Corporate financing decisions: UK survey evidence

Despite theoretical developments in recent years, our understanding of corporate capital structure remains incomplete. Prior empirical research has been dominated by archival regression studies which are limited in their ability to fully reflect the diversity found in practice. The present paper reports on a comprehensive survey of corporate financing decision-making in UK listed companies. A key finding is that firms are heterogeneous in their capital structure policies. About half of the firms seek to maintain a target debt level, consistent with trade-off theory, but 60 per cent claim to follow a financing hierarchy, consistent with pecking order theory. These two theories are not viewed by respondents as either mutually exclusive or exhaustive. Many of the theoretical determinants of debt levels are widely accepted by respondents, in particular the importance of interest tax shield, financial distress, agency costs and also, at least implicitly, information asymmetry. Results also indicate that cross-country institutional differences have a significant impact on financial decisions

External Ventures: Why Firms Don't Develop All Their Inventions In-house

In this paper we consider why firms sometimes choose an external development path for their own inventions, despite the costs of contracting and the risks of opportunistic behaviour and expropriation. We model the probability that firms adopt an external development strategy using survey data from over 2700 Australian inventions. Our results indicate that firms pursue external development strategies in response to perceived project-level risk about the technical feasibility of the invention, especially when suported by confidence in the patent system. Our findings also confirm that small to medium size enterprises, highly leveraged large firms and firms with few co-specialized assets are more likely to pursue an external development strategy.Outsourcing R&D, managing technological risk, licensing innovation

Ethics and taxation : a cross-national comparison of UK and Turkish firms

This paper investigates responses to tax related ethical issues facing busines

Corporate Social Responsibility Through an Economic Lens

Business leaders, government officials, and academics are focusing considerable attention on the concept of "corporate social responsibility" (CSR), particularly in the realm of environmental protection. Beyond complete compliance with environmental regulations, do firms have additional moral or social responsibilities to commit resources to environmental protection? How should we think about the notion of firms sacrificing profits in the social interest? May they do so within the scope of their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders? Can they do so on a sustainable basis, or will the forces of a competitive marketplace render such efforts and their impacts transient at best? Do firms, in fact, frequently or at least sometimes behave this way, reducing their earnings by voluntarily engaging in environmental stewardship? And finally, should firms carry out such profit-sacrificing activities (i.e., is this an efficient use of social resources)? We address these questions through the lens of economics, including insights from legal analysis and business scholarship.Corporate Social Responsibility, Voluntary Environmental Performance

Towards a Theory and Policy of Eco-Innovation - Neoclassical and (Co-)Evolutionary Perspectives

Innovation processes toward sustainable development (eco-innovations) have received increasing attention during the past years. Since existing theoretical and methodological frameworks do not address these problems adequately, research need can be identified to improve our understanding of innovation processes toward sustainability in their different dimensions, complex feedback mechanisms and interrelations. This paper discusses the potential contribution of neoclassical and (co-)evolutionary approaches from environmental and innovation economics to fill this gap. It is argued that both approaches have their merits and limits concerning a theory and policy of ecoinnovation. Neoclassical methods are most elaborated to analyze the efficiency of incentive systems which seems to be essential for stimulating innovation. Evolutionary approaches are more appropriate for analyzing long-term technological regime shifts. On this theoretical basis, a crucial question is if innovations toward sustainability can be treated like normal innovations or if a specific theory and policy are needed. Three specialties of eco-innovation are identified: the double externality problem, the regulatory push/pull effect and the increasing importance of social and institutional innovation. While the first two of them are widely ignored in innovation economics, the third is at least not elaborated appropriately. The consideration of these specialties may help to overcome market failure by establishing a specific eco-innovation policy and to avoid a "technology bias" by a broader understanding of innovation. Eco-innovation policy requires close coordination with environmental policy in all innovation phases. Environmental and eco-innovation policy can be regarded as complementarily. However, an environmental policy neglecting the potentially beneficial effects of a specific eco-innovation policy (especially in the invention phase) may lead to excessive economic costs. Due to the specialties of eco-innovation, it seems moreover to be crucial to strengthen the importance of social and institutional innovation in both eco-innovation theory and policy. --eco-innovation,innovation theory,co-evolution,double externality,regulatory push/pull effect,social innovation,institutional innovation