1. Introduction
With the profound adjustment of economic globalization, the main driving forces of globalization are diverging and changing. In order to cope with the risk of power transfer [
1], traditional developed countries rely on hegemony to push their interests to the extreme of protectionism [
2]. Currently, advanced technology innovation is the key engine of economic growth for various countries. Therefore, it has become an important area for some developed countries to restrain the development of emerging countries, making technology shift from human-shared globalism to technological nationalism [
3]. Indeed, the global flow of technological elements has improved the recent speed of China’s economic development. However, in recent years, some manufacturing enterprises in China have fallen into the plight of technological innovation when technological nationalism is rampant [
4].
Under the background above, in terms of theoretical construction and sustainability of industrial development, it is necessary for us to answer the following questions: What is the situation of technological innovation plight in Chinese manufacturing enterprises? What impact does the innovation plight have on the operational efficiency of manufacturing enterprises? And what is the mechanism behind the impact?
In order to answer these questions, this article has conducted the following theoretical and empirical work: First, it has analyzed and verified empirically the negative impact of technological innovation plight on operational efficiency. Second, in particular, it has analyzed and tested empirically that the technological innovation plight of enterprises has an impact on operational efficiency through risk-taking, expected development capability, and profitability. Third, it has analyzed and tested the differences in the impact among different types of enterprises from the perspectives of enterprise, industry, and region.
There are many studies closely related to this article, mainly divided into three categories.
The first type is the research on technological innovation. The existing research on technological innovation mainly focuses on three aspects:
(1) Research on the impact of technological innovation on factors related to enterprise management and development. Most articles point out the multiple positive impacts of technological innovation. Hervas-Oliver and Sempere-Ripoll [
5] found the positive impact of technological process innovation on organizational innovation. Wang and Sun [
6] also emphasized the positive impact of technological innovation on enterprise growth. Interestingly, there are relatively few discussions on the negative impact of technological innovation. Zhang and Aumeboonsuke [
7] found that technological innovation reduces enterprises’ risk-taking, which is detrimental to their performance;
(2) Research on exploring the factors influencing technological innovation from multiple perspectives. Zou [
8] discussed the relationship between corporate digitization and technological innovation, concluding that the positive impact of digitization is more obvious on traditional technological innovation than on green technological innovation. From a resource-based perspective, Liu and Xiao [
9] found that dual innovation human capital has a significant impact on the technological innovation efficiency of big data enterprises. Interestingly, Henao-Garía and Montoya [
10] found that management innovation has a negative moderating effect on the relation between technological innovation and performance in Colombia. This work advances the research on dynamic capability perspectives to analyze technological innovation in emerging economies;
(3) Research on the comparison and combination of technological innovation and non-technological innovation. This type of research also occupies a significant proportion in the field of technological innovation. Aboal and Garda [
11] found that the roles of technological innovation and non-technological innovation in the manufacturing and service industries are not the same, while Martin-Rios et al. [
12] explained how technological innovation and non-technological innovation bind together in a correlated way. And Gallegos and Miralles [
13] concluded that non-technological innovation can affect technological innovation in Peru, encouraging companies to support activities that are not necessarily related to R&D to promote technological innovation.
The literature in the field of technological innovation is abundant and provides important reference value for this article.
The second type is articles that research operational efficiency. Operational efficiency, as one of the main indicators for evaluating the level of enterprise management, is also a hot topic for scholars. A large number of scholars discussed the factors affecting the operation efficiency of enterprises, such as the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance [
14], strategic flexibility [
15], internal audit function (IAF) quality [
16], and cash flow [
17], etc. The discussion on the enterprise operation efficiency has formed a system, but the innovation situation of the enterprise has not been taken into account.
The third type of research is directly related to this article, which is the research on the situation of enterprise technological innovation. But, such research is presently scarce. Lian et al. [
18] explored the impact of the innovation situation on corporate strategic response based on the theory of corporate behavior. Zhan and Ma [
19] explored the “low-end locked” dilemma in corporate innovation and studied the impact of high-tech enterprise cultivation policy on this dilemma. The research on the relationship between innovation plight and operational efficiency is conducive to enriching research in this area.
Overall, there is limited research on the situation of technological innovation. And currently, there are no articles discussing the correlation between technological innovation plight and the operational efficiency of enterprises yet.
How, then, do we measure innovation plight authentically? We refer to the three-step calculation method from Lian et al. [
18]. The premise is that we use the number of patent applications of enterprises as basic data, including invention patents and utility model patents.
Step 1: Determine the actual innovation performance of enterprises (AIP). For fear of the volatility of the technological innovation process, the period
t − 1 AIP is the average number of patent applications from period
t − 2 to period t. Step 2: Build the innovation performance expectation (EIP). The period
t − 1 EIP is the weighted sum of the average patent applications of the industry in which the enterprises are located during the periods
t − 2 and
t − 3. The weight parameter β is set as 0.5. In the robustness test later, the parameters will be changed to 0.6 and 0.4 to test the core conclusion. Step 3: Calculate the innovation plight of period
t − 1. AIP
t−1 minus EIP
t−1. If the difference value is less than 0, take the absolute value as the observation value of the enterprise’s innovation plight. If the difference value is more than 0, take 0 as the observation value of the innovation plight. The Steps above are summarized in
Figure 1.
Accordingly, when an enterprise falls into the innovation plight, it means the enterprise has reduced innovation competitiveness in its industry.
Based on the data on innovation plight, the article draws a distribution map of the innovation plight of manufacturing enterprises in China. Combining regional data and considering its integrity, the regional distribution maps (
Figure 2 and
Figure 3) of innovation plight in 2012 and 2020 are as below.
According to
Figure 2 and
Figure 3, in general, there are obvious differences in the distribution of innovation plight between 2012 and 2020. The group distance of the horizontal group of innovation plight between regions in 2020 becomes wider, and the value range of the innovation plight of enterprises in 2020 expands. These phenomena indicate that the overall level of innovation plight in 2020 is higher than in 2012.
So why has the innovation plight become more severe over time? Under the background that instability of the international technological innovation environment is increasing, independent R&D has gradually become the main way of technological innovation for Chinese manufacturing enterprises. However, at the same time, the continuous progress of the technological level led to the rising difficulty of technological innovation. In other words, the diminishing marginal technological innovation of manufacturing enterprises has become the only way before making major technological breakthroughs. To be noted, the deterioration of innovation situation at this time cannot be equated with the decline of technological innovation level.
In particular, according to
Figure 2 and
Figure 3, the provincial administrative regions with the highest level of innovation plight in 2012 and 2020 mainly involve the regions with leading economic development and the regions where old industrial cities are located. For example, in 2012, the provincial-level administrative regions with the highest level of innovation plight included Beijing and Shanghai, as well as Gansu, Shaanxi, and Heilongjiang provinces. In 2020, the provincial-level administrative regions with the highest level of innovation plight involve Beijing, Tianjin, Guangdong Province, and Shaanxi and Heilongjiang provinces. Currently, enterprises in old industrial areas have long faced innovation plight due to the great pressure of industrial structure transformation and technological upgrading [
20].
How do we understand the distribution map (
Figure 2 and
Figure 3) that shows that enterprises in regions with higher economic development levels are faced with more serious innovation plight?
First, explore the general reasons behind this law: According to the theory of new economic geography, in the development of high-tech industry, the flow of various input factors will promote the geographical agglomeration of economic activities of enterprises and related organizations in the industry. The correlation effect between different enterprises in the industrial chain will also promote the preference of enterprises to carry out their production activities in regions with larger market sizes [
21]. The actual situation is consistent with the theory. In reality, the spatial distribution of China’s high-tech industry is concentrated in the eastern coastal areas with high economic development levels, such as the Bohai Rim area with Beijing as the center, the Yangtze River Delta area with Shanghai as the head, and the Pearl River Delta area with Shenzhen and Guangzhou as the center [
22].
In addition, the high-tech industry has relatively high technical difficulty and innovation requirements, which makes it easier to face innovation bottlenecks. And regions with higher levels of economic development have more enterprises, which means greater competitive pressure and higher levels of technological innovation.
Based on the above reasons, economically developed areas with concentrated high-tech industries inevitably face more severe innovation plight.
Compared with the previous research, the marginal contribution of this paper is mainly reflected in the following two aspects:
First, in terms of theoretical construction, this paper depicts the current situation of the innovation plight of Chinese manufacturing enterprises. It enriches the research on the enterprises’ innovation situation. And it also finds the relationship between innovation plight and the operational efficiency of manufacturing enterprises and the mechanism behind it. Current research pays less attention to the innovation situation of enterprises, especially the impact of innovation plight on the operational efficiency of enterprises. This paper makes up for this gap.
Second, from the perspective of manufacturing enterprises, the conclusion of this article has economic significance for company management and operation. In particular, this article found that the negative impact of innovation plight on operational efficiency is heterogeneous among enterprises in different ownership, scale, development stages, and regions. The conclusions and suggestions in
Section 5 of this article are undoubtedly conducive to the company’s management and operation.
The contents of the following sections of the article are as follows. The second part is a theoretical analysis and research hypothesis. The third part introduces the data source, model setting, related variables, and their measurement. The fourth part shows the empirical results and a series of robustness tests, then further carries out mechanism analysis and heterogeneity analysis. The fifth part emphasizes the conclusion of empirical analysis and provides further discussion.
2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses
2.1. The Impact of Innovation Plight on the Operational Efficiency
Continuous technological innovation is an important means for manufacturing enterprises to improve their core competitiveness. On the one hand, the popularization of production technology has continuously improved social production efficiency, leading to more intense competition among manufacturing enterprises [
23]. In order to win a place in the industry, enterprises must continue to carry out technological innovation. On the other hand, consumers’ higher living standards and more requirements for products also force manufacturing enterprises to carry out continuous technological innovation. The more exquisite product design and more useful functions can bring the company stronger competitiveness and greater profits [
24].
However, China’s manufacturing industry learns foreign advanced technology in the initial stage of technological innovation. Therefore, the harsh environment of international technological innovation now causes some domestic manufacturing enterprises to fall into an innovation plight [
25]. The innovation plight reduces the profit margins of enterprises, which is not conducive to their sustainable development and puts them at a disadvantage in fierce market competition.
How, then, do we measure the impact of innovation plight on business operations? Operational efficiency is a reasonable choice. It can not only reflect the ability of enterprises to use resources but also indicate their market competitiveness. Therefore, the impact of an event or a decision on the development of enterprises can be judged by operational efficiency.
The innovation plight may inhibit operational efficiency. The operation system requires sufficient cash flow to support [
17]. But the innovation plight will lead to a lower market share. Then the decrease in the profitability and development ability of the enterprise after that may affect the operational efficiency. In the short term, if the increase in R&D does not receive sufficient returns, the technological innovation plight is more likely to have a negative impact on the operational efficiency of enterprises. Critically, in the long run, if a company’s R&D achieves results and receives commercial returns, the improvement of its technological innovation situation may have a promoting effect on operational efficiency. In this situation, the enterprise has already or is about to remove or overcome plight. However, if the manufacturing companies cannot escape the innovation plight in the long term and continue to invest in R&D, the impact of innovation plight on the company’s operation may even be fatal.
Based on the above analysis, hypothesis 1 was proposed:
H1. For manufacturing enterprises, innovation plight has a negative impact on operational efficiency.
2.2. Mechanisms of Action
Based on the capability evaluation system of the enterprises, this paper analyzes the ways in which innovation plight affects operational efficiency.
The competitiveness of an enterprise can be evaluated from multiple perspectives and indicators. Actually, financial indicators are often considered the most direct and effective judgment criteria. They usually involve solvency [
26], development ability, management ability, and profitability of the enterprise, which are regarded as important decision-making references for investors or enterprise managers [
27]. The financial indicators not only reflect the results of the enterprise’s past operations, but also can be used as a reference for judging the future development of the enterprise [
28].
Usually, risk-taking capacity, development capacity and profitability are used to evaluate the business operation of an enterprise. These three capabilities of enterprises are not isolated but systematic. For example, in fierce market competition, higher profitability of an enterprise will obtain higher expectations for its development ability from the investors. And the better expectation is beneficial for the enterprise to attract more adequate sources of capital, and thus improve the risk bearing ability. Obviously, the financial indicators of these three capabilities can jointly reflect a company’s operational ability from multiple perspectives.
2.2.1. Innovation Plight Suppresses Operational Efficiency through Risk-Taking Capacity
The ability of enterprises to bear financial risks is an important link to maintaining operational efficiency [
17]. According to the meaning of innovation plight in this article, when an enterprise falls into the innovation plight, it means the enterprise has less competitiveness in its industry. On the one hand, the disadvantaged position in the industry will make it difficult for the enterprise to obtain loans. On the other hand, disadvantaged enterprises will be squeezed by advantageous enterprises and obtain fewer resources [
29]. At this time, the fragile capital chain and tight resources will be likely to inhibit operational efficiency.
Based on the above analysis, hypothesis H2a was proposed:
H2a. Innovation plight inhibits the operational efficiency of firms by reducing their anti-risk ability.
2.2.2. Innovation Plight Suppresses Operational Efficiency by Development Capacity Expectation
To evaluate a business, investors care about both the current and expected future innovation ability of an enterprise. And the expectation of enterprises’ development ability is also one of the important abilities that affect the operational efficiency of enterprises [
30].
The evaluation indicators of enterprise development ability usually include the rate of capital preservation and appreciation, the rate of capital accumulation, the growth rate of total assets [
31], etc. These indicators mainly evaluate the value of enterprises from the perspective of owners’ equity and assets. When the technological innovation of an enterprise encounters the plight, the market competitiveness of the enterprise is likely to decrease. In the foreseeable future, the revenue and profit will be affected [
32]. Then, the expectations from various sectors of society for the development ability of the enterprise diminish, which further affects the operational efficiency.
Based on the above analysis, hypothesis H2b was proposed:
H2b. Innovation plight affects the operational efficiency of the firm by reducing the expectations of the firm’s development capability.
2.2.3. Innovation Plight Suppresses Operational Efficiency through the Profitability
Profitability is a factor that can directly affect the operational efficiency of enterprises [
33], especially as enterprises encounter innovation plight. At this time, the product update speed of the enterprise is slower than other enterprises in the same industry, leading to a lower market share. The disadvantaged position is more likely to lead to a lack of revenue growth. In the long run, the operation and maintenance of the operation system will be affected, which further inhibits operational efficiency.
Based on the above analysis, hypothesis H2c was proposed:
H2c. Innovation plight negatively influences the operational efficiency of firms by reducing their profitability.
Overall, theoretical mechanism analysis shows that the innovation plight faced by manufacturing enterprises may inhibit operational efficiency by reducing their risk tolerance, development ability expectation, and profitability, as shown in
Figure 4.
2.3. The Heterogeneous Impact of Innovation Plight on Operational Efficiency of Manufacturing Enterprises
The differences in the impact of innovation plight on operational efficiency are analyzed in this paper from various aspects. Different enterprises may have different ownership structures and scales and are in different development stages. The industrial attributes and regions of the enterprises will also be different. Therefore, the impact of the innovation plight on operational efficiency is heterogeneous.
At the firm level, three factors can be used to assess the heterogeneity of innovation plight affecting operational efficiency: the ownership, the scale, and the life cycle of the enterprises.
In terms of ownership, non-state-owned enterprises and state-owned enterprises are the two main economic subjects in the background of the Chinese system. The difference in ownership leads to different social roles and obligations. In addition to pursuing economic benefits, state-owned enterprises need to bear more social responsibilities. But, they also have more resource endowments, easier access to external market resources, and stronger innovation capabilities [
34]. And non state-owned enterprises are more vulnerable in the fierce market competition due to relatively insufficient resource endowments and access to resources. Therefore, there is likely to be a lack of resources and capabilities for non-state-owned enterprises to cope with innovation plight. The operational efficiency of non-state-owned enterprises may be more affected by the innovation plight.
For the scale of the enterprise, small enterprises have insufficient advantages in market competition, relatively small living space, and high sensitivity to innovation plight. In comparison, large enterprises have a stronger ability to withstand and cope with innovation plight. Therefore, the impact of innovation plight on the operational efficiency of small enterprises may be more significant.
As far as the enterprise’s life cycle is concerned, it can be divided into the initial stage, ascend stage, mature stage, and decline stage [
35].
For the ascend stage, in order to improve their market competitiveness and expand their scale, enterprises in the ascend stage have strong motivation and demand to expand their market share. At this time, corresponding to the significant promotion effect of technological innovation on the development of enterprises, the impact of innovation plight on the operational efficiency of enterprises in the ascend stage is also significant.
In contrast, enterprises in the recession period have relatively poor financial status and profitability. They are more likely to face a lack of motivation for technological innovation and a higher possibility of innovation plight. However, the relatively fragile financial status reduces the ability of these enterprises to withstand innovation plight. Therefore, the innovation plight of enterprises in the recession period will have a more obvious inhibitory effect on business efficiency.
For the initial stage, on the one hand, start-up enterprises rely on initial endowments to operate. Compared with the situation of technological innovation, the establishment of business modes and business models is the main factor affecting the operational efficiency of enterprises at this time [
36]. On the other hand, start-up enterprises either rely on existing innovation achievements to establish enterprises or technological innovation is in the initial stage. The innovation situation may have little influence on the operation efficiency of enterprises in the initial stage.
For mature enterprises, on the one hand, they may have established a relatively stable business model. Their operational efficiency is less sensitive to innovation difficulties. On the other hand, their economic benefits and financial status are relatively stable, and they have the experience and ability to cope with innovation plight. Therefore, the operation efficiency of the mature enterprises may be less affected by the innovation plight.
Based on the above analysis, hypothesis H3a was proposed:
H3a. For private enterprises, small and medium-sized enterprises, and enterprises in the ascend and decline phases, innovation plight has a more significant negative effect on operational efficiency.
From the perspective of whether an enterprise belongs to a high-tech industry, the heterogeneity at the industry level is investigated. In the manufacturing industry, the technological progress of the high-tech industry is faster, and the replacement frequency is higher. The fierce competition in the technology market makes enterprises face stronger pressure of technological change, so they need to maintain a high and stable level of innovation input and output [
37]. Therefore, the operational efficiency of high-tech enterprises is highly dependent on innovation performance.
Based on the above analysis, hypothesis H3b was proposed:
H3b. Innovation plight inhibits the operation efficiency of enterprises, which is more obvious for enterprises belonging to high-tech industries.
China has a vast territory, and different regions have different development conditions. Among them, the central and western regions and the eastern regions are always divided into two groups for comparison. Therefore, this paper analyzes and validates the heterogeneity of the core conclusion in the central and western regions and the eastern regions. Combined with hypothesis H3b and the previous discussion on the distribution of innovation plight in the introduction, if the innovation plight faced by high-tech enterprises has a stronger inhibitory effect on operational efficiency, then in the eastern region with a relatively high proportion of high-tech enterprises [
38,
39], the operational efficiency of enterprises will be more significantly affected by innovation plight.
Based on the above analysis, hypothesis H3c was proposed:
H3c. The innovation plight of enterprises located in the eastern region has a significant inhibitory effect on operational efficiency.
5. Conclusions and Discussion
5.1. Conclusions
In recent years, in the context of the continuous fierce competition in technological innovation, the complexity of the global technological innovation environment has been increasing. The manufacturing industry in China is highly impacted. And the innovation situation faced by Chinese manufacturing enterprises has gradually become the focus of attention. The efficiency of enterprise operation is one of the main indicators to measure the operational level of enterprises. Therefore, we study the relationship between these two variables and the mechanism behind it.
This article uses data from Chinese A-share-listed manufacturing enterprises from 2011 to 2020. Based on theoretical analysis, it empirically verifies the negative impact of innovation plight on the operational efficiency of manufacturing enterprises.
More conclusions are as follows. First, innovation plight inhibits operational efficiency through three paths, including reducing enterprises’ risk-taking ability, development ability expectations, and profitability. Second, the inhibitory effect of innovation plight on operational efficiency is more pronounced in non-state-owned enterprises, small and medium-sized enterprises, high-tech enterprises, and enterprises in the eastern region.
5.2. Discussion
However, there are several limitations that need to be improved in this article.
First, data limitations. Indicators for measuring the operational efficiency of manufacturing enterprises may need improvement. Currently, a large number of researchers use the DEA method and Tobit model to calculate and evaluate operational efficiency. Future research can improve operational efficiency indicators and use them to study the impact of technological innovation on manufacturing enterprises. There is also room for improvement in the indicators of innovation plight. Future research can calculate the innovation plight based on data other than innovation output.
Second, there are more topics worth further research based on this article’s conclusion. For example, the reasons for the distribution of innovation plight in China can be further discussed. What is more, the measurement of the innovation plight of enterprises, the updating of data. They all can be the objects of future research.
Third, deeper research. The innovation status of enterprises still needs further research in the future. Future research can conduct specific analyses based on regional differences, which can help specific regions address innovation plight in a targeted manner.
To promote the level of technological innovation requires the joint efforts of all sectors of society.
For manufacturing enterprises. First, it is important to avoid falling into innovation plight as much as possible, as the conclusion drawn in this article is that innovation plight has a negative impact on the operational efficiency of enterprises. Second, when manufacturing enterprises discover that they are about to or have already faced innovation plight, they should evaluate their risk bearing ability, development ability, and profitability timely. Based on objective evaluation, determine whether the enterprise should continue to invest in R&D.
For policy makers, targeted support plans should be developed for different manufacturing enterprises. In particular, high-tech enterprises ought to be supported strongly, such as fair talent treatment, more funding investment, and a better business environment. What is more, acceleration in the establishment of the Innovation Industrial Cluster in the central and western regions is conducive to narrowing the gap among regions.
All in all, the construction of balanced and high-quality development of China’s manufacturing industry needs long-term planning and sustained efforts.