研发投入与企业业绩相关性研究——基于中国制造业上市公司的实证分析

研发投入是企业增强核心竞争力和实现可持续发展的关键因素。我国企业的研发投入主要集中在制造业。本文以制造业71家上市公司为研究对象,通过对样本公司R&D投入与企业业绩及企业价值的相关性分析,揭示企业R&D投入对企业业绩的影响作用及对公司价值提升的促进作用。研究结果表明,我国制造业上市公司的R&D投入强度偏低,R&D投入明显不足,但R&D投入强度在2007~2009年3年中逐年上升。企业当期R&D投入与企业当期营业毛利率有显著的正相关关系,滞后一期R&D投入与企业当期营业毛利率仍然存在较为显著的正相关关系,但滞后两期R&D投入与企业当期营业毛利率不存在显著的正相关关系。表明企业R&D投入对企业业绩有一定的影响,且存在一年的滞后性,滞后期较短。同时,企业的R&D投入与托宾Q值存在显著的正相关关系,说明企业的R&D投入与企业价值相关,R&D投入通过对企业业绩的影响来提升公司价值。     

技术创新资源投入对高技术企业产品创新绩效影响的实证研究

以新产品产出作为测度我国高技术企业产品创新绩效的指标,以我国2003~2008年大中型高技术企业的面板数据为样本,应用广义矩方法对包括R&D投入和非R&D投入在内的技术创新资源投入对我国高技术企业产品创新绩效的影响进行了实证分析。结果显示:包括研发经费和科技人员在内的R&D投入、非R&D投入构成要素中的技术改造、技术引进、消化吸收对提升我国高技术企业产品创新绩效具有显著的直接正向影响。同时,研究发现技术引进、国内技术购买作为调节变量,显著提升了研发经费投入对高技术企业产品创新绩效的边际贡献;消化吸收作为调节变量,显著提升了技术引进和国内技术购买对高技术企业产品创新绩效的边际贡献。根据实证研究结论,为在开放式创新环境下提升我国高技术企业的产品创新绩效,本文进一步提出了针对性的对策建议。     

中国自主创新能力影响因素的实证分析

国家创新能力主要由内生技术进步、国家竞争优势以及国家创新体系这3种力量相辅相成共同驱动的,在此理论的基础上本文选用中国30个省份地区的数据对中国自主创新能力进行实证分析后得出,R&D投入的存量、人力资本、市场需求、外贸开放度、技术成果商业化程度、市场化程度对中国自主创新能力的提高具有重要的促进作用,而在R&D投入的主要3个执行部门中,企业的R&D投入对自主创新能力的促进作用最大.但高校和研发机构的R&D投入对自主创新能力的作用在统计上却是不显著的.本文进一步在此实证分析的结果上结合中国现实情形,提出一些促进本国自主创新能力提高的政策建议措施.     

专利保护和市场需求规模对事前被许可企业自主创新投资决策的影响

为探讨事前许可与企业自主创新的关系,本研究依据同质产品cournot双寡头垄断市场、不发生非侵权性模仿、技术交易成本为零、渐进性创新的假设前提,建立事前许可条件下三阶段R&D竞争模型,来研究事前被许可企业对自主创新做出的投资决策.研究表明事前被许可企业自主创新均衡投资随专利保护强度的提高单调递增,预期价值则主要随专利保护强度的提高单调递减;同时事前被许可企业自主创新均衡投资及预期价值均随市场需求规模的增大单调递增.上述结果意味着加强专利保护虽然会促使事前被许可企业增加自主创新投入,但同时会降低其预期价值.另外,事前被许可企业自主创新均衡投资及预期价值的变化与产品寿命周期具有同步性.     

关于企业研究开发费用会计核算的思考

<正>为推动企业自主创新,鼓励企业加大研发投入,进而促进产业转型升级,国家相继推出企业研究开发费用税前加计扣除、高新技术企业所得税减按15%计征、以及政府拨款资助企业科研项目等激励政策。事实证明,这些政策有力地推进科技强国战略的实施,调动了企业开展研发活动的积极性,增强了企业科技创新能力与发展后劲,引导企业走"内生增长、创新驱动"科学发展经营之道。随着企业加大科技研发投入,规范企业研究开发费用会计核算工     

基于DEA的企业R&D投入绩效分析

本文利用数据包络分析方法(DRA),通过对我国企业1992-2003年R&D投入绩效及其变化进行测度和分析.结果表明,我国企业R&D投入的产出绩效在20世纪90年代中期较差,但在1999年后不断提升并且其相对绩效较优.通过研究,我们认为企业还应加大对R&D的投入,这样才能创造出在国际上具有竞争力的技术.     

企业 R&D 投入与企业绩效关联度分析——基于中美上市工业企业的实证研究

技术创新主要源自于具有导向性的研究和开发活动，是影响企业竞争力和可持续发展至关重要的因素。本文以中美范围内工业制造行业的 209家上市工业企业为样本，结合企业 2009~2015 年相关数据，实证分析了R&D投入与企业绩效的关系。研究结果表明研发支出和企业经济绩效之间具有非线性关系，可用倒U型曲线来描述，R&D 投入具有动态边际效应，研发投入为销售额的4％时，企业相应的经济效益达到最优水平。最后，本文建议企业应该加大R&D投入力度，同时注重研发投入的最佳阈值，以获得最大的产出效益，提高企业技术创新的竞争能力。     

空间视角下R&D投入对区域创新能力的影响研究——基于科技政策组合的调节作用

基于知识生产函数模型和创新地理学理论,本文利用我国30个省(区、市)2008~2020年的面板数据,通过空间计量模型实证分析R&D投入对区域创新能力的影响及空间溢出效应,并从政策目标与政策工具的耦合协调性视角理解科技政策组合,分析科技政策组合的调节效应。研究发现,我国省域创新能力呈现由东向西逐渐减弱的“梯形”分布特征;R&D资金和R&D人员对于本地区域创新能力提升具有显著的正向影响,但空间溢出效应均不显著;科技政策组合正向调节R&D投入对区域创新能力的促进作用。对此,国家应制定适宜的区域创新战略,地方政府应探索差异化创新驱动发展路径并提升科技政策组合的耦合协调性。     

我国企业R＆D投资状况研究——基于《中国科技统计年鉴》的数据分析

本文对来自<中国科技统计年鉴>(1999～2006)的数据进行分析,发现在国家自主创新政策导向下,企业R&D投资的主体地位日渐加强,但与发达国家相比,我国企业R＆D投资强度依然偏低,存在研发人力投入不足、地区差异显著、中小企业R&D投资力度有待加强以及R&D投资结构有待进一步完善等问题.     

高管的政治关联与R&D投入的相关性研究——基于制造业和信息技术产业上市公司数据

高管具有政治关联的公司会加大R&D投入的强度吗?本文以我国2006-2008年度披露了R&D投入的制造业和信息技术产业上市公司A股为样本,考察了高管的政治关联对上市公司R&D投入强度的影响。研究发现:在控制了其他因素的影响后,高管的政治关联及关联级别对企业的R&D投入有正向的影响,但是影响不是很显著。研究结果表明:提高政治关联这类有价值的关系资源有利于高管对R&D投入做出积极的决策。本研究对于政治关联与企业社会责任间的内在关系提供参考意见。     

技术差距、资源分配与后发大国经济增长方式转换

经济增长的主要驱动要素的转变是经济增长方式转变的内核,而技术差距是影响经济资源配置格局和配置效率的关键变量。基于拓展的内生增长模型分析资源最优分配路径发现:经济增长方式随技术水平的提升从"生产性投资驱动"到"研发驱动"、从"模仿主导"到"创新主导"逐步转换。基于我国省级面板数据的经验分析表明:在不同技术水平的区域,生产性投资与研发投资、模仿与创新对经济增长和技术进步的效应不同。那么,我国作为一个后发大国在推进经济增长方式转变过程中也应根据与国际前沿的技术差距,合理配置生产性投资与研发投资、模仿投资与创新投资,并根据我国区域技术水平的差异性,"分层"推进经济增长方式的转变。     

跨国公司R&D投资对区域创新能力影响的实证研究——基于区域创新知识生产函数的分析

随着跨国公司海外R&D投资的发展,中国的跨国公司R&D机构也在不断增多,跨国公司R&D投资对于我国经济的影响中,很重要的一方面是对于区域创新能力的影响。本文对于跨国公司R&D投资对区域创新能力的影响进行了深入的研究,在分析跨国公司R&D投资的现状的基础上,从定性和定量两个角度分析了跨国公司R&D投资对区域创新能力的影响,在定性研究中从直接效应和间接效应两方面进行论述,在定量研究中运用计量经济学模型进行研究。在跨国公司R&D投资对区域创新能力影响的分析的基础上,本文向政府和企业两方面提出了相应的对策建议。     

From Experience: Linking Product Innovation to Business Growth

Industry pundits often take managers to task for their supposedly myopic approach to planning and decision making. These sweeping generalizations gloss over the complex challenges confronting the managers who must ensure that their firms enjoy ongoing revenue growth opportunities. In place of pat answers, those managers require analysis and planning tools that offer clearer insights into the effects their decisions have on their firms' continued business success. As Marv Patterson points out, however, determining the effects of product innovation decisions poses a particular challenge for management, because the consequences of those decisions typically do not become evident until long after the decisions have been made. Presenting a conceptual model that links product innovation activities to revenue growth, he identifies three drivers of revenue growth, and explains how these growth drivers are linked by a set of mathematical relationships that can be presented in the form of an enterprise-specific growth table. He applies the model to three types of enterprises, and he discusses the key implications that the model holds for the business leaders who must keep shareholders satisfied. He depicts the relationship between a company and its customers as a closed-loop system in which the company converts labor, parts, and material into products, which it delivers to customers. The company invests a portion of the resulting revenue stream in the resources that generate new products. By effectively and continually applying a sufficiently large investment in this innovation engine, the company creates an ongoing stream of new products. The revenues from these new products more than offset the drop in revenues from products that are approaching obsolescence. He identifies three factors that drive revenue growth from these investments in the innovation engine: the fraction of revenues invested in product innovation, new product revenue gain, and the behavior of revenue over time for a particular business. Using a graph called a product vintage chart, he demonstrates that for a large company, the revenue contributions of a particular new-product year (or vintage) fall into a regular pattern over time, which enables a company to determine mathematical relationships for revenue growth as a function of R&D investment and new product revenue growth. In this way, senior managers can gain clearer understanding of the interplay between product innovation, R&D investment, revenue growth, and profitability over time.     

How Canon and Sony Drive Product Innovation Through Networking and Application-Focused R&D

To ensure the ongoing vitality of a company's product offerings, R&D professionals must play a daunting array of roles. The already rapid, yet still accelerating, pace of technological change may lead some companies to devote more resources to intensive internal research efforts. However, the shift toward global competition demands a more market-oriented focus from R&D; clear understanding of current and potential markets must drive R&D efforts. And efficient, cost-effective manufacturing of new products requires an R&D organization that understands and interacts effectively with the production department. How does a company create an environment in which its R&D organization comprises market-savvy, production-friendly experts in diverse technologies? With case studies of R&D efforts at Canon and Sony, Sigvald Harryson identifies and illustrates the key mechanisms that these companies use to foster product innovation. His examples show how Canon and Sony use a combination of external and internal networking mechanisms to identify and acquire key technologies and related skills, gain market knowledge, improve the results of internal R&D efforts, and ensure the successful transfer of these results to efficient production processes. He identifies four key mechanisms underlying successful product innovation at Canon and Sony: strategic training and job rotation for engineers, application-driven R&D, direct transfer of development teams from R&D to production, and extensive networking with external centers of excellence and key suppliers. At Canon, the initial training program for all researchers and engineers begins with three months of work on a production line. Sony's new researchers and development engineers spend one month in production. Both companies also give their new R&D professionals three months of training in sales and marketing. The emphasis on market-driven research at both companies means that researchers have identified some commercial application for almost every initial research proposal that gains approval. Neither company treats research as a long-term assignment; almost all engineers at both companies eventually move from the labs to production. And rather than viewing this job rotation strategy as a drain on the technological expertise in their labs, both companies rely on strong external networks with key suppliers and university-based researchers as important sources for acquiring new technologies and the competencies needed to support them.     

基于CEO变动调节效应的高管团队特征对企业研发投资及技术创新绩效的影响研究

本文以信息技术业上市公司2011～2014年的数据为样本,运用逐步多元回归分析的方法,通过逐步引入高管团队特征变量、CEO变动变量、CEO变动变量与高管团队特征变量交互项对因变量研发投资及技术创新绩效影响进行了回归分析。结果表明：CEO变动对研发投资和技术创新绩效具有显著的正向相关关系;CEO变动可以部分调节高管团队特征对研发投资和技术创新绩效的影响;高管团队持股与年龄异质性与技术创新绩效显著正相关;两职合一与研发投资显著负相关;任期异质性和教育程度异质性与研发投资显著正相关。     

税收优惠对节能环保上市公司研发投入影响的实证研究

伴随我国经济的快速发展，面临的资源与环境问题日益突出，激励节能环保企业增加研发投入进行技术创新具有重要意义。论文以深沪两市118家节能环保A股上市公司2011～2015年的数据作为研究样本，以研发投入作为被解释变量，以税负总额、所得税税负和流转税税负作为解释变量，结合节能环保产业自身特点，运用多元回归模型分析了税收优惠对节能环保上市公司研发投入的影响。实证结果表明：税收优惠政策对节能环保上市公司技术创新产生了正面影响，所得税优惠政策比流转税优惠政策对研发投入的影响更显著。建议从继续完善所得税税收优惠、逐步加大流转税优惠力度、建立健全配套措施等方面完善激励节能环保企业增加研发投入的税收优惠政策。     

政府创新激励干预下的分析师关注与企业研发投入——以“中国制造2025”与“一带一路”为例的实证研究

随着股票市场与企业研发活动的联系愈发紧密,分析师关注与企业研发投入的关系受到的关注也越来越多。虽然现有以公司治理过程中各主体为核心研究两者关系的文献取得了一些成果,但外部政府干预的作用却在一定程度上被忽视。本文以“中国制造2025”和“一带一路”为例,对分析师关注作用于企业研发投入的机制和政府创新激励对该机制的影响进行分析。在基于文献建构理论假设的基础上,引入A股制造业企业2013~2018年的数据作为样本,使用双重差分方法对机制假设进行了检验。实证结果显示:分析师关注对企业研发投入有负向的直接影响,但政府创新激励的信号发出后分析师关注对相关企业的研发投入又具有独立于原有效应之外的正效应。这一结果表明,一般情况下分析师关注会基于“施压机制”抑制企业的研发投入,而政府创新激励的出台则能创造条件使这种“施压机制”激励企业为研发活动投入资金,在一定程度上缓解分析师关注原有的消极影响。     

Successful Product Development after Firm Acquisitions: The Role of Research and Development

A major reason for carrying out a merger and acquisition (M&A) is to gain access to technological knowledge and to increase new product development (NPD) capabilities. To achieve the desired effect of improving a firm's capacity for innovation, this knowledge must be combined with the acquiring firm's existing resources. Previous research, however, has made it clear that M&A transactions tend to disrupt a company's innovation processes, resulting in reduced investment in research and development (R&D) activities as well as a lower innovative output in terms of patents and new products introduced to the market. In this regard, a successful postmerger integration of the firms' R&D units plays a decisive role. Conceptually, this exploratory article distinguishes between the strategic approach to integration and the integration instruments or measures to be employed within the approach. Whereas the former sets the general strategic direction of the integration or, in other words, establishes some kind of acquisition posture, the latter describe the relevant fields or dimensions to be addressed during integration. These integration strategies and instruments are subsequently investigated in a sample of 35 M&A transactions. It is shown that companies typically revert to three distinct integration strategies, depending on the need for strategic interdependence and organizational autonomy: symbiosis, absorption, and adjustment. Together with the integration instruments that relate to structural linking, process redesign, systems standardization, and culture building, the integration strategies are analyzed using seemingly unrelated regression models. It turns out that technological success and, hence, NPD capabilities benefit most from a symbiosis and an absorption strategy. Apparently, only wide‐ranging reorganization efforts in R&D focussing on common structures, processes, and systems can fully realize the benefits from a combination of resources. To achieve economic success or high integration quality, an adjustment strategy appears to be the best choice as reorganization efforts are rather limited. With respect to the integration instruments, the research shows that the structural linking exhibits a great impact on technological and economic success but no effect on integration quality. Obviously, common structural patterns and interlinked structures within the R&D units have a positive effect in that they facilitate better collaboration and research outcomes. A common organizational structure hence serves as a basis for realizing innovative resource combinations and streamlining the NPD process. A standardization of systems exhibits strong positive links with all success variables. Apparently, a consistent unification, offering orientation and comparability, is of high importance to achieve the best possible implementation of the integration and to foster innovative capabilities. Significant effects of culture building can be substantiated for economic success. Moreover, there tends to be a positive effect on integration quality. This underpins the importance of measures to encourage the build‐up of a common corporate culture. To sum up, the research provides a couple of insights on how to strengthen NPD capabilities following a merger.