以“合”为贵? 合作文化与企业创新
|
摘要
本文以2006-2015年沪深A股非金融上市公司为样本,基于上市公司网站对于企业文化的叙述和年报董事会报告两份本文,采用文本分析方法,构建两个度量企业合作文化强弱的指标,并研究企业合作文化对企业创新产出和创新效率的影响。研究发现,企业文化越强调合作,企业的创新产出越多,创新效率越高。这一结论在采用增加控制变量、利用水稻播种面积作为工具变量以及以董事长的非正常离职事件为冲击进行PSM-DID等多种方法后仍然稳健。渠道检验的结果显示,合作文化是通过提高企业内部员工的凝聚力和促进企业的"产学研"合作这两种渠道来促进企业创新。进一步的研究表明,合作文化的促进作用在竞争性行业以及地区信任程度和产业集群程度较高的地区中尤为显著。本文不仅从微观层面揭示企业文化对公司财务行为的影响机理,丰富和补充了当前方兴未艾的"文化与金融"研究,而且为国家制定建设社会主义文化强国的方针战略提供理论基础和实证支持。
Zingales( 2015) believes that financial research is undergoing a cultural revolution. Firms are the best experimental objects for evaluating the influence of culture on the individual entity,not only because a firm is able to reshape its cultural orientation,allowing its cultural characteristics to vary over time,but also because the large number of firms constitutes a sufficient sample size for research. These advantages suggest that corporate culture will be the main focus of research on this cultural revolution.Corporate culture,described as the values and norms defined and shaped by firms for their own employees,is an important strategic asset. The main purpose of corporate culture is to drive employees to form behavior patterns that are beneficial to their firm. Among the vast range of characteristics of corporate culture,collaboration is highly related to innovation,mainly because firms that emphasize collaboration cooperate more willingly with external research institutes in R&D activities. Meanwhile,an emphasis on collaboration within a firm not only helps to establish information sharing among employees and promote private information sharing,but also improves cohesion and teamwork among R&D staff. However,there are also some obvious negative effects of a collaboration culture. Both sides have the incentive to be free riders. Furthermore,information sharing during collaboration may lead to technology leakages. A collaborative culture also represents a collective tendency to emphasize teamwork,which may leave little space for the development of an individual's unique talents. Moreover,as employee turnover is limited in such firms,employees gradually lose their sense of career uncertainty and slacken their work,which negatively affects innovation.The goal of this paper is to apply textual analysis to further our understanding of the effect of a collaboration culture on firm innovation. We establish a word bag of synonyms of "collaboration"and create two indicators to measure a firm's collaboration culture. One indicator is based on whether collaboration or its synonyms are included in the vision,mission,or core values presented on the firm's website; the other is defined as the frequency of occurrence of the word collaboration and its synonyms divided by the total number of words in the MD&A sections of the annual report. We use these two indicators as proxies to measure the collaboration culture of listed firms and investigate its impact on corporate innovation. We find that a collaboration culture is positively correlated with the firm's innovation output and innovation efficiency. This result remains robust even after adding further control variables,selecting rice acreage as an instrumental variable,and performing a PSM-DID analysis with the abnormal replacement of the CEO. Furthermore,our results suggest that improved cohesion between employees and the promotion of collaboration between university and industry are two dominant mechanisms that enhance corporate innovation. We also find this positive effect to be more pronounced in industries with a higher degree of competition and in regions with higher social trust or a greater concentration of interconnected industries.Our paper makes two contributions to the literature. First,it enriches the limited literature on corporate culture by measuring the collaboration culture of each firm through textual analysis and then exploring its impact on corporate innovation. Our paper not only provides a new methodology for assessing corporate culture among large samples,but also reveals the mechanisms by which a collaboration culture affects corporate innovation.Thus,it sheds light on the importance of cultural capital and provides empirical evidence for the national strategy of building a culturally strong country. Second,our paper contributes to the literature on corporate innovation.Although both national and regional factors have been proven to influence innovation,along with micro-level factors such as corporate governance and litigation risk,we know little about how corporate culture affects innovation. Our findings not only enrich the literature by focusing on this relationship,but also provide practical references for the construction of firms and the development of a corporate culture that accords with innovation.
Zingales( 2015) believes that financial research is undergoing a cultural revolution. Firms are the best experimental objects for evaluating the influence of culture on the individual entity,not only because a firm is able to reshape its cultural orientation,allowing its cultural characteristics to vary over time,but also because the large number of firms constitutes a sufficient sample size for research. These advantages suggest that corporate culture will be the main focus of research on this cultural revolution.Corporate culture,described as the values and norms defined and shaped by firms for their own employees,is an important strategic asset. The main purpose of corporate culture is to drive employees to form behavior patterns that are beneficial to their firm. Among the vast range of characteristics of corporate culture,collaboration is highly related to innovation,mainly because firms that emphasize collaboration cooperate more willingly with external research institutes in R&D activities. Meanwhile,an emphasis on collaboration within a firm not only helps to establish information sharing among employees and promote private information sharing,but also improves cohesion and teamwork among R&D staff. However,there are also some obvious negative effects of a collaboration culture. Both sides have the incentive to be free riders. Furthermore,information sharing during collaboration may lead to technology leakages. A collaborative culture also represents a collective tendency to emphasize teamwork,which may leave little space for the development of an individual's unique talents. Moreover,as employee turnover is limited in such firms,employees gradually lose their sense of career uncertainty and slacken their work,which negatively affects innovation.The goal of this paper is to apply textual analysis to further our understanding of the effect of a collaboration culture on firm innovation. We establish a word bag of synonyms of "collaboration"and create two indicators to measure a firm's collaboration culture. One indicator is based on whether collaboration or its synonyms are included in the vision,mission,or core values presented on the firm's website; the other is defined as the frequency of occurrence of the word collaboration and its synonyms divided by the total number of words in the MD&A sections of the annual report. We use these two indicators as proxies to measure the collaboration culture of listed firms and investigate its impact on corporate innovation. We find that a collaboration culture is positively correlated with the firm's innovation output and innovation efficiency. This result remains robust even after adding further control variables,selecting rice acreage as an instrumental variable,and performing a PSM-DID analysis with the abnormal replacement of the CEO. Furthermore,our results suggest that improved cohesion between employees and the promotion of collaboration between university and industry are two dominant mechanisms that enhance corporate innovation. We also find this positive effect to be more pronounced in industries with a higher degree of competition and in regions with higher social trust or a greater concentration of interconnected industries.Our paper makes two contributions to the literature. First,it enriches the limited literature on corporate culture by measuring the collaboration culture of each firm through textual analysis and then exploring its impact on corporate innovation. Our paper not only provides a new methodology for assessing corporate culture among large samples,but also reveals the mechanisms by which a collaboration culture affects corporate innovation.Thus,it sheds light on the importance of cultural capital and provides empirical evidence for the national strategy of building a culturally strong country. Second,our paper contributes to the literature on corporate innovation.Although both national and regional factors have been proven to influence innovation,along with micro-level factors such as corporate governance and litigation risk,we know little about how corporate culture affects innovation. Our findings not only enrich the literature by focusing on this relationship,but also provide practical references for the construction of firms and the development of a corporate culture that accords with innovation.
引文
[1]陈斌、佘坚、王晓津和赖建清,2008,《我国民营上市公司发展实证研究》,《证券市场导报》第4期,第42~47页。
[2]姜付秀、石贝贝和李行天,2015,《“诚信”的企业诚信吗?——基于盈余管理的经验证据》,《会计研究》第8期,第24~31页。
[3]龙小宁、张晶和张晓波,2015,《产业集群对企业履约和融资环境的影响》,《经济学(季刊)》第3期,第1563~1590页。
[4]潘越、潘健平和戴亦一,2016,《专利侵权诉讼与企业创新》,《金融研究》第8期,第191~206页。
[5]钱雪松、杜立和马文涛,2015,《中国货币政策利率传导有效性研究:中介效应和体制内外差异》,《管理世界》第11期,第11~28页。
[6]史宇鹏和顾全林,2013,《知识产权保护,异质性企业与创新:来自中国制造业的证据》,《金融研究》第8期,第136~149页。
[7]Fiordelisi,F. and O. Ricci 2014.“Corporate Culture and CEO Turnover”,Journal of Corporate Finance,28:66~82.
[8]Focarelli,D. and A. F. Pozzolo 2008.“Cross-Border M&As in the Financial Sector:Is banking Different From Insurance?”. Journal of Banking&Finance,32(1):15~29.
[9]Gormley,T. A. and D. A. Matsa 2013.“Common Errors:How to(and not to)Control For Unobserved Heterogeneity”,Review of Financial Studies,27(2):617~661.
[10]Graham,J. R.,C. R. Harvey,J. Popadak and S. Rajgopal 2016.“Corporate Culture:Evidence From the Field”,Duke University Working Paper.
[11]Guiso,L.,P. Sapienza and L. Zingales 2004.“The Role of Social Capital in Financial Development”,American Economic Review,94(3):526~556.
[12]Guiso,L.,P. Sapienza and L. Zingales 2015.“The Value of Corporate Culture”,Journal of Financial Economics,117(1):60~76.
[13]Hilary,G. and K. W. Hui 2009“Does Religion Matter in Corporate Decision Making in America?”,Journal of Financial Economics,93(3):455~473.
[14]Hofstede,G. H. 2001.“Culture's Consequences:Comparing Values,Behaviors,Institutions and Organizations Across Nations”,Sage.
[15]Hsu,P. H.,X. Tian and Y. Xu 2014.“Financial Development and Innovation:Cross-Country Evidence”,Journal of Financial Economics,112(1):116~135.
[16]Liu,X. 2016.“Corruption Culture and Corporate Misconduct”,Journal of Financial Economics,122(2):307~327.
[17]Loughran,T. and B. Mc Donald 2013.“IPO First-Day Returns,Offer Price Revisions,Volatility,and Form S-1Language”,Journal of Financial Economics,2013,109(2):307~326.
[18]O'Connor,M. and M. Rafferty 2012.“Corporate Governance and Innovation”,Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,47(2):397~413.
[19]Oxley,J. E. and R. C. Sampson 2004.“The Scope and Governance of International R&D Alliances”,Strategic Management Journal,25(8-9):723~749.
[20]Popadak,J. A. 2014.“A Corporate Culture Channel:How Increased Shareholder Governance Reduces Firm Value?”,SSRN Working Paper.
[21]Talhelm,T.,X. Zhang,S. Oishi,C. Shimin,D. Duan,X. Lan and S. Kitayama 2014.“Large-Scale Psychological Differences within China Explained by Rice Versus Wheat Agriculture”. Science,344(6184):603~608.
[22]Zingales,L. 2015.“The Cultural Revolution in Finance”,Journal of Financial Economics,1(117):1~4.with the abnormal replacement of the CEO. Furthermore,our results suggest that improved cohesion between employees and the promotion of collaboration between university and industry are two dominant mechanisms that enhance corporate innovation. We also find this positive effect to be more pronounced in industries with a higher degree of competition and in regions with higher social trust or a greater concentration of interconnected industries.Our paper makes two contributions to the literature. First,it enriches the limited literature on corporate culture by measuring the collaboration culture of each firm through textual analysis and then exploring its impact on corporate innovation. Our paper not only provides a new methodology for assessing corporate culture among large samples,but also reveals the mechanisms by which a collaboration culture affects corporate innovation.Thus,it sheds light on the importance of cultural capital and provides empirical evidence for the national strategy of building a culturally strong country. Second,our paper contributes to the literature on corporate innovation.Although both national and regional factors have been proven to influence innovation,along with micro-level factors such as corporate governance and litigation risk,we know little about how corporate culture affects innovation. Our findings not only enrich the literature by focusing on this relationship,but also provide practical references for the construction of firms and the development of a corporate culture that accords with innovation.
1转换后的文本出现乱码主要是因为文本中存在特殊字符。上市公司在制作年报时是否加入特殊字符,与企业的合作文化或者企业的创新活动并无直接关系。所以剔除这些样本并不会影响本文识别企业文化与企业创新之间的因果关系。感谢匿名审稿人的建议。
1这些特殊词语组合是本文在数据处理过程中逐渐总结出来的,包括信用合作社、合作联社、电话沟通、沟通内容、技术合作有限公司、互助县、团结大厦等。
2感谢匿名审稿人的建议。如有需要,可向作者索取。
1因为有部分上市公司的网站无法打开或者网站内没有介绍企业文化的模块,所以造成样本缺失。
1由于海南省1988年正式从广东省划出,因此海南省的数据用广东省替代。而重庆市是1997年成为直辖市,因此重庆市的数据用四川省代替。
2除了本文所提出的理论影响渠道以外,人均水稻播种面积越高可能意味着当地的资源禀赋越充裕,这有利于该地区发展高端的经济产业,从而对企业创新产生促进作用。针对这种潜在的影响渠道,本文将人均水稻播种面积与人均GDP进行简单回归,回归的系数是-117. 27,t值为-27. 50。这也就是说人均水稻播种面积越高的地区,人均GDP越低,表明当地的资源禀赋越差,经济结构越低端。因此,即使存在上述偏差,也只会低估企业合作文化对创新活动的影响,使得IV的估计值成为真实效应的下限。因此这个影响渠道并不会对工具变量的回归结果产生实质性影响。感谢审稿专家提出的富有建设性的意见。
3感谢芝加哥大学布斯商学院助理教授Thomas Talhelm向我们分享他们的研究数据。由于地级市的数据比较难获得,五个省市数据的年份并不相同。重庆的数据年份是1996年,安徽、江苏的数据年份是2001年,四川、湖北的数据年份是2002年。
1由于国有企业高管的业绩离职敏感性通常比较低,其董事长非正常辞职更不可能是由企业业绩差等内部因素所导致。因此,国有企业中董事长的非正常离职是一个更为干净的外生冲击。为此,本文还用国有企业的样本进行了双重差分的检验。
1囿于篇幅,留存备索。
[2]姜付秀、石贝贝和李行天,2015,《“诚信”的企业诚信吗?——基于盈余管理的经验证据》,《会计研究》第8期,第24~31页。
[3]龙小宁、张晶和张晓波,2015,《产业集群对企业履约和融资环境的影响》,《经济学(季刊)》第3期,第1563~1590页。
[4]潘越、潘健平和戴亦一,2016,《专利侵权诉讼与企业创新》,《金融研究》第8期,第191~206页。
[5]钱雪松、杜立和马文涛,2015,《中国货币政策利率传导有效性研究:中介效应和体制内外差异》,《管理世界》第11期,第11~28页。
[6]史宇鹏和顾全林,2013,《知识产权保护,异质性企业与创新:来自中国制造业的证据》,《金融研究》第8期,第136~149页。
[7]Fiordelisi,F. and O. Ricci 2014.“Corporate Culture and CEO Turnover”,Journal of Corporate Finance,28:66~82.
[8]Focarelli,D. and A. F. Pozzolo 2008.“Cross-Border M&As in the Financial Sector:Is banking Different From Insurance?”. Journal of Banking&Finance,32(1):15~29.
[9]Gormley,T. A. and D. A. Matsa 2013.“Common Errors:How to(and not to)Control For Unobserved Heterogeneity”,Review of Financial Studies,27(2):617~661.
[10]Graham,J. R.,C. R. Harvey,J. Popadak and S. Rajgopal 2016.“Corporate Culture:Evidence From the Field”,Duke University Working Paper.
[11]Guiso,L.,P. Sapienza and L. Zingales 2004.“The Role of Social Capital in Financial Development”,American Economic Review,94(3):526~556.
[12]Guiso,L.,P. Sapienza and L. Zingales 2015.“The Value of Corporate Culture”,Journal of Financial Economics,117(1):60~76.
[13]Hilary,G. and K. W. Hui 2009“Does Religion Matter in Corporate Decision Making in America?”,Journal of Financial Economics,93(3):455~473.
[14]Hofstede,G. H. 2001.“Culture's Consequences:Comparing Values,Behaviors,Institutions and Organizations Across Nations”,Sage.
[15]Hsu,P. H.,X. Tian and Y. Xu 2014.“Financial Development and Innovation:Cross-Country Evidence”,Journal of Financial Economics,112(1):116~135.
[16]Liu,X. 2016.“Corruption Culture and Corporate Misconduct”,Journal of Financial Economics,122(2):307~327.
[17]Loughran,T. and B. Mc Donald 2013.“IPO First-Day Returns,Offer Price Revisions,Volatility,and Form S-1Language”,Journal of Financial Economics,2013,109(2):307~326.
[18]O'Connor,M. and M. Rafferty 2012.“Corporate Governance and Innovation”,Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,47(2):397~413.
[19]Oxley,J. E. and R. C. Sampson 2004.“The Scope and Governance of International R&D Alliances”,Strategic Management Journal,25(8-9):723~749.
[20]Popadak,J. A. 2014.“A Corporate Culture Channel:How Increased Shareholder Governance Reduces Firm Value?”,SSRN Working Paper.
[21]Talhelm,T.,X. Zhang,S. Oishi,C. Shimin,D. Duan,X. Lan and S. Kitayama 2014.“Large-Scale Psychological Differences within China Explained by Rice Versus Wheat Agriculture”. Science,344(6184):603~608.
[22]Zingales,L. 2015.“The Cultural Revolution in Finance”,Journal of Financial Economics,1(117):1~4.with the abnormal replacement of the CEO. Furthermore,our results suggest that improved cohesion between employees and the promotion of collaboration between university and industry are two dominant mechanisms that enhance corporate innovation. We also find this positive effect to be more pronounced in industries with a higher degree of competition and in regions with higher social trust or a greater concentration of interconnected industries.Our paper makes two contributions to the literature. First,it enriches the limited literature on corporate culture by measuring the collaboration culture of each firm through textual analysis and then exploring its impact on corporate innovation. Our paper not only provides a new methodology for assessing corporate culture among large samples,but also reveals the mechanisms by which a collaboration culture affects corporate innovation.Thus,it sheds light on the importance of cultural capital and provides empirical evidence for the national strategy of building a culturally strong country. Second,our paper contributes to the literature on corporate innovation.Although both national and regional factors have been proven to influence innovation,along with micro-level factors such as corporate governance and litigation risk,we know little about how corporate culture affects innovation. Our findings not only enrich the literature by focusing on this relationship,but also provide practical references for the construction of firms and the development of a corporate culture that accords with innovation.
1转换后的文本出现乱码主要是因为文本中存在特殊字符。上市公司在制作年报时是否加入特殊字符,与企业的合作文化或者企业的创新活动并无直接关系。所以剔除这些样本并不会影响本文识别企业文化与企业创新之间的因果关系。感谢匿名审稿人的建议。
1这些特殊词语组合是本文在数据处理过程中逐渐总结出来的,包括信用合作社、合作联社、电话沟通、沟通内容、技术合作有限公司、互助县、团结大厦等。
2感谢匿名审稿人的建议。如有需要,可向作者索取。
1因为有部分上市公司的网站无法打开或者网站内没有介绍企业文化的模块,所以造成样本缺失。
1由于海南省1988年正式从广东省划出,因此海南省的数据用广东省替代。而重庆市是1997年成为直辖市,因此重庆市的数据用四川省代替。
2除了本文所提出的理论影响渠道以外,人均水稻播种面积越高可能意味着当地的资源禀赋越充裕,这有利于该地区发展高端的经济产业,从而对企业创新产生促进作用。针对这种潜在的影响渠道,本文将人均水稻播种面积与人均GDP进行简单回归,回归的系数是-117. 27,t值为-27. 50。这也就是说人均水稻播种面积越高的地区,人均GDP越低,表明当地的资源禀赋越差,经济结构越低端。因此,即使存在上述偏差,也只会低估企业合作文化对创新活动的影响,使得IV的估计值成为真实效应的下限。因此这个影响渠道并不会对工具变量的回归结果产生实质性影响。感谢审稿专家提出的富有建设性的意见。
3感谢芝加哥大学布斯商学院助理教授Thomas Talhelm向我们分享他们的研究数据。由于地级市的数据比较难获得,五个省市数据的年份并不相同。重庆的数据年份是1996年,安徽、江苏的数据年份是2001年,四川、湖北的数据年份是2002年。
1由于国有企业高管的业绩离职敏感性通常比较低,其董事长非正常辞职更不可能是由企业业绩差等内部因素所导致。因此,国有企业中董事长的非正常离职是一个更为干净的外生冲击。为此,本文还用国有企业的样本进行了双重差分的检验。
1囿于篇幅,留存备索。