We examine how metric intensity—that is, the quantity, frequency, and extent to which performance metrics are tracked and used—varies with a firm's dependency on innovation for business success. Although performance metrics are essential in an organization's management control system, little is known about how the use of metrics differs in organizations with varying dependencies on incremental and radical innovation. Drawing on data from a sample of small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs), we hypothesize and find that firms' dependency on incremental (radical) innovation is positively (negatively) associated with metric intensity. Furthermore, we find that (1) the positive relationship between the dependency on incremental innovation and metric intensity is stronger when the organizational culture is focused more on “control” and (2) the negative relationship between the dependency on radical innovation and metric intensity is mitigated when the organizational culture is focused more on “flexibility.” Additional analysis shows that the positive (negative) relationship between incremental (radical) innovation dependency and metric intensity can be mitigated by greater use of metrics for decision‐facilitating purposes. Our findings suggest that metrics‐based formal controls are designed to match the types of innovation dependencies and pre‐existing informal controls such as organizational culture. This study highlights the importance of distinguishing different types of innovation dependency in studying management control systems

Firms in younger labor markets produce more innovation. We establish this by instrumenting the current labor force with historical births in each local labor market in the United States. Analyses of firms and inventors allow us to rule out unobservable heterogeneity across local labor markets and firms, life cycles, and other effects. Corporate innovation in younger labor markets reflects the innovative characteristics of younger labor forces, and its market value is higher. Younger workers as a group, not merely inventors by themselves, produce more innovation for firms through the labor force channel rather than through a financing or consumption channel

Many emerging markets allow foreign investment as a way to reform domestic markets. Extant studies have found a positive externality on innovation brought forth by foreign direct investment (FDI); however, we know very little about the externality of another form of foreign investment, ownership by foreign institutional investors (FII), on innovation. In this paper, we document one form of FII externality by showing that foreign institutional ownership of the customer firm results in higher supplier innovation. We also show that the FII externality on supplier innovation is stronger when customers have more influence on the suppliers and when the FIIs can facilitate information flow better. Our findings suggest that the real impact of FII can go beyond the underlying firms, and promoting FII may benefit firms, especially smaller firms in emerging countries that do not directly have foreign ownership

How does common ownership affect innovation? We study this question using project-level data on pharmaceutical startups and their venture capital (VC) investors. We find that common ownership leads VCs to hold back projects, withhold funding, and redirect innovation at lagging startups. Effects are stronger where R&D costs are larger, consistent with common owners aiming to cut duplicate costs. Effects are also stronger where technological similarity is greater and preexisting competition is lower, consistent with common owners seeking market power for their surviving projects. Overall, common VC ownership appears to generate social benefits , via improved innovation efficiency, but also social costs

We study a model of innovation with a large number of firms that create new technologies by combining several discrete ideas. These ideas are created via private investment and spread between firms. Firms face a choice between secrecy, which protects existing intellectual property, and openness, which facilitates learning from others. Their decisions determine interaction rates between firms, and these interaction rates enter our model as link probabilities in a learning network. Higher interaction rates impose both positive and negative externalities, as there is more learning but also more competition. We show that the equilibrium learning network is at a critical threshold between sparse and dense networks. At equilibrium, the positive externality from interaction dominates: the innovation rate and welfare would be dramatically higher if the network were denser. So there are large returns to increasing interaction rates above the critical threshold. Nevertheless, several natural types of interventions fail to move the equilibrium away from criticality. One effective policy solution is to introduce informational intermediaries, such as public innovators who do not have incentives to be secretive. These intermediaries can facilitate a high-innovation equilibrium by transmitting ideas from one private firm to another

In theory, financial markets promote innovation by selectively allocating capital to high-quality projects. In this article, I show that equity markets can also inhibit innovation. In public firms, I find that short-term equity market declines cause pharmaceutical companies to abandon early-stage drug developments, irrespective of drug quality or changes in a firm’s stock price. I show that financing constraints drive this behavior, highlighting that even short-term market fluctuations can have long-term effects on pharmaceutical innovation and prevent potentially life-saving drugs from progressing to the market

When companies select and use compensation peers to determine chief executive officer (CEO) compensation, they create unintended peer effects on corporate innovation due to the similarities between these companies and their compensation peers in terms of product markets, CEO characteristics, and compensation schemes. After controlling for industry and geography peer groups, the findings confirm that the average innovation activity of compensation peers is a significant and distinct predictor of corporate innovation. Further analysis showed that (1) the peer effect is stronger in firms and compensation peers that pay their CEOs using long-term compensation, in firms with stronger labor market competition and board monitoring, and in peer companies that experience higher innovation competition and are closer to the median peer company in the peer group; (2) the obtained results are likely not attributable to the knowledge spillover mechanism and are more consistent with the peer pressure mechanism; and (3) the Securities and Exchange Commission's 2006 executive compensation disclosure rules may have generated peer effects

This study explores the effects of judicial independence on corporate innovation by analyzing the staggered establishment of Circuit Courts in China. We find that introducing Circuit Courts increases corporate innovation, particularly for central state-owned enterprises and private firms. Channel analysis shows that Circuit Courts significantly reduce local judicial protectionism, ease financial constraints, and improve corporate governance, which stimulates innovation. The positive effects of Circuit Courts are more pronounced in cities facing severe political intervention, regions with weak legal environments, and private firms without political or banking connections. Our results are robust to endogeneity concerns, alternative measures and specification models. Overall, this study supports the theoretical arguments that institutions matter and that improvements in judicial quality boost firms' incentives to innovate

We investigate the relationship between internal governance and firms' innovation. We hypothesize that internal governance stemming from the difference in expected employment horizons between a CEO and her subordinate executives improves a firm's innovation. Using the age difference between a CEO and her subordinate executives as the primary measure of internal governance, we find a strong positive relationship between internal governance and firms' innovation output, and scientific and economic values. We show that the positive relation is causal and robust based on empirical tests including exogenous variation in internal governance resulting from non-forced CEO turnovers. We further show that the relationship between internal governance and innovation is more pronounced when external governance is weaker and when subordinate executives are expected to have more influence on the board. Cross-sectional analysis shows that internal governance spurs innovation in younger firms, firms led by generalist CEOs, and when the likelihood of insider successions is higher

Does regulation affect the pace and nature of innovation and if so, by how much? We build a tractable and quantifiable endogenous growth model with size-contingent regulations. We apply this to population administrative firm panel data from France, where many labor regulations apply to firms with 50 or more employees. Nonparametrically, we find that there is a sharp fall in the fraction of innovating firms just to the left of the regulatory threshold. Further, a dynamic analysis shows a sharp reduction in the firm’s innovation response to exogenous demand shocks for firms just below the regulatory threshold. We then quantitatively fit the parameters of the model to the data, finding that innovation at the macro level is about 5.4% lower due to the regulation, a 2.2% consumption equivalent welfare loss. Four-fifths of this loss is due to lower innovation intensity per firm rather than just a misallocation towards smaller firms and lower entry. We generalize the theory to allow for changes in the direction of R&D, and find that regulation’s negative effects only matter for incremental innovation (as measured by citations and text-based measures of novelty). A more regulated economy may have less innovation, but when firms do innovate they tend to “swing for the fence” with more radical (and labor saving) breakthroughs.Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org