Search results

Shareholder heterogeneity reflects the interactive relationship between shareholder groups of different industries and ownership types. This paper aims to discuss the impact of shareholder heterogeneity on ambidextrous corporate innovation.

Combining questionnaire and database data, this study empirically analyzes the internal mechanisms of the impact of shareholder heterogeneity on ambidextrous corporate innovation.

The authors find that shareholder heterogeneity can promote ambidextrous corporate innovation and that board’s decision-making processes play an intermediary role. Specifically, shareholder industry-type heterogeneity promotes ambidextrous corporate innovation by improving procedural rationality in board’s decision-making process, and shareholder ownership-type heterogeneity promotes ambidextrous corporate innovation by improving political behavior in board’s decision-making process. The analysis of the impact degree shows that shareholder industry-type heterogeneity has a greater impact on exploitation innovation, while shareholder ownership-type heterogeneity has a greater impact on exploratory innovation. In addition, the research also shows that shareholder groups dominated by industry-type heterogeneity have an impact on corporate innovation by shaping an engaged board with higher procedural rationality and lower political behavior. Shareholder groups dominated by ownership-type heterogeneity have an impact on corporate innovation by shaping a contested board with higher political behavior and lower procedural rationality.

This study not only enriches the research on shareholder heterogeneity and corporate innovation in the context of transformation but also provides an analytical framework for research on board’s decision-making process.

Based on upper echelons (UE) theory, the purpose of this study is to investigate a conceptualized moderated mediation model for examining the effects of top management team (TMT) heterogeneity and firm value in China through the mediating effect of product diversification, the moderating effect of ownership type between TMT heterogeneity and product diversification and the moderating effect of executive shareholding between product diversification and firm value.

Unbalanced panel data were collected over 5 years with a total of 6,597 observations, organized through the WIND (Wind Economic Database) and CSMAR (China Stock Market and Accounting Research) Database. The hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling and analyzed with stata15.0 software.

The results indicated that product diversification plays a mediating role between TMT heterogeneity and firm value. In China, TMT heterogeneity of non–state-owned enterprises plays a more significant role in promoting product diversification than that of state-owned enterprises; executive shareholding strengthens the relationship between product diversification and firm value.

The characteristic dimension of TMT is seen as a relatively static factor, and it is worth looking at whether a more dynamic system of evaluation and measurement can be established.

This study enriches theoretical research on TMT and contributes to UE theory in several ways. First, we studied the mediation effect of product diversification between TMT heterogeneity and firm value. This extends research on UE theory to possible process variables. Second, considering the influence of the unique institutional environment in China on corporate strategic decisions, the study investigates state-owned and non–state-owned enterprises. Specifically, it looks at the influence of ownership type as a moderating variable between TMT heterogeneity and product diversification. Third, the paper discusses the moderating effect of executive shareholding on the product diversification–firm value relationship. The research contributes to agency theory and expands research on different economic systems by implementing agency theory.

Small businesses are dominant in most economies and their owners likely experience high levels of distress. However, we have not fully explored how these common businesses meaningfully differ with respect to the stress process. Understanding the meaningful variations or subgroups (i.e., heterogeneity) in the small business population will advance occupational health psychology, both in research and practice (e.g., Schonfeld, 2017; Stephan, 2018). To systematize these efforts, the author identifies five commonly appearing “heterogeneity factors” from the literature as modifiers of stressors or the stress process among small business owners. These five heterogeneity factors include: owner centrality, individual differences, gender differences, business/ownership type, and time. After synthesizing the research corresponding to each of these five factors, the author offers specific suggestions for identifying and incorporating relevant heterogeneity factors in future investigations of small business owners’ stress. The author closes by discussing implications for advancing occupational health theories.

Past research suggests that a financial crisis event has a dual and ambiguous effect on the exporting strategy of subsidiaries of multinational firms in a value chain and offshoring perspective. From a total volume perspective exports are expected to contract due to a decline in demand (demand shock) from other subsidiaries downstream in the value chain. While in a comparative perspective multinational subsidiaries are found to perform relatively better than local firms that are integrated differently (arms’ length) in global production networks (e.g., offshoring outsourcing). This chapter tries to reconcile these findings by testing a number of hypothesis about global integration strategies in the context of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and how it affected exporting among multinational subsidiaries operating out of Turkey. Controlling for the impact that exchange rate depreciations and volatility has on firm-level exports the study shows that the particular global event studied had no additional impact on individual firms’ exports. Since multinational subsidiaries are more insulated from these effects they are able to expand rather than contract their global integration strategies throughout the course of the GFC.

The purpose of this study is to investigate how two types of drivers, namely, executive compensation and market competition, can affect hospital quality in the USA. Recently, patients, insurers and regulators have increasingly focused on hospital quality. Understanding the interplay of incentives in this industry is important because in 2019, hospital treatment contributed $1.161bn to health-care costs in the USA. This study answers the call for more studies in the so-called “mixed” industry, where ownership differences can affect organizational objectives and operating constraints.

This study explores the roles of hospital executive compensation and industry competition as determinants of health-care quality. Specifically, the study probes the heterogeneity in the factors that influence quality across hospital types in the USA.

Using California hospital data from 2006 through 2020, the findings show that the effects of compensation and competition on hospital quality differ by ownership type. Executive compensation is positively associated with quality in for-profit hospitals but is not associated with that of nonprofit hospitals, suggesting for-profit hospitals are more likely to use higher levels of compensation to attract managers with higher ability, whereas the utility function for nonprofit managers may be multidimensional. Within the nonprofit hospital group, competition is more positively associated with quality for religious nonprofits relative to secular nonprofits, suggesting that competition provides more monitoring for religious hospitals.

Taken together, the findings provide evidence that the drivers of quality vary across hospitals in ways consistent with differences in constraints and objectives across ownership types. The findings are important for regulators seeking to incentivize higher quality. For example, Medicare in the USA has incorporated quality measures into its new hospital reimbursement scheme (value-based purchasing) to incentivize quality. This study proposes that regulators should consider differences across ownership types when evaluating the best ways to incentivize hospital quality.

Drawing on the resource-based view, institutional logic and isomorphic pressure theories, this study constructed a theoretical model to explore the correlations between government subsidies and innovation performance. Particularly, this study aims to investigate the moderating effects of ownership types and degree of internationalization on these relationships.

To empirically test the relationships, the authors use panel data from high-tech manufacturing and automobile manufacturing industries in Chinese A stock listed companies for the period 2011–2015 and performed regression analysis.

Results indicate that government subsidies positively enhance enterprises’ innovation performance; there is a big gap between government subsidies’ incentive effect on innovation performance between state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private-owned enterprises (POEs); with the improvement of internationalization, the promotion effect of government subsidies on enterprise innovation performance is strengthened; there is a three-way interaction between government subsidies, degree of internationalization and ownership types, such that in the presence of a low degree of internationalization, there is a big gap in the incentive effect of government subsidies on the innovation performance of SOEs and POEs; in the presence of a high degree of internationalization, the gap is significantly reduced.

This is an empirical study on the impact mechanism of ownership types and internationalization on the relationship between government subsidies and innovation performance in China. It provides valuable insights to show how internationalization can dramatically improve SOEs’ efficiency disadvantages in the allocation of government subsidies to innovation activities.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, the author conducts the first detailed review on the impact of ownership variables on corporate tax avoidance, based on 69 archival studies over the two last decades.

Referring to an agency-theoretical framework, the author differentiates between six categories of ownership (institutional, state, family, foreign, managerial and cross-ownership/ownership concentration). The author also includes research on ownership proxies as moderators of other determinants of tax avoidance.

The review indicates that most research refers to institutional, state and family ownership. Moreover, except for state ownership, no clear tendencies on the impact of included ownership types can be found in line with the author’s agency-theoretical framework.

Regarding research recommendations, among others, the author stresses the urgent need for recognizing heterogeneity within and interactions between ownership proxies. Researchers should also properly address endogeneity concerns by advanced econometric models (e.g. by the difference-in-difference approach).

As international standard setters have implemented massive reform initiatives on both tax avoidance and corporate governance, this literature review underlines the huge interaction between those topics. Firms should carefully analyze their ownership structure and change their tax planning due to owners' individual tax preferences.

This analysis makes useful contributions to prior research by focusing on six categories of ownership and their impact on tax avoidance in (multinational) firms and moderating effects. The author provides a detailed overview about current archival research and likes to guide researchers to focus on ownership heterogeneity and endogeneity concerns.

Studies on China suggest that institutional environment plays a significant role in business activities; however, the issue of how firms attend to institutional environment is largely under-explored. This paper responds to the oversight by examining the potential ways in which firms can demonstrate heterogeneity in terms of vigilance to government policy. Drawing from the attention-based view of firms and the institutional logic perspective, the authors aim to propose that firms with market logic or non-market logic will show difference in vulnerability to policy change. Further, firm ownership type and policy-leveraging capability would moderate the relationship between institutional logic and attention to policy environment.

The empirical background of this study is based on Chinese pharmaceutical firms. The new reform on health-care system launched by Chinese government in 2009 provides a fertile context to observe firms’ attention to government policy. The hypotheses are tested by using data of 145 Chinese pharmaceutical public firms from 2009 to 2013.

The results generally support the hypotheses: market logic has a positive effect on attention to policy, whereas non-market logic has a negative effect. The impact of market logic is weakened when firms have a higher policy-leveraging capability (in terms of getting government subsidies); the non-market logic effect is strengthened both when firms are state-owned enterprises and have a higher policy-leveraging capability.

Instead of focusing on how institutional environment have an influence on firm behavior as previous studies do, this paper examines the interaction between institution and firms by exploring how firms pay attention to government policy. Under the context of China, this study sheds light on how institutional logic plays a role in determining cognitive resource allocation of firms.

The purpose of this paper is to estimate the union-nonunion pay gap impact separately for wages and bonuses as well as total compensation to include both wages and bonuses in China. The way in which the impact varies as control variables are added is illustrated as is how the impact varies by the type of firm ownership. The overall pay gap is also decomposed into a component due to differences in their pay determining characteristics as well as a component due to differences in their returns to those characteristics. These separate components are also calculated throughout the pay distribution.

Using the 2010 China Family Panel Studies Survey, a nationally representative survey in China, the methodology involves different estimation procedures as appropriate for the nature of the data and the dependent variables. First the authors estimate a single equation to determine the union-nonunion pay gap. Then the authors estimate the union impact on the various components of compensation (wages and bonuses). Next the authors decompose the relative contribution of each factor in explaining the wage gap. Finally, quantile regressions are used to examine the union impact across various levels of the pay distribution.

The authors find a gross union-nonunion pay gap (wages + bonuses) of 42 percent, dropping to 12 percent after controlling for the effect of other pay determining factors. The union impact on wages is only 8 percent, but bonuses are about twice as high for union workers. The union impact is essentially zero for (state-owned firms) SOEs and for foreign-owned firms but it is large at 16 percent for private firms and even larger at 22 percent for government agencies. Of the overall pay gap of 42 percent, about three-quarters is attributable to differences in their endowments of pay determining characteristics and about one-quarter to differences in the returns for the same endowments of characteristics. Quantile regressions reveal that the pure or adjusted union wage premium exhibits a u-shaped pattern being highest in the bottom and to a lesser extent the top of the pay distribution.

There are a dearth of studies examining the union-nonunion pay gap in China. Of the studies that examine this issue, all of them are at the enterprise level with no studies at the individual level. Taking a nationally representative dataset at the individual level, the authors are able to estimate the union-nonunion pay gap in China. The authors identify the portion of the gap that reflects differences in endowments of pay determining characteristics and the portion that reflects different returns to those characteristics, and the relative contribution of the different variables to those components; and how these components change over the pay distribution. The authors also offer explanations for many of these patterns.

The purpose of this paper is to study the impact of outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) on the productivity of parent firms over the food industry.

The main data in this paper are derived from the China Industrial Enterprise Database 2005–2013 and a data set of Chinese firms’ OFDI information. Then this paper uses propensity score matching to match the treatment and control groups with firm characteristics and combines that with the differences-in-differences method to estimate the real effect of OFDI on total factor productivity.

The food firm’s OFDI significantly improves the parent firm’s productivity (known as the OFDI own-firm effect), but this promotion only exists in the short term. The OFDI own-firm effect of food firms differs remarkably as the sub-sectors, regions and ownership of firms vary. The food firm’s OFDI in “non-tax havens” and high-income destinations has a significantly stronger effect on the parent firm’s productivity. FDI, R&D and exporting can effectively strengthen the OFDI own-firm effect of food firms.

The effect of OFDI on food industry productivity has not been researched yet. This paper aims to fill this gap. This paper further divides the characteristics of food firms into different sub-sectors, regions and ownership types for a comparative analysis, with the aim of conducting a more comprehensive study at the micro-level of firms. In addition, an investigation into which factors influence the degree of the OFDI own-firm effect at the micro-level has not been found in the literature. This paper will draw its own conclusions.