Upload
flann
View
35
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Impact of the inter - firm cooperation on company's performance: major changes during the economic crisis. Oksana Kabakova. November 27, 2013. Paper structure. Introduction Literature review Research design Data analysis Database Methodology Results Conclusions and limitations. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Impact of the inter-firm cooperation on company's performance: major changes during the economic crisis
November 27, 2013
Oksana Kabakova
2
Paper structure• Introduction• Literature review• Research design• Data analysis
• Database• Methodology
• Results• Conclusions and limitations
3
Introduction. Research question
Are investments in the creation of the strong inter-firm cooperation allow the company to be better off,
even if the markets go down?
4
Value & significance to knowledge
Lack of information about alternative crisis-management strategies
Need for investigating the creation of company’s value through the intangible factors, particularly, inter-firm collaboration
Lack of researches combining the idea of inter-firm cooperation and financial performance of a company during crisis periods
5
• Ellis, Jarboe, 2010
• Jagannathan, Wang, 1996
• Lev, Sougiannis, 1999,Chan et al., 2001, Chambers et al., 2002
Literature review
Types of cooperation
Reasons for cooperation
Inter-firm relationships in the framework of the value-creation theory
6
Research design. Hypothesis
H1: Inter-firm relationships contribute to improving the financial performance of the company in a crisis environment.
7
Database• 1692 public companies from such European
countries as Germany, Italy, France, Spain, the UK
• The data is available for 8 years from 2004 to 2011
• Information about more than 150 parameters
8
Methodology: econometric specification
Inputs
Control variables
Output/outcome
• Participation in the inter-firm relationships
• Board of directors qualification
• Company’s age• Number of patents• Intangible assets
• Number of employees
• Industry
• Economic Value Added
9
ResultsVariable Model 1, 2006 Model 2, 2008 Model 3, 2011
EVA®(millions €) Coef. St.Er. t-stat. Coef. St.Er. t-stat. Coef. St.Er. t-stat.
IR_INTERFIRM 134,73* 61,07 2,86 112,83** 62,32 1,81 98,61* 70,13 1,59
IH_N_EMP 0,01*** 0,001 5,84 0,003*** 0,001 2,69 0,001* 0,001 1,68
W_ENERGY 53,56 51,52 1,02 195,67*** 52,65 3,75 124,9* * 58,42 2,14
IS_PATENTS 474,33*** 111,66 4,25 541,02*** 109,8 4,87 635*** 126 5,06
IH_BOARD_QF 0,49*** 0,055 10,81 0,37*** 0,04 9,46 0,27*** 0,045 6,64
C_AGE 3,16 68,59 0,04 -176,40* 73,5 -2,41 -100,98 251,27
-0,40
IS_INT_ASSETS -0,23*** 0,01 -28,63
-0,108*** 0,007 -13,9 -0,01 0,01 1,06
C -95,1 74,1 -1,50 -338,45*** 73,7 -4,61 -218*** 81,59 -2,72
Adj. R-2 64% 37% 16%
10
Conclusions
Hypothesis
Companies should participate in the inter-firm cooperation in order to survive during
economic crisis. Moreover, collaboration positively influence financial performance in
both growth and recovery periods.
11
Research Limitations
A lot of proxy-indicators
Only one business cycle
Low quality of models in 2008 and 2011
12
Research Opportunities
I• Change of the model specifications (nonlinear)
C
• Comparative study of different markets: prosperous economies VS economies with protracted economic crisis
C
• Comparative study of different industries: traditional vs. innovative, production vs. services, high concentrated vs. industries with high competition, etc.
• Implementation of the model to the Russian market
13
Thank you for attention!