Featured Product
This Week in Quality Digest Live
Innovation Features
Harry Hertz
Nine takeaways from Baldrige recipients
Adam J. Fleisher
Can they replace artifacts for measuring isotopes?
Innovating Service With Chip Bell
Great leaders do not reflect but rather radiate energetic passion
Caroline Zimmerman
Clarity about the most critical business problems can shield you from pursuing data and AI for their wow factor
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
An environmental and technological analysis suggests that eco-friendly plastic is almost ready to hit the shelves

More Features

Innovation News
Purpose-built for cannabis analysis
True 3D holographic displays are practical with only moderate computational requirements
Inspect nozzle welds using phased array ultrasound testing techniques including ray-tracing, scanner simulation, coverage maps
Produce large parts up to 300 × 300 × 450 mm without residual stress, gas cross flow, or having to pre-sinter powder bed
Interfacial launches highly filled, proprietary polymer masterbatches
‘Completely new diagnostic platform’ could prove to be a valuable clinical tool for detecting exposure to multiple viruses
Precitech ships Nanoform X diamond turning lathe to Keene State College

More News

Peter Dizikes

Innovation

A Stake in Innovation

Laws allowing companies to prioritize stakeholders boost innovative activity

Published: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 - 14:09

Want to encourage innovation? A new study co-authored by an MIT professor finds that little-known state laws called “constituency statutes” have significant effects on the quantity and quality of innovative business actions.

The statutes, which allow companies to prioritize the interests of “stakeholders”—often employees rather than just shareholders—tend to allow businesses more time to bring innovations to market, rather than forcing those companies to prioritize quarterly financial results at the exclusion of new products and new activities.

“Constituency statutes are pretty important,” says Aleksandra Kacperczyk an associate professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and an author of a new paper detailing the study.

Overall, constituency statutes, which exist in 34 U.S. states and were largely introduced during the 1980s, raise the rate of patenting among firms by at least 6.4 percent, according to the study.

“When the company is more stakeholder-focused, one very concrete consequence is that workers are being more protected,” explains Kacperczyk, who is a Fred Kayne (1960) Career Development Professor of Entrepreneurship. “And we know from some other [research] that when that happens, then people are more willing to engage in risk-taking, which is very conducive to innovation.... Breakthrough ideas take time and [can] put your career at stake.”

Moreover, the number of citations per patent filed in states with constituency statutes rises by at least 6.3 percent, the study shows.

“There were not only more patents, but they were also more original and influential,” Kacperczyk adds.

The study, “The Impact of Stakeholder Orientation on Innovation: Evidence from a Natural Experiment” published in the journal Management Science (Nov. 12, 2015) is authored by Kacperczyk and Caroline Flammer, an assistant professor at the University of Western Ontario.

A tradeoff to obtain innovation

To conduct the study, the researchers used the so-called “differences in differences” methodology to analyze the changing rates of patent activity in the 34 states with constituency statutes, vs. patent activity rates in the 16 states lacking them.

The statutes appear to have helped firms especially in the areas of clean energy and consumer goods.

“Increasingly, companies are engaging consumers in innovation,” Kacperczyk notes.

Ohio was the first state to adopt a constituency statute, in 1984, and Texas is the most recent to have done so, in 2006. The study looked at roughly 160,000 examples of firm performance in the United States, using data from the National Bureau of Economic Research Patent Data Project, as well as Standard & Poor’s Compustat database of financial information for companies.

The key mechanism at work, Kacperczyk emphasizes, is the “tradeoff that you face between short-term profits and the long-term view, in that innovation takes longer to develop.... There has been consistent evidence that the market in the short term doesn’t recognize [this] value.”

Rather than feeling pressure to, say, cut a research and development group to boost the short-term bottom line, the laws enable company management to keep betting on innovation investment even when it does not maximize shareholder value at every given moment.

Warding off takeovers

In the study, the researchers do address potentially complicating factors that might seem to make the connection between constituency statutes and innovation merely coincidental. For instance: Could it be the case that innovative firms successfully lobbied to have constituency statutes enacted, and that the increase in patenting would have happened anyway?

Actually, no: Constituency statutes were often implemented to ward off potential hostile takeovers of in-state companies, in which certain investors attempt to seize control of firms to maximize short-term shareholder value.

“Hostile takeovers can be detrimental to workers and communities, so they really needed this,” Kacperczyk says. “This is precisely when the interests of shareholders are being pitted against the interests of stakeholders. You need the stakeholder supremacy model to protect the interests of stakeholders.”

Indeed, Kacperczyk concludes, constituency statutes do help a firm’s financials, but over a lengthier period of time than takeover specialists sometimes want.

“It’s better for the bottom line,” Kacperczyk says. “To the extent that shareholders care about profits, then in the long run it aligns with shareholder interests. It’s a way of thinking about how to create value for both stakeholders and shareholders.”

First published Feb. 17, 2016, in MIT News.

Discuss

About The Author

Peter Dizikes’s picture

Peter Dizikes

Peter Dizikes writes for MIT News and MIT Technology Review at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Dizikes writing covers social sciences, humanities, and business, with many stories involving the history of science and science policy. Dizikes has reported and written articles for The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, Salon, Slate, Seed, Nature online, and other publications. He was an editor/writer for ABCNews.com and for Time. He frequently wrote features on education and also produced articles for university publications. Special projects included writing an educator’s guide to evolution, accompanying NOVA’s acclaimed documentary, Judgment Day.