企业持续开展绿色创新活动是推动经济绿色可持续发展的重要动力. 本文以2009--2022年间中国资本市场A股上市公司为研究样本, 实证检验地方政府环保关注度对企业绿色持续创新水平的影响. 研究发现, 地方政府环保关注度能够提升企业绿色持续创新水平, 表现为地方政府环保关注度越强, 企业绿色持续创新水平越高; 区分企业绿色持续创新活动类型发现, 地方政府环保关注度同时促进了源头管控绿色持续创新水平和末端治理绿色持续创新水平, 但对源头管控绿色持续创新水平影响更明显; 影响机制分析表明, 地方政府环保关注度通过增加环保资源补偿与强化企业管理层环保认知, 进而提升了企业绿色持续创新水平; 进一步的异质性分析揭示, 在CEO有绿色经历、稳定型机构投资者、重污染行业和环境重点保护城市的样本中, 地方政府环保关注度对企业绿色持续创新水平的促进作用更为强烈. 经济后果检验表明, 地方政府环保关注度有利于提升企业环保绩效, 能够改善企业环境表现、增加企业环境优势、降低企业污染物排放和环境治理费用. 本文以企业绿色持续创新水平为切入点, 探讨了地方政府环保关注度的微观层面经济后果, 为当前推动经济向绿色可持续发展提供了理论参考.

基于技术战略和创新经济学的视角，从理论上分析了技术多元化影响企业持续创新的机理，并利用中国制造业上市公司2006–2014年的面板数据进行了实证检验。研究结果表明，技术多元化在总体上有助于企业的持续创新；相关技术多元化和开发式技术多元化对持续创新有正向影响，但探索式技术多元化对投入维度的持续创新有抑制作用。此外，相关技术多元化与非相关技术多元化的协同对持续创新有正向影响，但同时开展探索式技术多元化与开发式技术多元化并不利于企业持续创新。研究还发现互补资产和产品多元化对“技术多元化–持续创新”关系有不同程度的调节效应。

We study two sources of delay in teams: freeriding and lack of communication. Partners contribute to the value of a common project, but have private information about the success of their own efforts. When the deadline is far away, unsuccessful partners freeride on each others' efforts. When the deadline draws close, successful partners stop revealing their success to maintain their partners' motivation. We derive comparative statics results for common team performance measures and find that the optimal deadline maximizes productive efforts while avoiding unnecessary delays. Welfare is higher when information is only privately observable rather than revealed to the partnership.(JEL D82, D83, L26, M54, O30)

The resource-based view of the firm has not been systematically applied to strategic alliances. By examining the role of firm resources in strategic alliances, we attempt, in this paper, to put forward a general resource-based theory of strategic alliances, synthesizing the various findings in the literature on alliances from a resource-based view. The proposed theory covers four major aspects of strategic alliances: rationale, formation, structural preferences, and performance. The resource-based view suggests that the rationale for alliances is the value-creation potential of firm resources that are pooled together. We note that certain resource characteristics, such as imperfect mobility, imitability, and substitutability, promise accentuated value-creation, and thus facilitate alliance formation. We discuss how the resource profiles of partner firms would determine their structural preferences in terms of four major categories of alliances: equity joint ventures, minority equity alliances, bilateral contract-based alliances, and unilateral contract-based alliances. As part of the theory, we propose a typology of inter-partner resource alignment based on the two dimensions of resource similarity and resource utilization, yielding four types of alignment: supplementary, surplus, complementary, and wasteful. We also discuss how partner resource alignment directly affects collective strengths and inter-firm conflicts in alliances, which in turn contribute to alliance performance. Finally, we develop a number of propositions to facilitate empirical testing of the theoretical framework, suggest ways to carry out this testing, indicate future research directions, and list some of the more significant managerial implications of the framework.

Driven by the motivation to raise the ambition level of climate action and to foster the transformation of economies, current climate policy discourse revolves around ways to improve cooperation between industrialized countries and emerging economies. We identify three broad types of initiatives—multilateral-cross sectoral, multilateral, sector specific, and climate and development partnerships—and assess them for potentials to deliver on such objectives with a specific focus on industry transformation. This paper provides new reflections on the institutionalization of international climate cooperation. Specifically, we demonstrate the urgent need to understand what values, norms, and underlying principles drive a cooperation in order to draw conclusions on how to best institutionalize climate cooperation rules.in-use. We conclude that an overemphasis on a CO2 price and on carbon border adjustment mechanisms, such as in the context of the initial proposals for a cross-sectoral climate club envisaged by G7 countries, would have contributed to a further polarization of the international landscape. We find, however, that multilateral, sectoral alliances play an important role for international goal setting and the convergence on standards, metrics, and benchmarks. Based on our analysis, we recommend strengthening multilateral, sector-specific partnerships. These can be focused on sectoral topics as a connector between countries, allowing for a strategically-aligned, increasingly deep collaboration. However, for any initiative to succeed, processes of international institutionalization will be needed in order to agree on rules for implementation based on aligned interests and equity. Building such institutions may well serve as a steppingstone toward more durable cooperation structures between developed economies and emerging economies. In sum, no existing cooperation approach is perfect, but three actions may be taken to move the agenda forward: First, reform of the carbon border adjustment mechanism and removing it from the center of climate club discussions, second, coupling sectoral alliances with climate and development partnerships, and three, designing them in a way to address fears of political influence seeking and superimposition of global north agendas on the global south.