extend research focusing solely on the self-referencing effects of second-pronoun use (“you”) in advertising on consumer attitudes and behaviors by paying attention to the “ownership” effects of possessive pronouns.

The purpose of this paper is to answer the question: What happens to the outcomes of pay dispersion when the employees own stock in their own company?

The data set consisted of over 20,000 employee surveys. Pay dispersion was measured with the Gini coefficient. The outcome variables were attitudes and behaviors with numerous controls. The moderation effect of employee ownership was investigated at the individual and group level using multilevel regression analysis.

Most hypothesized outcomes did not yield statistically significant results. The results that were statistically significant had two patterns: first, higher pay dispersion was consistently associated with improved attitudes and behaviors; and second, employee ownership moderated the outcomes of pay dispersion for certain outcomes and job types (e.g. perceptions of company fairness among administrative support personnel, or absenteeism and production personnel). There was no evidence to support a link between pay dispersion and attitudes across job types (vertical), only within job types (horizontal).

All the data were self-reported in surveys. Attitudes were measured with single items rather than validated scales. The data were cross-sectional, so no causality can be inferred.

While both higher pay dispersion and employee ownership can motivate employees, the interaction between them can be negative, especially in a cooperative environment. Consideration should be given to this when designing compensation packages.

There was a surprisingly strong link between higher pay differentials and improved attitudes, suggesting that the opportunity for higher pay is more influential than any feelings of inequity.

The effect of employee ownership on the outcomes of pay dispersion has never been investigated. This should be valuable given how widely higher pay is used to attract, retain and motivate employees (leading to pay dispersion) as well as how increasingly popular employee ownership is becoming.