on the financial performance of the firm (shareholder primacy approach). One could
also try to formulate a theory of an innovative firm that explains “how, by generating
output that is higher quality and/lower cost, a particular enterprise can differentiate
itself from its competitors and emerge as dominant in its industry” (managerial
approach).
7
The opposite approach could be sustainability innovation research that
focuses on ideas that improve environmental and/or social perfor-mance and how
firms can foster such sustainability (stakeholder approach).
8Economics. In economics, mainstream corporate governance research focuses on
relatively few innovation-related aspects for two reasons. The first is that the
neoclassical theory of the firm studies the firm as a “black box” (see below).
9
This is
likely to have reduced the overall volume of innovation-related corporate gover-nance
research. The second is that the shareholder primacy model does not include a theory
of the firm’s ability to innovate (Lazonick 2007).
10
The main innovation-related streams focus on funding constraints and the effect
of the share ownership structure.
11
There is plenty of research on funding
constraints.
12
There is relatively little research on the effect of governance structures
on the firm’s ability to innovate.
13
Organisational research. Organisational research can take a broader view,
because it is not constrained by the neoclassical theory of the firm and the
share-holder primacy model.
The theory of an innovative enterprise can have as its starting point the three
generic activities in which the firm engages: strategy, organisation, and finance. One
can then identify three social conditions of the innovative enterprise: strategic control,
organisational integration, and financial commitment (Lazonik 2010).
14
Proxies. It is necessary to choose proxies for the firm’s ability to innovate. One
alternative could be to use profitability, growth, the number of patents, or mere
survival as proxies for innovation (meaning that the firm must be innovative if it
makes a profit, grows fast, or has a large number of patents). This approach would
reflect “black box” theories of the firm that regard the firm as a production function.But past profitability, growth, patent rights, or survival do not really explain
what the firm should do now in order to remain innovative in the future. On the
contrary, if the firm’s managers use such factors as proxies, the result may be
arrogance caused by past successes and failure to adapt to present and future changes
in the market. There are many examples of large firms that have disappeared.
Firm size in particular. Large firm size would not be a suitable proxy for the
firm’s ability to innovate.
On one hand, large firm size may be the result of the successful exploitation ofpast innovations, and it may also bring benefits in the future. Generally, complex
contracts with external parties can be avoided when things are done internally
(Williamson 2002a, 2002b).
15
Large firm size brings organisational capabilities,
economies of scale, and funding benefits (Chandler 1990).
16
The monopoly firm
would be the extreme form of a large firm. Temporary monopolies can be necessary
to provide the required incentive for firms to develop new products and processes
(Schumpeter 1942).
17
After the Second World War, the monopoly firm was there-fore
regarded as the model that maximised innovation in a particular industry.
18
On the other hand, the benefits of large firm size cannot be achieved without
coordination. When the firm grows in size, continuing intra-firm specialisation results 公司治理与创新英文文献和翻译(2):http://www.751com.cn/fanyi/lunwen_250.html