Search results

This paper aims to test the empirical validity of the dynamic trade-off theory in its symmetric and asymmetric versions in explaining the capital structure of a panel of publicly listed US industrial firms over the period from 2013 to 2019. It analyzes the existence of an adjustment of leverage toward its target level and whether the speed of this adjustment is influenced by the debt measure, the model specification or/and the fact that the actual debt ratio is higher or lower than its long-term target level.

This paper uses a quantitative research methodology using panel data analysis under the partial adjustment model and the error correction model using the generalized moment method in first differences and in systems to explore the dynamic nature of firms’ capital structure behavior.

The results show that the effects of the conventional determinants of leverage are globally consistent with the trade-off theory predictions. The dynamic versions confirm that firms exhibit leverage-targeting behavior. Although this speed of adjustment (SOA) depends on the debt and model specifications, it is around 60% on average. The estimated SOA is higher for the market leverage measure compared to the book leverage. The asymmetric adjustment model reveals that firms are more sensitive to reducing leverage than increasing it when they are away from their target; overleveraged firms exhibit approximately 5% faster adjustment than underleveraged firms when book leverage is used.

The originality of this research paper lies in its development and test of an asymmetric model to allow the leverage adjustment speed to vary depending on whether the firm’s debt ratio is above or below its target level and the methodological approach as well as the different model specifications used and the insights generated through the application of rigorous econometric techniques.

This is a response to “Taming wicked problems”, a paper recently published in CPOIB in which modern slavery is framed as a wicked problem. The purpose of this study is to convey the author’s appraisal of its contribution to policymaking regarding modern slavery in global supply chains.

The author engages in a discursive review of “Taming wicked problems”, taking inspiration from its perceived strengths and weaknesses to expand on the problem of modern slavery as a challenge to international business (IB) researchers.

“Taming wicked problems” is welcomed as a provocative contribution to modern slavery research in IB, although it is perceived to give too little critical attention to the problem of modern slavery itself.

This is, by design, a subjective assessment of the treatment of modern slavery and policy from the perspective of an IB researcher who has previously studied the phenomenon without a wicked problem framing.

Modern slavery is a serious problem for IB scholars, as they have failed to extrapolate it from their analysis of international business strategy. This paper is intended to advance the disciplinary defence of vulnerable workers exploited to the ultimate benefit of MNEs.

IB must engage critically with international business strategies that heighten the risk of human rights violations. The persistence of modern slavery disadvantages all persons in employment.

This paper seeks to better define the offense implicit in modern slavery so to inform critical IB research into its causes and deterrence.

This study empirically examines the nonlinear effects of mimicking peer firms' cash holdings on shareholder value, with consideration of macroeconomic conditions.

An instrumental variable approach for nonlinear models is estimated for a large sample of US firms over the period 1991–2019. This approach addresses the reflection problem in examining peer effects, whereby it is impossible to separate the individual's effects on the group, or vice versa, if both are simultaneously determined.

The authors find an inverted U-shaped association between shareholder value and mimicking intensity of peer firms' cash holdings. This result suggests that mimicking peer firms' cash holdings is subject to diminishing returns. It is more beneficial at lower levels of mimicking intensity but less so or suboptimal at higher levels. Further evidence indicates that this inverted U-shaped shareholder value-mimicking intensity nexus is asymmetric. Specifically, it is salient for decreases relative to increases in cash holdings and, more importantly, in good relative to bad macroeconomic states. The findings are robust to several concerns and have important implications for liquidity management policies.

The authors provide new empirical evidence of the nonlinear effects of mimicking peer firms' cash holdings on shareholder value, which varies with macroeconomic conditions.

Accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, in recent years, face-to-face coaching has largely shifted to online coaching. The authors examined both the side effects of and coaching success in face-to-face, blended and online coaching from both coaches' and clients' perspectives. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned examination.

The authors conducted two independent studies to examine the differences between the side effects of face-to-face, blended and online coaching. In Study 1 (N = 119), the authors compared the side effects of these formats using a quasi-experimental design and tested differences in perceived coaching success from the coaches' perspective. In Study 2 (N = 104), the authors integrated the client perspective on the side effects of coaching formats into the design and tested the differences.

Coaches in the face-to-face format experienced a significantly lower prevalence of side effects for their clients compared to coaches who engaged in the blended and online coaching formats. From the client perspective, clients experienced the most side effects of the blended coaching format. Neither study showed any differences between the coaching formats in perceived coaching success.

The results provide guidance to practitioners in choosing the most suitable coaching format for themselves. Being aware of side effects in coaching can help both coaches and clients take appropriate measures to mitigate the impact of these effects.

This paper is the first to expand knowledge about side effects in coaching across different coaching formats from both coaches' and clients' perspectives. The findings provide evidence regarding the context in which coaching is currently performed in a post-COVID world, with sustainability remaining a global concern and a key driver for organizations.