The Impact of Global Value Chain Embedding on Corporate Risk Taking of China’s A-Share Market-Listed Companies from 2000–2016
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Does GVC embedding increase enterprises’ risk-taking behavior?
- What is the mechanism between GVC embedding and enterprises’ risk-taking behavior?
- Is the relationship between GVC embeddedness and enterprises’ risk-taking behavior influenced by other factors?
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Risks of Embedding in Global Value Chains
2.2. Enterprise Risk Taking
2.3. Research on GVC Measurement
3. Research Hypothesis
3.1. The Impact of Global Value Chain Embedding on Enterprise Risk-Taking Behavior
- (1)
- Spillover effects. Multinational companies optimize the allocation of industrial chain layouts on a global scale. In the process of investing in the host country, they often form a technology spillover effect on the host country [2,27], the primary purpose of which is to ensure the overall efficiency of the value chain network operation [28]. According to this spillover effect, enterprises in developing countries can import advanced machinery and equipment. Raw materials and other intermediate inputs from developed countries that dominate the value chain by embedding in the global value chain, on the one hand, can improve the labor productivity of developing countries through input–output effects. On the other hand, developing countries can learn and absorb the advanced technologies existing in developed countries at a lower cost and reduce the former’s own production costs. Constantinescu et al. [29] showed how embedding companies in global value chains could boost productivity growth in a country. Therefore, this positive spillover effect helps companies overcome uncertainty and improve their risk-taking capacity.
- (2)
- Scale effect. The embedding of the global value chain can increase market size, leading to economies of scale or an increased scope of production [30]. On the one hand, economies of scale are conducive to helping enterprises increase the number of export products, thereby reducing their dependence on a single product. On the other hand, the economic cycle of the domestic market and the foreign market is often different. An economy of scale is conducive to enterprises’ ability to open a more diversified market, which helps to disperse the operational risks of enterprises, reduce their dependence on individual markets, and improve the ability of enterprises to cope with environmental uncertainties and enhance their risk-bearing capabilities.
- (3)
- Competitive effect. Local enterprises in developing countries will inevitably face a harsh market environment when exporting their products to foreign markets, especially to developed countries. To cope with this competitive pressure from foreign markets, enterprises usually take the initiative to enhance their competitiveness in all aspects to avoid competition from enterprises with similar technological levels in the value chain and consolidate the upgrading of their monopoly [13]. Therefore, with an improvement in enterprises’ competitiveness, the level of risk bearing of enterprises gradually improves.
3.2. The Impact of Global Value Chain Embedding on Corporate Risk Taking: The Mediating Effect of R&D Investment
3.3. Global Value Chain Embedding and Corporate Risk Taking: The Moderating Effect of Financing Constraints
4. Research Design
4.1. Variables and Models
4.2. Sample Selection and Descriptive Statistics
5. Empirical Results and Analysis
5.1. Basic Analysis Results
5.2. Mediating Effect Test
5.3. Moderating Effect Test
5.4. Endogenous Test
6. Conclusions and Discussion
6.1. Implications for Theory
6.2. Practical Implications
6.3. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jones, L.; Demirkaya, M.; Bethmann, E. Global value chain analysis: Concepts and approaches. J. Int. Commer. Econ. 2019. Available online: https://www.usitc.gov/staff_publications/jice (accessed on 1 August 2022).
- Gereffi, G. International trade and industrial upgrading in the apparel commodity chain. J. Int. Econ. 1999, 48, 37–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddy, K.; Chundakkadan, R.; Sasidharan, S. Firm innovation and global value chain participation. Small Business Economices 2021, 57, 1995–2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Wang, S.; Song, M. Global environmental value chain embeddedness and enterprise production efficiency improvement. Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 2021, 58, 278–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amighini, A. From global to regional production networks in the telecom sector: Implications for industrial upgrading in east Asia. Eur. J. East Asian Stud. 2005, 4, 115–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Han, D.C.; Liu, G.G. Export quality upgrading of Chinese enterprises under global value chain embedment. World Econ. Res. 2019, 2, 7. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.; Chen, Z.Y.; Liu, Y.C. Measurement and change mechanism of domestic value added of China’s export. Econ. Res. 2013, 10, 124–137. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.S.; Wu, H.; Li, L.; Liu, L. Uncertainty, GVC participation and the export of Chinese firms. J. Econ. Surv. 2021, 36, 634–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Humphrey, J.; Schmitz, H. Governance and Upgrading: Linking Industrial Cluster and Global Value Chain Research; IDS Working Paper; Institute of Development Studies: Falmer, UK, 2000; Volume 120. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplinsky, R. Spreading the gains from globalization: What can be learned from value chain analysis? J. Dev. Stud. 2000, 37, 117–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gereffi, G.; Humphrey, J.; Sturgeon, T. The governance of global value chains. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 2005, 12, 78–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pietrobelli, C.; Saliola, F. Power relationships along the value chain: Multinational firms, global buyers and performance of local suppliers. Camb. J. Econ. 2008, 32, 947–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Felice, G.; Tajoli, L. Innovation and the International Fragmentation of Production: Complements or Substitutes? 2015. Unpublished Working Paper. Available online: https://www.siecon.org/sites/siecon.org/files/oldfiles/uploads/2016/09/TAJOLI.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2022).
- Sturgeon, T.; Lester, R.K. The New Global Supply-Base: New Challenges for Local Suppliers in East Asia; Industrial Performance Center, MIT: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Le, H.T.; Hoang, D.P.; Doan, T.N.; Pham, C.H.; To, T.T. Global economic sanctions, global value chains and institutional quality: Empirical evidence from cross-country data. J. Int. Trade Econ. Dev. 2021, 31, 427–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koopman, R.; Wang, Z.; Wei, S.-J. Estimating domestic content in exports when processing trade is pervasive. J. Dev. Econ. 2012, 99, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koopman, R.; Wang, Z.; Wei, S.-J. Tracing Value-Added and Double Counting in Gross Exports. Am. Econ. Rev. 2014, 104, 459–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Z.; Wei, S.-J.; Yu, X.; Zhu, K. Characterizing Global Value Chains: Production Length and Upstreamness; NBER Working Paper; NBER: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Humphrey, J.; Schmitz, H. Governance in Global Value Chains. IDS Bull. 2001, 32, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ma, M.S. Risk Theory; Military Science Press: Beijing, China, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Navas-Aleman, L. The impact of operating in multiple value chains for upgrading: The case of the brazilian furniture and footwear industries. World Dev. 2011, 39, 1386–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aghion, P.; Blundell, R.; Griffith, R.; Howitt, P.; Prantl, S. The effects of entry on incumbent innovation and productivity. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2009, 91, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lumpkin, G.; Dess, G.G. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 135–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, R.C.; Noguera, G. Accounting for intermediates: Production sharing and trade in value-added. J. Int. Econ. 2012, 86, 224–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Upward, R.; Wang, Z.; Zheng, J.H. Weighing China’s export basket: The domestic content and technology intensity of Chinese exports. J. Comp. Econ. 2013, 41, 527–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lv, Y.; Luo, W.; Liu, B. Heterogeneous firms and global value chain embedment: From the perspective of efficiency and financing. World Econ. 2015, 38, 29–55. [Google Scholar]
- Amihud, Y.; Lev, B. Risk reduction as a managerial movie for conglomerate mergers. Bell J. Econ. 1981, 12, 605–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- John, K.; Litov, L.; Yeung, B. Corporate governance and risk taking. J. Financ. 2008, 63, 1679–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pietrobelli, C.; Rabellotti, R. Global value chains meet innovation systems: Are there learning opportunities for developing countries. World Dev. 2011, 39, 1261–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldwin, R.; Lopez-Gonzalez, J. Supply-chain trade: A portrait of global patterns and several testable hypotheses. World Econ. 2015, 38, 1682–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Constantinescu, C.; Matto, A.; Ruta, M. Trade Development in 2016: Policy Uncertainty Weighs on World Trade; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Seker, M. Importing, exporting, and innovation in developing countries. Rev. Int. Econ. 2012, 20, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gereffi, G. The Governance of Global Value Chains: An Analytic Framework. 2003. Available online: http://www.ids.ac.uk/globalvaluechains/ (accessed on 1 August 2022).
- Kaplinsky, R.; Morris, M. A Hand Book for Value Chain Research; IDRC: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Mao, Y.S.; Wang, J.; Zheng, Q.Z. Reconstructing global value chains: The frontier of Chinese management research: A literature study based on SSCI and CSSCI (2002–2015). Acad. Res. 2015, 11, 85–93+160. [Google Scholar]
- Holmstrom, B. Agency cost and innovation. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1989, 12, 305–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Collis, D.J.; Montgomery, C.A. Corporate strategy: Resource and the scope of the firm. Long Range Plan. 1997, 30, 808–809. [Google Scholar]
- Telsel, L.G. Organiazed futures s markets: Costand benefit. J. Political Econ. 1981, 99, 826–879. [Google Scholar]
- Williamson, O.E. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, B. The financing of research and development. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2002, 18, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayyagari, M.; Demirguc-kunt, A.; Maksimovic, V. Firm innovation in emerging markets: The role of finance, governance, and competition. J. Financ. Quant. Anal. 2011, 46, 1545–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Griffin, D.; Yue, K.L.H. Cultural Values and Corporate Risk-Taking, Working Paper; University of British Columbia: Columbia, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Coles, J.L.; Daniel, N.D.; Naveen, L. Managerial incentives and risk-taking. J. Financ. Econ. 2006, 79, 431–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartram, S.M.; Brown, G.; Stulz, R.M. Why are U.S. stocks more volatile? J. Financ. 2012, 67, 1329–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faccio, M.; Marchica, M.; Mura, R. Large shareholder diversification and corporate risk-taking. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2011, 11, 3601–3641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boubakri, N.; Mansi, S.A.; Saffar, W. Political institutions, connectedness and corporate risk-taking. J. Int. Bus. 2013, 44, 195–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, M.G.; Li, W.G.; Pan, H.B. Privatization, property rights protection and corporate risk-taking. Econ. Res. 2013, 48, 112–124. [Google Scholar]
- Armstrong, C.; Vashishtha, R. Executive stock options, differential risk-taking incentives and firm value. J. Financ. Econ. 2012, 104, 70–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | N | Min | Max | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
RiskT1 | 5292 | 0.131 | 33.34 | 2.871 | 2.460 |
RiskT2 | 5292 | 0.321 | 82.28 | 7.064 | 6.020 |
GVC | 5292 | 0 | 1 | 0.185 | 0.350 |
R&D | 5292 | 0 | 1.950 | 0.0716 | 0.0956 |
SA | 5292 | 1.087 | 8.469 | 3.510 | 1.257 |
ownership | 5292 | 18.99 | 91.41 | 54.16 | 14.47 |
growth | 5292 | −0.493 | 4.226 | 0.198 | 0.355 |
ppe | 5292 | 0.00254 | 0.743 | 0.267 | 0.151 |
indratio | 5292 | 0.250 | 0.571 | 0.365 | 0.0517 |
firm age | 5292 | 2 | 48 | 13.09 | 4.902 |
cap | 5292 | 0.0207 | 0.0321 | 0.0292 | 0.000839 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RiskT1 | 1 | ||||||||||
RiskT2 | 0.994 *** | 1 | |||||||||
GVC | 0.054 *** | 0.054 *** | 1 | ||||||||
R&D | 0.066 *** | 0.070 *** | −0.004 | 1 | |||||||
SA | −0.157 *** | −0.157 *** | 0.123 *** | −0.069 *** | 1 | ||||||
ownership | −0.036 *** | −0.038 *** | 0.051 *** | −0.024 * | 0.107 *** | 1 | |||||
growth | −0.046 ** | −0.047 ** | 0.039 ** | −0.030 ** | 0.030 ** | 0.113 *** | 1 | ||||
ppe | 0.097 *** | 0.100 *** | 0.068 *** | −0.026 * | 0.016 | −0.003 | −0.048 *** | 1 | |||
firm age | 0.068 *** | 0.068 *** | 0.038 *** | −0.010 | 0.159 *** | −0.220 *** | −0.127 *** | 0.001 | 1 | ||
indratio | 0.022 | 0.023 | 0.011 | 0.080 *** | 0.082 *** | 0.046 *** | −0.015 | −0.059 *** | 0.038 *** | 1 | |
cap | 0.199 ** | 0.196 ** | 0.098 *** | 0.008 | 0.705 *** | 0.119 *** | 0.066 *** | 0.213 *** | 0.025 * | 0.043 *** | 1 |
RiskT1 | RiskT2 | |
---|---|---|
GVC | 0.6582 *** | 1.6474 *** |
(4.3354) | (4.5209) | |
ownership | −0.0073 | −0.0168 |
(−1.1389) | (−1.0450) | |
growth | −0.0128 * | −0.1301 * |
(−1.7789) | (−1.8450) | |
ppe | 0.9194 | 2.2671 |
(1.4679) | (1.4868) | |
firm age | 0.0066 * | 0.0268 * |
(1.8679) | (1.8868) | |
indratio | 0.4406 | 1.0521 |
(0.5128) | (0.4928) | |
cap | 410.7268 *** | 994.4743 *** |
(2.9469) | (2.9868) | |
Observations | 5292 | 5292 |
R-squared | 0.0679 | 0.0682 |
Number of id | 1102 | 1102 |
Industry | YES | YES |
Year | YES | YES |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RiskT1 | R&D | RiskT1 | RiskT2 | R&D | RiskT2 | |
GVC | 0.658 *** | 0.009 *** | 0.625 *** | 1.647 *** | 0.009 *** | 1.560 *** |
(4.335) | (2.712) | (4.095) | (4.521) | (2.712) | (4.257) | |
Ownership | −0.007 | −0.0003 | −0.006 | −0.017 | −0.0003 | −0.014 |
(−1.139) | (−1.308) | (−0.983) | (−1.045) | (−1.308) | (−0.882) | |
Growth | −0.013 * | −0.008 * | −0.092 * | −0.130 * | −0.008 * | −0.204 * |
(−1.778) | (−1.787) | (−1.883) | (−1.845) | (−1.817) | (−1.912) | |
PPE | 0.919 | 0.007 | 0.894 | 2.267 | 0.007 | 2.200 |
(1.468) | (0.459) | (1.439) | (1.487) | (0.459) | (1.456) | |
Firm age | 0.007 * | 0.002 *** | 0.012 * | 0.027 * | 0.002 *** | 0.0419 * |
(1.868) | (2.859) | (1.739) | (1.887) | (2.859) | (1.856) | |
Indratio | 0.441 | 0.066 * | 0.199 | 1.052 | 0.066 * | 0.421 |
(0.513) | (1.830) | (0.233) | (0.493) | (1.830) | (0.199) | |
Cap | 410.727 *** | 3.099 *** | 422.023 *** | 994.474 *** | 3.099 *** | 1023.976 *** |
(2.947) | (3.459) | (3.839) | (2.987) | (3.459) | (3.146) | |
R&D | 3.6456 *** | 9.5210 *** | ||||
(4.104) | (4.257) | |||||
Constant | 14.214 *** | −0.043 | 14.372 *** | 34.565 *** | −0.043 | 34.976 *** |
(4.179) | (−0.333) | (4.548) | (4.223) | (−0.333) | (4.637) | |
Sobel test p-value | 0.024 | 0.022 | ||||
Sobel test Test statistic | 2.262 | 2.287 | ||||
Observations | 5292 | 5292 | 5292 | 5292 | 5292 | 5292 |
R-squared | 0.068 | 0.039 | 0.079 | 0.068 | 0.039 | 0.081 |
Number of id | 1102 | 1102 | 1102 | 1102 | 1102 | 1102 |
Industry | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Year | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Moderation | |
---|---|
Model 1 | |
GVC | 0.041 *** |
(3.900) | |
Ownership | −0.0003 |
(−1.292) | |
Growth | −0.009 * |
(−1.892) | |
PPE | 0.009 |
(0.5701) | |
Firm age | 0.0007 * |
(1.870) | |
Indratio | 0.069 * |
(1.863) | |
Cap | 1.090 *** |
(3.570) | |
GVC * SA | −0.009 *** |
(−3.220) | |
SA | −0.008 * |
(−1.845) | |
Constant | −0.004 |
(−0.026) | |
Observations | 5299 |
R-squared | 0.043 |
Number of id | 1103 |
Industry | YES |
Year | YES |
Endogenous Industry Mean of GVC | Endogenous the Lag Phase of GVC | Endogenous PT | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RiskT1 | RiskT2 | RiskT1 | RiskT2 | RiskT1 | RiskT2 | |
GVC | 1.811 * | 4.006 * | 1.215 ** | 3.240 ** | 2.4233 ** | 6.1188 ** |
(1.911) | (1.841) | (2.322) | (2.563) | (2.6706) | (2.7802) | |
Ownership | −0.007 | −0.016 | −0.007 | −0.014 | −0.008 | −0.017 |
(−1.086) | (−1.004) | (−1.129) | (−0.947) | (−1.232) | (−1.076) | |
Growth | −0.037 * | −0.076 * | −0.024 * | −0.043 * | −0.043 * | −0.098 * |
(−1.856) | (−1.846) | (−1.857) | (−1.832) | (−1.932) | (−1.896) | |
PPE | 0.857 | 2.143 | 1.014 | 2.523 | 0.826 | 2.002 |
(1.356) | (1.393) | (1.507) | (1.544) | (1.226) | (1.220) | |
Firm age | 0.0055 * | 0.0782 * | 0.0331 * | 0.1386 * | 0.0173 * | 0.0218 * |
(1.756) | (1.793) | (1.807) | (1.844) | (1.826) | (1.820) | |
Indratio | 0.468 | 1.114 | 0.708 | 1.805 | 0.420 | 1.152 |
(0.542) | (0.521) | (0.851) | (0.881) | (0.470) | (0.520) | |
Cap | 406.098 *** | 986.059 *** | 407.750 *** | 987.869 *** | 432.251 *** | 1024.548 *** |
(3.356) | (3.393) | (4.507) | (3.244) | (3.226) | (4.220) | |
Weak-F | 199.874 | 199.874 | 345.784 | 345.784 | 242.028 | 242.028 |
Observations | 5152 | 5152 | 4807 | 4807 | 4625 | 4625 |
R-squared | 0.0469 | 0.0532 | 0.0590 | 0.0587 | 0.0515 | 0.0523 |
Number of id | 962 | 962 | 918 | 918 | 865 | 865 |
Industry | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, J.; Lv, W.; Zhao, Y.; Xu, N. The Impact of Global Value Chain Embedding on Corporate Risk Taking of China’s A-Share Market-Listed Companies from 2000–2016. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12969. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142012969
Wang J, Lv W, Zhao Y, Xu N. The Impact of Global Value Chain Embedding on Corporate Risk Taking of China’s A-Share Market-Listed Companies from 2000–2016. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):12969. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142012969
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Junli, Wendong Lv, Yao Zhao, and Na Xu. 2022. "The Impact of Global Value Chain Embedding on Corporate Risk Taking of China’s A-Share Market-Listed Companies from 2000–2016" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 12969. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142012969
APA StyleWang, J., Lv, W., Zhao, Y., & Xu, N. (2022). The Impact of Global Value Chain Embedding on Corporate Risk Taking of China’s A-Share Market-Listed Companies from 2000–2016. Sustainability, 14(20), 12969. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142012969