Media pressure and corporate innovation

YANG Daoguang1 CHEN Hanwen1 LIU Qiliang2

(1.Business School, University of International Business and Economics 100029)
(2.School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology 430072)

【Abstract】The role of the media as an external governance mechanism in the capital market has been verified by empirical evidence and is increasingly given public attention. However, similar to active stock markets and close analyst followings, negative media reports may exert pressure on firms and their management, resulting in the avoidance of risky but valuable innovation projects (“market pressure hypothesis”). This tendency is more apparent when the media industry as a whole is crazy for sensational news. The current media ecology in China is rightly featured by the epidemic, scandalized, sentimentalized, tabloid news and even false news (Xiong et al., 2011), which is greatly alien to the institutional environment required by “mass innovation” and the “spirit of the craftsman” advocated by the central government. Therefore, exploring the effect of media pressure on corporate innovation under China’s context should generate more implications for theoretical research and reality. By measuring media pressure and corporate innovation by the number of negative media reports, we test this hypothesis. Original data on media reports are obtained from China Infobank and data on patents are manually collected from the website of the National Intellectual Property Administration, PRC. The results show that the number of negative media reports is significantly and negatively associated with corporate innovation, which is consistent with the market pressure hypothesis. This remains unchanged after controlling the bias induced by endogeneity and conducting a series of robustness tests. Furthermore, after differentiating media reports by content, source, severity, and depth, we find that only accounting-related negative media reports are negatively related to corporate innovation with statistical significance, supporting that short-term performance pressure impedes corporate innovation; more authoritative and severe negative media reports are more likely to reduce corporate innovation, suggesting that more negative reports lead to more negative effects; and deeper negative media reports are more likely to inhibit corporate innovation, whereas those from business journals, which can restore the whole events, promote innovation, showing the importance of responsible, objective, and comprehensive media reporting. Finally, the numbers of all media and non-negative media reports are positively related to corporate innovation. This paper makes three important contributions. First, it verifies the market pressure hypothesis using corporate innovation as an example in China’s current media ecology. The literature supports the corporate governance role of the media (Dyck et al, 2008; Li and Shen, 2010). However, the potential negative effect of media pressure on firms has been overlooked. Second, it broadens the literature by contributing a more comprehensive and deep understanding of the role of media in the capital market. Different from Dai et al. (2015), we find more profound and interesting results after manually collecting all media reports on firms and then differentiating their nature. The number of negative media reports is negatively related to corporate innovation, whereas the number of total and non-negative media reports demonstrates the opposite, challenging the findings of Dai et al. (2015). Finally, this paper gives some enlightening findings. For example, negative media reports without depth curb corporate innovation, whereas negative reports that can restore events suggest that only responsible, objective, and deep media reports can function as good corporate governance mechanisms. This study also has realistic implications. Our results do not necessarily indicate that the capital market does not need monitoring or negative reporting from the media. On the contrary, it detects a lot of corporate fraud (Miller, 2006). We encourage the media to restore events based on careful verification and thorough investigation with authenticity and objectivity in mind, rather than releasing news solely to attract audiences. Therefore, it is compelling for the government to develop a sound media ecology by strengthening self-regulation for the industry, improving the litigation and indemnity system, and increasing punishments for illegal media and actions.

【Keywords】 media; negative media reports; enterprise innovation; market pressure; risk-taking;

Download this article

    Footnote

    [1]. ① Negative reports are more likely to attract the attention of the audience and produce sensational effects, thus exerting greater impact and pressure on the companies and managers involved.

    [2]. ② This does not mean that all the current negative reports in China are untruthful and irresponsible rumors. The authors want to point out that the current media ecology will amplify the pressure effect of negative media reports on the whole.

    [3]. ① Since PSM method can only alleviate the influence of missing controlled variables (Lennox et al, .2012), another first-order difference model is adopted for testing. The main test results still exist. Due to space limitation, the report is not available. Interested readers can request it by contacting the authors.

    [4]. ① The four major securities newspapers are China Securities Journal, Shanghai Securities News, Securities Times and Securities Daily. The four major authoritative business newspapers are 21st Century Business Herald, The Economic Observer, China Business Journal and China Business News Daily.

    [5]. ① Due to space limitation, the test results are not listed, and interested readers can request them by contacting the authors.

    References

    Cu, W. & Li, P. Nankai Business Review (南开管理评论), (1) (2012).

    Fu, L., Wan, D. & Zhang, Y. Journal of Financial Research (金融研究), (10) (2012).

    Hao, Y. & Liu, X. Management World (管理世界), (5) (2009).

    Li, H., Tang, Y. & Zuo, J. Journal of Financial Research (金融研究), (2) (2013).

    Li, P. & Shen, Y. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (4) (2010).

    Liu, Q., Li, Y. & Zhang, J., Management World (管理世界), (11) (2013).

    Lu, T. & Dang, Y. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (6) (2014).

    Wen, J. & Feng, G. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (3) (2012).

    Wu, Y. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (3) (2012).

    Xiong, Y., Li, C. & Wei, H. Management World (管理世界), (10) (2011).

    Yu, Z., Tian, G. Qi, B. et al. Management World (管理世界), (9) (2011).

    Zhang, J., Lu, Z. Zheng, W. et al. World Economy (世界经济), (10) (2012).

    Zhao, J., He, X. & Wu, F. Management World (管理世界), (11) (2010).

    Zheng, Z., Ding, D. & Wang, C. Journal of Financial Research (金融研究), (12) (2011).

    Acharya, V., and K. V. Subramanian, 2009, “Bankruptcy Codes and Innovation,”Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 22, 4949–4988.

    Acharya, V., R. Baghai, and K. V. Subramanian, 2014, “Wrongful Discharge Laws and Innovation,” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 27, 301–346.

    Aghion, P., J. VanReenen, and L. Zingales, 2013, “Innovation and Institutional Ownership,” American Economic Review, Vol. 103, 277–304.

    Aghion, P., P. Howitt, and S. Prantl, 2015, “Patent Rights, Product Market Reforms, and Innovation,” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 20, 223–262.

    Ahern, K. R., and D. Sosyura, 2015, “Rumor Has It: Sensationalism in Financial Media,” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 28, 2050–2093.

    Asker, J., J. Farre-Mensa, and A. Ljungqvist, 2015, “Corporate Investment and Stock Market Listing: A Puzzle?” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 28, 342–390.

    Atanassov, J., 2013, “Do Hostile Takeovers Stifle Innovation? Evidence from Antitakeover Legislation and Corporate Patenting,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 68, 1097–1131.

    Bednar, M. K., 2012, “Watchdog or Lapdog? A Behavioral View of the Media as a Corporate Governance Mechanism,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 (1), 131–150.

    Bertrand, M., and S. Mullainathan, 2003, “Enjoying the Quiet Life? Corporate Governance and Managerial Preferences,” Journal of Political Economics, Vol. 111, 1043–1075.

    Brown, J. R., G. Martinsson, and B. C. Petersen, 2013, “Law, Stock Markets, and Innovation,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 68, 1517–1549.

    Brown, J., S. Fazzari, and B. Petersen, 2009, “Financing Innovation and Growth: Cash flow, External Equity and the 1990s R&D Boom,” Journal of Finance, Vol.64, 51–185.

    Bushee, B. J., J. E. Core, W. Guay, and S. J. Hamm, 2010, “The Role of the Business Press as an Information Intermediary,” Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 48, 1–19.

    Chemmanur, T., E. Loutskina, and X. Tian, 2014, “Corporate Venture Capital, Value Creation, and Innovation,” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 27, 2434–2473.

    Chemmanur, T., and X. Tian, 2013, “Do Anti–takeover Provisions Spur Corporate Innovation,” AFA 2012 Chicago Meetings Paper.

    Core, J. E., W. Guay, and D. F. Larcker, 2008, “The Power of the Pen and Executive Compensation,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 88, 1–25.

    Dai, L., R. Shen, and B. Zhang, 2015, “The Dark Side of News Coverage: Evidence from Corporate Innovation,” Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2564718.

    Dyck, A., A. Morse, and L. Zingales, 2010, “Who Blows the Whistle on Corporate Fraud?” Journal of Finance, Vol. 65, 2213–2253.

    Dyck, A., N. Volchkova, and L. Zingales, 2008, “The Corporate Governance Role of the Media: Evidence from Russia,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 63, 1093–1135.

    Ederer, F., and G. Manso, 2013, “Is Pay for Performance Detrimental to Innovation,” Management Science, Vol. 59, 1496–1513.

    Fang, V., X. Tian, and S. Tice, 2014, “Does Stock Liquidity Enhance or Impede Firm Innovation,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 69, 2085–2125.

    Ferreira, D., G. Manso, and A. Silva, 2014, “Incentives to Innovate and the Decision to Go Public or Private,” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 27, 256–300.

    Fulghieri, P., and M. Sevilir, 2011, “Mergers, Spin-offs, and Employee Incentives,” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 24, 2207–2241.

    Graham, J., C. Harvey, and S. Rajgopal, 2005, “The Economic Implications of Corporate Financial Reporting,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 40, 3–73.

    He, J. J., and X. Tian, 2013, “The Dark Side of Analyst Coverage: The Case of Innovation,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 109, 856–878.

    Holmstrom, B., 1989, “Agency Costs and Innovation,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 12, 305–327.

    Hsu, P. H., X. Tian, and Y. Xu, 2014, “Financial Development and Innovation: Cross-country Evidence,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 112, 116–135.

    Koh, P. S., and D. M. Reeb, 2015, “Missing R&D,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 60, 73–94.

    Lennox, C., J. R. Francis, and Z. Wang, 2012, “Selection Models in Accounting Research,” Accounting Review, Vol. 87, 589–616.

    Manso, G., 2011, “Motivating Innovation,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 66, 1823–1860.

    Miller, G. S., 2006, “The Press as a Watchdog for Accounting Fraud,” Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 44, 1001–1033.

    Mullainathan, S., and A. Shleifer, 2002, “Media Bias,” NBER Working Paper No. 9295.

    Mullainathan, S., and A. Shleifer, 2005, “The Market for News,” American Economic Review, Vol. 95, 1031–1053.

    Piotroski, J. D., T. J. Wong, and T. Zhang, 2015, “Political Incentives to Suppress Negative Information: Evidence from Chinese Listed Firms,” Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 53, 405–459.

    Shleifer, A., and R. Vishny, 1990, “Equilibrium Short Horizons of Investors and Firms,” American Economic Review, Vol. 80, 148–153.

    Stein, J., 1989, “Efficient Capital Markets, Inefficient Firms: A Model of Myopic Corporate Behavior,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 104, 655–669.

    Tian, X., and T. Wang, 2014, “Tolerance for Failure and Corporate Innovation,” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 27, 211–255.

This Article

ISSN:0577-9154

CN: 11-1081/F

Vol 52, No. 08, Pages 125-139

August 2017

Downloads:0

Share
Article Outline

Abstract

  • 1 Introduction
  • 2 Literature review and research hypotheses
  • 3 Research design
  • 4 Empirical results and analysis
  • 5 Further empirical analysis and robustness test
  • 6 Conclusion and enlightenment
  • Footnote

    References