1. Introduction
China has reached rapid economic growth relying on a heavy-industry-first development strategy, but the deepening of global production exchanges, coupled with rapid industrialization and urbanization, urban spatial expansion, excessive resource consumption, and ecological pollution have placed heavy pressure on human survival [
1,
2]. The industrial development of large cities follows the pattern of “high energy consumption” and “high emissions”, and their economic growth usually comes at the cost of ecological and environmental natural resources such as land, forests, water, and energy [
3,
4,
5]. To cope with the increasing pressure on the ecological environment, the Chinese government has taken active measures to promote green and low-carbon economic development. For example, “Double Carbon” goals were declared by the Chinese government in September 2020. The “promoting green development and harmonious coexistence between human beings and nature” strategy was written as a sole chapter in China’s Outline of the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025) for National Economic and Social Development and Vision 2035 (14th FYP and SDV-2035).
Studies have shown that GTI is the key to energy conservation and emission reduction, and is an effective means to effectively address environmental pollution such as carbon emissions [
6], which can promote low-carbon industrial development and low-carbon transformation of energy consumption [
7,
8], essentially materializing the transformation of the economic development mode. Enterprises are the main body in implementing the strategic goals of carbon peaking and carbon neutrality. Accelerating the development of GTI in enterprises could better promote the green and low-carbon transformation of enterprises and the green development of the economy. Furthermore, GTI provides important kinetic energy and technical support for the achievement of carbon peak and carbon-neutral targets. However, major developed countries have strengthened their exclusivity in the area of green technology in order to gain leadership in the global governance of climate change. They have seen China as an important institutional competitor, trying to embed their domestic governance systems into the global governance and competing to seize the high ground in science and technology [
9]. The promotion of the GTI of Chinese enterprises in this context is of great contemporary significance.
GTI features both ‘green’ and ‘innovative’ strategies, and can not only promote energy efficiency and reduce environmental pollution in the production process, but also enable enterprises to produce green and differentiated products and promote technological progress [
10]. However, followers can achieve similar results by imitating pioneering companies. Although this can improve the overall social welfare, it undermines the interests of the pioneering enterprises and weakens their incentive to engage in GTI. In order to solve the problem of uncompensated appropriation by followers, the government can grant enterprises a certain degree of exclusivity in GTI through intellectual property (IPR) protection so that they can capture a certain market share and generate a certain amount of monopoly profits with their R&D achievements, thus increasing monopoly profits and promoting GTI. However, little research has focused on the above-mentioned channels and the role of IPR in enterprise GTI. This study aims to investigate the impact of IPR protection on enterprise GTI and to explore in detail its transmission pathways and possible moderating effects.
As far as the available research is concerned, IPR protection has not received the attention it deserves in enterprise GTI. In fact, the influence of IPR protection on technological innovation(TI) rather than GTI was studied by much of the literature. It makes intuitive sense that IPR is good for TI. Providing incentives for innovation is a path that most scholars agree on [
11]. For example, Ang et al. argue that a stronger IPR protection positively affects firms’ ability to acquire new external debt and allows firms to invest in more R&D, generate more innovation patents, and produce more sales from new products [
12]. R&D efficiency and technological capabilities could be promoted through stronger IPR protection [
13,
14,
15]. Furthermore, Parre’s study shows that IPR protection can stimulate domestic innovation by creating the right environment to absorb potential gains from international migration [
16].
However, some scholars argue that IPR protection could have a negative effect on TI. Research has shown that IPR protection may hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge from innovations in a standard endogenous growth model and stronger protection of IPR may discourage innovation [
17]. IPRs are becoming increasingly poorly configured in the developed world, leading to a stifling of innovation, distortions in the direction of innovation, and a reduction in the benefits which accrue from any innovation that occurs [
18]. Empirical findings also raise doubts with respect to the strengthening of IPR protection as a means to stimulate innovation [
19,
20,
21,
22].
Furthermore, the complex relationship between IPR protection and TI is also studied. One confusing truth is that the United States was not always a leading IPR advocate as it is today, but was a leading IPR violator during the 19th century [
23]. Depending on certain factors, IPR protection may have different effects on TI. For example, the role of innovative production cost [
16], innovation efficiency or innovation threshold [
24], level of economic development [
25], and so on.
Concerning the relationship between IPR protection and GTI, Vimalnath et al. point out that IPR strategies should shift from exclusive incentives for innovation to collaborative approaches that promote IP sharing for sustainable development [
26]. Roh et al. note that IPR protection positively impacts GTI through open innovation using Korean manufacturing data from 2014 to 2016 [
27]. Furthermore, The relationship between IPR protection and total factor productivity (TFP) is studied as well [
28], indicating a positive relationship between them.
Another strand of the literature related to this study is about GTI. From the perspectives of researchers, some scholars conducted relevant studies from the enterprise view, such as how enterprise GTI should be defined and methods to measure/assess GTI [
29], the management of GTI [
30,
31], the factors affecting GTI, and the influence of GTI on enterprise performance [
32,
33]. From the industry view, the low-carbon effects of GTI have been most widely studied [
34,
35]. From the macro view, the formation and dynamic evolution of green innovation systems are examined from a holistic perspective [
36]. Theories such as system engineering and environmental economics are used to make a reasonable assessment of green innovation systems [
37].
Based on our analysis, the literature regarding the influence of IPR protection on GTI is limited, and further research is required to enhance and develop relevant studies. Therefore, our article may contribute to the existing literature in the following ways.
Firstly, our study is related to the literature on the factors that affect GTI in enterprises. Previous research has explored various factors, such as market conditions, technology, and internal and external environmental factors. However, limited research has examined the role of IPR protection. By focusing on this aspect, we aim to fill the gap in the literature and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that affect GTI in enterprises.
Secondly, our research is related to the literature on how IPR protection influences enterprise GTI. Previous literature has investigated the relationship between IPR protection and total factor productivity (TFP) from the perspective of the government–business relationship and innovative expenditure [
28]. In our study, we advance further by exploring the mechanism of foreign investment entry and R&D investment, as well as the moderating role of human capital and financing capacity. Our research enriches the existing literature on the institutional perspective of how IPR protection affects enterprise GTI in host countries.
Lastly, we employ microdata from Chinese listed firms to conduct an empirical analysis. As GTI is the mainstay of enterprises, the use of enterprise data can help to alleviate the problem of reverse causality to some extent. Additionally, we construct an instrumental variable based on distance and transportation to address the issue of reverse causality more accurately. By utilizing these methods, we aim to contribute to the literature by providing a more robust empirical analysis of the influence of IPR protection on enterprise GTI.
The article is partitioned into five sections, with the
Section 1 serving as an introduction.
Section 2 pertains to the theoretical framework and research hypotheses, while
Section 3 outlines the methods implemented to accomplish the study’s objectives.
Section 4 provides an account of the results and subsequent discussion. Lastly,
Section 5 is centered on the conclusion and policy implications.
5. Conclusions and Policy Implications
In the background of China’s “double carbon” goal, this study focuses on the GTI of enterprises and examines the impact of IPR protection on the GTI of enterprises. Two affecting mechanisms and two moderating effects of IPR protection on firms’ GTI are summarized and tested: R&D investment and foreign investment entry; financing capacity and human capital. The findings are as follows.
First, IPR protection could promote firms’ GTI, and this conclusion holds after various robustness and endogeneity tests. Second, the heterogeneity test reveals that higher levels of IPR protection promote GTI more significantly for private firms, exporting firms and firms in more monopolistic industries. Third, in terms of the mechanism, IPR protection can enhance the GTI of enterprises by promoting R&D input and foreign investment entry. Meanwhile, the financing capacity and human capital of enterprises can positively moderate the relationship between IPR protection and enterprises’ GTI.
The findings of this study have important policy implications. “Double Carbon” goals were claimed by the Chinese government in September 2020. The “promoting green development and harmonious coexistence between human beings and nature” was written as a sole chapter in China’s 14th FYP and SDV-2035. This highlights the importance of green development for China to establish a modern country, and GTI is the foundation and guarantee of green development. At the same time, China has also strengthened the implementation of IPR protection strategies and introduced a series of policy measures. The affect of IPR protection on enterprise GTI is verified by the findings of the paper, and references can be provided for China to formulate relevant policies.
First, gradually improve the construction of IPR protection system and strengthen the enforcement of IPR protection. This study finds that an improved level of IPR protection can not only directly promote GTI, but also promote GTI by attracting foreign investment entry and increasing R&D input. Therefore, attention should be paid to IPR protection in the process of GTI by enterprises. Meanwhile, the difference in the level of IPR protection among provinces does not lie in the IPR protection system itself, but in the level of the enforcement of laws related to IPR protection. Therefore, in addition to improving the construction of the IPR protection system itself, it is important to further enhance the enforcement of IPR protection in each province in China so as to fully utilize IPR protection in promoting the GTI of enterprises.
Second, different levels of IPR protection could be implemented for different industries. Encourage firms to internationalize (export) and reduce their financing burden. The research in this study finds that IPR protection is more effective in promoting the GTI of exporting enterprises and enterprises in high monopoly industries. Meanwhile, the financing capacity of enterprises can positively moderate the relationship between IPR protection and enterprises’ GTI. Therefore, according to the characteristics of different industry types, different levels of IPR protection with different monopoly intensities should be implemented, alleviating enterprises’ financing pressure and encouraging exports, so that different heterogeneous enterprises can enjoy the bonus brought by the increased level of IPR protection.
Third, make full use of R&D and foreign investment in promoting enterprises’ GTI and pay attention to enterprises’ human capital accumulation. This study finds that R&D investment and foreign investment entry are the mechanisms through which IPR protection affects enterprises’ GTI. Meanwhile, R&D investment and foreign investment entry themselves can also promote enterprises’ GTI. Therefore, the government and enterprises should fully utilize the important role of R&D input and foreign investment entry on the GTI of Chinese enterprises. Meanwhile, this study finds that the human capital of enterprises can positively moderate the relationship between IPR protection and the GTI of enterprises. Therefore, attention should be paid to the accumulation of the human capital of enterprises while actively using R&D and foreign investment.