Search results

This paper analyzes the productivity effects of structural capital such as research and development (R&D) and organizational capital (OC). Innovation work also produces innovation-labor-biased technical change (IBTC) and knowledge spillovers. Analyses use full register-based dataset of Finnish firms for the period 1994–2014 from Statistics Finland.

Intangibles are derived from the labor costs of innovation-type occupations using linked employer-employee data. The approach is consistent with National Accounting and offered as one method in OECD (2010) and applied in statistical offices, e.g. in measuring software. The EU 7th framework Innodrive project 2008–2011 extended this method to cover R&D and OC.

Methodology is implementable at firm-level and offers way to link personnel reporting to intangible assets. The OC-IBTC as well as total resources allocated to OC are relevant for productivity growth. The R&D stock is relatively higher but R&D-IBTC is smaller than OC-IBTC. Public policy should, besides technology policy, account for OC and OC-IBTC and related knowledge spillovers in the industries that are most important among the SMEs (low market-share-firms).

The data are based on remote access to Statistics Finland; the data cannot be disseminated.

Intangible assets are measured from innovation work that encompasses not only R&D work. IBTC is proxied in production function estimation by relative compensations on IA work. The non-competing nature of IAs is captured by IA knowledge spillovers. The sample sizes are much higher than in earlier studies on horizontal knowledge spillovers (such as for SMEs,) thus bringing additional generality to the results.

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.

User-centred intelligent buildings (IBs) should respond to users’ needs holistically and the demand for end user applications is steadily growing. The purpose of this study is to answer: What are end user applications, what should they be called, and what are their key features?

This is a mixed-method study. The authors have used different data sources, such as online research and interviews. In data processing, the authors have used word counting and Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic modeling.

These end user applications can provide the missing user-centered elements of IBs. The authors have found that “smart workplace solution” (SWS) is the best term to describe these applications, and they also describe the key features, which include booking, showing free spaces, occupancy tracking, wayfinding and searching.

As the end user applications are constantly and rapidly evolving, the latest evolving of such applications might not be covered. Furthermore, the authors have relied on companies’ information as given.

IBs have emerged over 20 years ago, and these are the first solutions that can be considered truly user-centered.

Sustainability has long been known to present an epistemic challenge. In the corporate setting, this challenge translates into the difficulties experienced by managers not only in devising solutions to corporate sustainability problems, but even in developing the awareness of the latter. The paper explores how these difficulties may be overcome by corporate stakeholder management policies.

The paper develops a conceptual framework that reconstructs the Hayekian theory of market process in the context of Williamson's (1996) distinction between autonomous and cooperative adaptation.

Applying the Hayekian theory of market process to the process of engagement and collaboration of corporate stakeholders, the paper shows how the latter process may address the epistemic challenge of corporate sustainability and derives implications for the design of business models for sustainability.

The paper informs stakeholder theory in two ways: first, stakeholder theory is given a novel justification in terms of reflecting the growing prominence of cooperative adaptation and second, corporate stakeholder management is shown to be crucial for maximizing not only economic but also sustainability performance.

Transaction cost economics sees a broad spectrum of governance structures spanned by two types of economic adaptation: autonomous and cooperative. Stakeholder theorists have drawn much inspiration from transaction cost economics but have not paid explicit attention to the centrality of the idea of adaptation in this literature. This study aims to address this gap.

The authors develop a novel conceptual framework applying the distinction between the two types of economic adaptation to stakeholder theory.

The authors argue that the idea of cooperative adaptation is particularly useful for describing the firm’s collaboration with primary stakeholders in the joint value creation process. In contrast, autonomous adaptation is more relevant for firms interacting with secondary stakeholders who are not directly engaged in joint value creation and may not have formal contractual relationships with the firm. Accordingly, cooperative adaptation can be seen as vital for resolving team production problems affecting joint value creation, whereas autonomous adaptation addresses how the firm maintains legitimacy within the larger stakeholder environment.

Similar to its significance for transaction cost economics, the distinction between the two types of adaptation equips stakeholder theory with a new systematic understanding of a potentially broad spectrum of firm–stakeholder collaboration forms.