Search results

This study empirically examines the relationship between institutional ownership and innovation activity in the unique setting of the clinical trials for US biopharmaceutical companies. We used multiple statistical techniques in the period from 1990 through 2006 for firms in the biopharmaceutical industry to examine this relationship. Contrary to the widely believed relationship discussed in the literature, our findings suggest that institutional investors vary in their reactions to innovative progress. Specifically, we find that institutional investors with a long-term investment horizon (i.e., dedicated owners) increase their holdings of a firm’s equity as the number of the firm’s products increases in phases I and II of FDA clinical trials. These findings are robust for heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation as well as for different operationalizations of the change of institutional ownership.

The purpose of this study is to empirically investigate the relationship between executive shareholding, institutional investor shareholding and corporate innovation, and to further explore in depth the impact of executive shareholding on corporate innovation under different industries.

This paper uses the panel data of A-share listed companies in Shanghai and Shenzhen from 2012 to 2020 as the research sample to empirically study the relationship between executive shareholding, institutional investor shareholding and corporate innovation based on multiple linear regression models and panel fixed effects.

The research shows that: on the whole, the impact of executive shareholding on enterprise innovation presents an inverted “U” shape; institutional investors will negatively regulate the impact of executive shareholding on enterprise innovation; the impact of executive shareholding on enterprise innovation will show obvious industry differences in different industries.

The empirical results not only enrich the research on the effects of institutional investors' involvement in corporate governance practice, but also provide targeted experience for promoting enterprise innovation. Due to the limitations of innovation indicators and industry sample selection, it is necessary to be cautious when extending the results to other fields.

Enterprises should fully consider the impact of executive shareholding on innovation and formulate a scientific executive incentive system according to the differences of their industries. The government should be aware of the important role of institutional investors in enterprises, improve the channels and ways for institutional investors to participate in corporate governance, and improve the basic system of capital markets.

On the one hand, this paper empirically tests the regulatory role of institutional investors' shareholding and the relationship between executive shareholding and enterprise innovation, which enriches the research on the effect of institutional investors' involvement in corporate governance practice. On the other hand, the research by industry is more targeted to provide experience for promoting enterprise innovation.

This paper aims to apply innovation networks (INs) theory to the context of domesticated markets, where innovation triggers deinstitutionalization. In such contexts, the success of INs depends on their capacity to transform the business field in which they are embedded, so that it accommodates innovative business models. Such “institutional INs” beget a meso-level finality, and this poses different requirement on their effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to confront extant models of collaborative innovation in networks with this specific context to offer exploratory insights into how innovation can be achieved in domesticated contexts and what the differential implications are for network configurations and strategic “reinstitutionalization” practices.

Based on an illustrative embedded case study in the Dutch steel industry, a framework offering indications on the effectiveness of discrete configurational dimensions and their fit with reinstitutionalization practices for institutional INs is suggested. The case builds on 26 semi-structured interviews and 4 focus groups with top managers in the industry. As the aim is to extend theoretical models of INs to this under-researched context, an abductive approach to theorizing, consistent with the extended case method, is adopted.

Findings suggest that collaborating to redesign an institutionalized business field collectively implies a more explicit attention to interdependencies within the business field.

Besides suggesting modifications to extant frames regarding heterogeneity in and the configuration of networks, this paper has some practical implications. The framework proposed offers managers some support in the largely ignored issue of developing a collective action network. With these findings, we aspire to stimulate further research into this relevant, yet underdeveloped, topic.

The study extends IN theory toward innovation realization in domesticated contexts. In such contexts, IN’s success depends on their capacity to transform the business field in which they are embedded, so that it enables innovative ways of creating end-customer value. Besides suggesting a new area for theorizing about innovation networks, institutional innovation networks are also a useful template for institutional innovation and collective action research. The paper offers a framework to support managers in the largely ignored challenge of developing a collective action network. In an increasingly transparent, connected and consolidated business environment, such a challenge becomes ever more essential.

There is still an ongoing debate on the value relevance of capital structure and its determinants. Recently the issue has been explored in family firms after being explored in mature firms. This paper investigates the role of institutional investors and the firm's innovation activity in influencing the firm's decision and ability to acquire debt capital.

A large sample of 700 privately-held family firms in Italy from 2010 to 2019. Two analysis techniques are used: panel analysis and path analysis. The value of debt and the debt ratio are used as leverage measures. The value of patent (as a proxy for innovation) and institutional investor are the explanatory variables.

The results show that institutional investors have no relationship with financial leverage measures except when controlling for an interaction variable (Institutional investors × Lombardy region). The patent value is positively correlated with debt; however, the ratio patent-to-asset is negatively related to financial leverage indicating higher risk exposure. The nonlinearity test demonstrates a turning point when the relationship between patent value and debt inverts.

Firms should monitor their innovation activity since excessive innovation increases risk exposure and affects financing opportunities and value. The involvement of institutional investors does not always enhance value.

Existing literature focuses separately on family firm innovations and financial leverage as outcome variables, emphasizing the role of institutional investors in both fields by adopting agency theory and socioemotional wealth framework. In this study, the authors go further by merging both relationships, investigating the dynamics of the institutional-family firm innovation relationship in influencing the firm's capital structure. The authors contribute to the ongoing debate by providing original findings on capital structure, governance and innovation, supported by rigorous methods to enhance family firms' decision-making.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the notion of blockchain as an institutional technology, defend the idea of National Innovation Systems as institutional systems, and then make use of the theory of institutional competition to characterise challenges posed by innovation public policy by blockchain technology.

The approach is to consider the nature of blockchain technology as an institutional technology, and to consider the nature of National Innovation Systems as institutional systems. The author then applies a theory of institutional competition developed elsewhere to appraise the interaction of the two.

The author expects for there to emerge sustained competition for National Innovation Systems from innovation systems implemented using blockchains. There will be pressure exerted by the latter upon the former to become more integrated, secure, usable and to greater support profit expectations for entrepreneurs.

The theory of institutional competition upon which this work is based makes use of cutting-edge behavioural and institutional economics. It has hitherto only been applied at a general level and has not been applied to a specific set of institutions such as National Innovation Systems.

Although the digital era has given rise to major transformations in many industries, health care has been remarkably resistant to radical innovations coming outside the field. The purpose of this paper is to explore and explain how new ventures aim to break institutional arrangements (i.e. regulations, normative rules, and cultural-cognitive beliefs) protecting the field by introducing digitally enabled service innovations into health care markets.

The study is qualitative and interpretative in nature and utilizes case study as a research strategy. The paper is based on data that were collected through narrative interviews and document analysis from seven new ventures participating in a start-up accelerator program.

Results indicate that service innovations that require a change in the institutional structures of the health care system are enacted through three highly iterative key processes: institutional sensemaking that creates an understanding of prevailing institutional arrangements and that constructs meaning for institutional change efforts, theorization of change through linguistic device, and modifications of institutions by building legitimacy and mobilizing external constituencies.

The findings provide practical insights into how new ventures struggle, navigate, and negotiate on specific alternatives related to institutional change while pursuing the introduction of innovations to market.

This research extends the institutional perspective on service innovation by zooming into micro-level processes of institutional change driven by new ventures. The study develops the theory of institutional entrepreneurship by highlighting cognitive processes of change, and suggests incorporating “institutional thinking” more tightly into the study and management of service innovation.

How do institutional pressures influence the cluster firm’s innovation? Institutional pressure consists of regulative, normative and cognitive pressures; most scholars have only focused on the influence of regulative pressure as institutional environment on innovation. In addition, the nature of strategic cognition, as the mediator act on innovation strategy, remains underexplored in the literature. Based on institution theory and ambidextrous innovation theory, this study aims to propose a framework to examine the mechanism of institutional pressures acting on ambidextrous innovation through the moderated mediating role of strategic cognition in clusters.

Using survey data collected from 422 sampled firms in China, regression models were used to test hypotheses from the mediating role of strategic cognition between institutional pressures and cluster firm’s ambidextrous innovation.

The results showed that regulative, cognitive pressures and, especially, normative pressures have significant positive effects on cluster firms’ ambidextrous innovation. Strategic cognition presented by prospector and analyzer mediates the relationship between institutional pressure and ambidextrous innovation except defender; dynamic environment positively moderates the mediating effects of prospector cognition on explorative innovation, and negatively moderates the mediating effects of analyzer cognition on exploitative innovation.

The findings of this study have some implications that strategic cognition played a partially meditating role between the institutional pressure and ambidextrous innovation. Government should construct a dynamic innovation policy system according to the resource endowment in different regions; furthermore, classification support system to cluster firms with different strategic cognition should be built.

To reconcile the existing contradictory conclusions on the relationship between cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and innovation, this paper aims to propose a theoretical model of the impact of cross-border M&As on technological innovation and explore the moderating role of institutional distance from the perspective of springboard theory and new institutional theory.

Through the use of the two-way fixed effect model and the U-test method, the authors test the hypotheses based on a sample of cross-border M&A events of Chinese manufacturing enterprises during the period from 2006 to 2019.

The research shows that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between cross-border M&As and technological innovation. Furthermore, formal institutional distance moderates the inverted U-shaped relationship in such a way that it reaches its turning point at a smaller scale of cross-border M&As, and the inverted U-shaped relationship is steeper when formal institutional distance is relatively high. The informal institutional distance moderates the inverted U-shaped relationship in such a way that it reaches its turning point at a larger scale of cross-border M&As and the inverted U-shaped relationship is flatter when the informal institutional distance is relatively high.

The research conclusions integrate heterogeneous views of the existing research, further clarify the influence mechanism and boundary conditions between cross-border M&As and technological innovation, identify the different moderating roles of formal institutional distance and informal institutional distance and enrich the literature on knowledge transfer and recombinant innovation during post-merger integration.

This study aims to look at the relationship of external embeddedness and institutional distance (governance aspects) with the foreign subsidiary research and development (R&D) capacity. Furthermore, it examines whether these relationships are mediated by subsidiary product and process innovation, and whether institutional distance plays a moderating role in the relationship between subsidiary innovation and R&D capacity.

The authors draw on survey data from 130 foreign subsidiaries operating in Brazil and test their model using variance-based structural equation modeling.

Results suggest that subsidiary (product and process) innovation fully mediates the relationships between: subsidiary external embeddedness and R&D capacity; and institutional distance and subsidiary R&D capacity, such that the relationship is positive in case of the former and negative in case of the latter. The relationship between subsidiary product and process innovation and R&D capacity is positive and stronger at lower levels of institutional distance.

The research ignores the underlying mechanisms of the external embeddedness and institutional distance relationship with subsidiary R&D capacity. Furthermore, institutional distance based on formal governance aspects and their impacts on subsidiary innovation and R&D capacity are rarely investigated. This paper contributes with regard to these aspects.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically investigate the effects of institutional support on product and process innovation and firm performance and describe how dysfunctional competition influences relevant outcomes.

This study develops a research model based on institution-based view and tests it using structural equation modeling and empirical data collected from 300 manufacturers in China.

The results show that institutional support positively affects product and process innovation and firm performance. Both product and process innovation improve firm performance. The findings reveal that dysfunctional competition significantly reduces the positive effects of institutional support on product and process innovation but leaves the effects of institutional support and product and process innovation on firm performance unaffected.

This study contributes to innovation literature by providing insights into the impact of China’s institutional environment on manufacturing firms’ product and process innovation decisions. The findings also contribute to institution-based view literature by providing empirical evidence on the joint effects of institutional support and dysfunctional competition on product and process innovation and firm performance. This study can help manufacturers in China take advantage of institutional environment and adjust product and process innovation decisions accordingly.