Influence of Ownership Structure on the Innovation Activity of South Asian Companies at Different Life Cycle Stages

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The lack of understanding management of corporate and financial innovation management in South Asia raises the fear of the declining effects of new technologies. Therefore, it is of practical interest to compare the estimates of the impact of ownership concentration in different innovation-intensive industries to minimize the agency problem among managers and shareholders. The paper provides an econometric analysis using panel regression of model testing on companies from technologically sophisticated industries, such as the Heavy and Light Industry, Information Technology (IT), and Consumer Staples from South Asia in different life cycles stages from 2015 to 2020. The South Asian market is volatile and receptive to innovations, but R&D capacity in some countries remains low. The paper provides a better understanding of the relationship between the concentration of different forms of ownership and the intensity of innovation, using industry
specifics and life cycle stages. It’s known that institutional investors are still interested in developing new digital marketing channels by competing with industry “disruptors” due to the lack of necessary strength in the IT industry along with barriers to cross-border investment. The paper confirms a linear and inverted U-shaped relationship between different forms of ownership structure and innovation activity. The results allow focusing on industrial and cultural differences to avoid agency and resource conflicts for majority shareholders of the company to build effective corporate governance, achieving strategic goals and minimizing the risks of improper management decisions in R&D.

About the authors

N. Tolstov

Moscow Academy of Finance and Law, Moscow, Russia

Author for correspondence.
Email: nickita.tolstov@yandex.ru

References

  1. Aghion P., Van Reenen J., Zingales L. (2013). Innovation and institutional ownership. American economic review, 103(1), 277-304. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.1.277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.1.277
  2. Ahmed H., Jamal Ali Al-Khasawneh, Hany Elzahar. (2022). R&D expenditure and managerial ownership: evidence from firms of high-vs-low R&D intensity. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 21(3), 654-672. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-07-2021-0205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-07-2021-0205
  3. Ahmed K. & Jinan M. (2011). The association between research and development expenditure and firm performance: Testing a life cycle hypothesis. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 7(4), 267-286. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAAPE.2011.042771. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAAPE.2011.042771
  4. Andrew T. & Paulina R. (2006). Corporate governance and innovation: The UK compared with the US and ‘insider’ economies. Research Policy, 35(1), 160-180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.09.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.09.004
  5. Anthony J. H., Ramesh K. (1992). Association between accounting performance measures and stock prices: A test of the life cycle hypothesis. Journal of Accounting and economics, 15(2-3), 203-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(92)90018-W. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(92)90018-W
  6. Bloom N. & Van Reenen J. (2010). Why do management practices differ across firms and countries? Journal of economic perspectives, 24(1), 203-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1533440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.1.203
  7. Bromiley P., Rau D., Zhang Y. (2017). Is r&d risky? Strategic Management Journal, 38(4), 876-891. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2520. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2520
  8. Chkir I. et al. (2021). Does corporate social responsibility influence corporate innovation? International evidence. Emerging Markets Review, 46, 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2020.100746. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2020.100746
  9. Choi S. B., Park B. I., Hong P. (2012). Does ownership structure matter for firm technological innovation performance? The case of Korean firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(3), 267-288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2012.00911.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2012.00911.x
  10. Chung H., Eum S., Lee C. (2019). Firm growth and R&D in the Korean pharmaceutical industry. Sustainability, 11(10), 2865. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102865
  11. Cucculelli M. & Peruzzi V. (2020). Innovation over the industry life-cycle. Does ownership matter? Research Policy, 49(1), 103878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103878. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103878
  12. Daniela C. et al. (2020). R&D innovation indicator and its effects on the market. An empirical assessment from a financial perspective. Journal of Business Research, 119, 259-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.015
  13. Dickinson V. (2011). Cash flow patterns as a proxy for firm life cycle. The Accounting Review, 86(6), 1969-1994. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1268509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-10130
  14. Fama E. F. & Jensen M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The journal of law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/467037
  15. Federico Munari, Raffaele Oriani, Maurizio Sobrero. (2010). The effects of owner identity and external governance systems on R&D investments: A study of Western European firms. Research Policy, 39(8), 1093-1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.004
  16. Galindo-Rueda F. and Verger F. (2016). OECD Taxonomy of Economic Activities Based on R&D Intensity, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2016(04), 24. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlv73sqqp8r-en. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlv73sqqp8r-en
  17. García-García L., Gonzalo Alonso-Buenaposada, M., Romero-Merino, M.E. and Santamaria-Mariscal, M. (2020). Ownership structure and R&D investment: the role of identity and contestability in Spanish listed firms, Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 33(3/4), 405-426. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-01-2019-0013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-01-2019-0013
  18. Gërguri‐Rashiti S. et al. (2017). ICT, innovation and firm performance: the transition economies context. Thunderbird International Business Review. 59(1), 93-102. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.21772. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.21772
  19. Hansen G. S. & Hill C. W. L. (1991). Are institutional investors myopic? A time‐series study of four technology‐driven industries. Strategic management journal, 12(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120102
  20. Herrmann, P., Kaufmann, J. & van Auken, H. (2010). The role of corporate governance in R&D intensity of US‐based international firms, International Journal of Commerce and Management, 20(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1108/10569211011057236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/10569211011057236
  21. Jeffrey W. Allen & Gordon M. Phillips (2000). Corporate equity ownership, strategic alliances, and product market relationships. The Journal of Finance, 55(6), 2791-2815. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00307
  22. Kothari S. P., Laguerre T. E., Leone A. J. (2002). Capitalization versus expensing: Evidence on the uncertainty of future earnings from capital expenditures versus R&D outlays. Review of accounting Studies, 7(4), 355-382. https://ssrn.com/abstract=298699 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020764227390
  23. Laamanen T. & Keil T. (2008). Performance of serial acquirers: Toward an acquisition program perspective. Strategic management journal, 29(6). 663-672. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.670. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.670
  24. Lazonick W. (2007). The US stock market and the governance of innovative enterprise. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(6), 983–1035. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm030
  25. Lewellyn K. B. & Bao R. S. (2021). R&D investment around the world: Effects of ownership and performance‐based cultural contexts. Thunderbird International Business Review, 63(2), 217-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22187
  26. Lu S. (2020). The explanatory power of R&D for the stock returns in the Chinese equity market. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 62,101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2020.101380 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2020.101380
  27. Minetti R., Murro P., Paiella M. (2015). Ownership structure, governance, and innovation. European Economic Review, 80,165-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.09.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.09.007
  28. OECD. (2023). Managing national innovation systems. OECD.
  29. Pagano P. & Schivardi F. (2003). Firm size distribution and growth. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 105(2), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9442.t01-1-00008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9442.t01-1-00008
  30. Thomas Schmid, Ann-Kristin Achleitner, Markus Ampenberger, Christoph Kaserer. (2014). Family firms and R&D behavior – New evidence from a large-scale survey. Research Policy, 43(1), 233-244, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.006
  31. Yoo J., Lee S., Park S. (2019). The effect of firm life cycle on the relationship between R&D expenditures and future performance, earnings uncertainty, and sustainable growth. Sustainability, 11(8), 2371. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082371

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Tolstov N.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.