公司治理对企业技术创新的作用机理及实证研究
|
摘要
进入了21世纪的知识经济时代,技术创新对于企业以及地区发展的重要性更加突显。我国政府在“十二五”规划中已经明确指出企业是技术创新的重要主体,并积极努力地推动我国企业从“中国制造”向“中国创造”转变,以期逐渐摆脱技术对外依赖性,改变经济增长方式,实现国民经济的长足发展。在这种形势下,企业如何扮演好国家技术创新的重要角色推动经济的进步?存在一个普遍现象是企业面对相同的外部环境却表现出不同的创新绩效,因此需要从企业内部寻找答案。本研究正是从企业内部制度环境的视角来分析企业内部治理与企业技术创新的关系和作用。目前公司治理与企业技术创新之间的研究较少,其中的关键问题,即公司治理与企业技术创新的关系路径、作用机理和影响方式至今仍未清晰,有待系统而深入的研究。
基于上述问题,本文主要开展了以下研究,并取得了一些研究成果：
1.分析了公司治理与企业技术创新是否存在一定的关系。针对这一问题,从企业技术创新形成或影响的要素、企业技术创新的条件和特征的角度来分析两者之间的关系,发现了公司治理在企业技术创新的制度保障、动力提供和资源使用方面扮演着重要角色。在此基础上,对两者之间的关系进行理论溯源,为进一步的分析论证奠定了理论基础。
2.使用扎根理论的方法从实践中获取数据建立了公司治理与企业技术创新的关系模型。通过对我国企业界和学术界资深人士的深度访谈,按照扎根理论研究的流程和分析方法,构建了公司治理与企业技术创新的三个关系路径,即公司治理的制度系统与企业技术创新的关系,公司治理的动力系统与企业技术创新的关系,公司治理主体的资源系统与企业技术创新的关系。模型的建立为进一步研究公司治理对企业技术创新的作用机理和影响方式提供了前提和坚实的基础。
3.具体分析了公司治理各系统对企业技术创新的作用机理。在模型构建的基础上,详细分析了公司治理三个系统对企业技术创新的作用机理,并由此提取了其中的关键要素,制度系统主要涉及产权制度、三会(股东会、董事会和监事会)运作、核心治理机构一董事会制度要素；动力系统主要涉及股权结构、股权性质、高管的长期和短期激励机制要素；资源系统主要涉及企业技术创新过程中治理主体的资源投入要素。要素的提取使公司治理对企业技术创新的影响路径描述得更加清晰且能够进行一定的定量分析。
4.就公司治理各系统要素对企业技术创新的影响作用进行了实证研究。采用中国上市公司具有竞争性行业的最新企业数据,使用统计分析以及APES案例研究等方法详细分析了公司治理三个系统中的要素对企业技术创新的影响。实证分析显示,在公司治理的制度系统方面,除了产权明晰、治理机构运作规范和有效,董事会规模适度且具有一定的独立性有利于企业技术创新；在公司治理的动力系统方面,股权配置具有一定制衡度以及对高管的长期激励机制有利于企业技术创新；在公司治理主体的资源系统方面,分布在不同治理机构的治理主体为技术创新投入所需的各类资源,同时形成一个联络网络,作用于创新活动,股东一般提供资金资源,而在具体的技术创新决策和执行过程中,董事会、高层管理者、研发技术部门参与重要程度高,而高层管理者和研发技术部门是技术创新活动网络中的两大核心机构。
5.为指导实践提出了参考建议。企业可以通过以上公司治理的三个系统来促进企业技术创新活动。公司治理这三个系统并不是孤立的,是联系紧密、相辅相成的,在完善的制度系统基础上通过公司治理的安排则可以形成强劲的动力系统,在动力系统的作用下便可充分发挥治理主体的资源系统为企业技术创新服务。基于理论分析以及实证研究,本研究针对我国企业现状,为如何完善公司治理的制度系统,加强公司治理的动力系统,优化公司治理主体的资源系统从而提高企业技术创新方面给予了参考意见。
本文的创新点可以概括为以下几个方面：
1.通过构建公司治理与企业技术创新三个层面的关系模型,即公司治理的制度系统、动力系统、治理主体的资源系统与企业技术创新间的关系模型,从理论层面并实证分析了公司治理各系统对企业技术创新的作用机理,解决了以往学术文献无法系统完整描述公司治理和企业技术创新关系的问题。而且本研究以企业技术创新的要素、创新的条件以及创新的特点为研究基点,结合公司治理的系统要素,挖掘了两者之间的关系,为进一步深入探究公司治理与企业技术创新之间的相互作用做出了一定贡献。
2.研究中使用扎根理论(grounded theory)来构建了公司治理与企业技术创新三个层面的关系模型,第一次使模型的构建具有了质性分析的理论基础。在实证研究部分,应用了基于APES方法的案例研究,分析说明了存在于不同公司治理机构的治理主体的资源对企业技术创新的作用。
3.研究了公司治理主体的资源系统在企业技术创新过程中的作用。本研究提出了公司治理主体的资源系统与企业技术创新的关系,并以中国典型创新企业作为案例对此进行了实证研究,展现了不同治理机构的治理主体资源在企业技术创新过程中的作用,延伸并补充了本领域的研究内容。
总之,关于公司治理与企业技术创新之间的关系尚缺乏系统而深入的研究,本研究在文献和理论分析以及实际数据的基础上,使用科学的研究方法探索构建了全面和清晰的公司治理与企业技术创新的关系模型,对作用机理进行了详细分析并开展了实证研究,结论对此领域的研究给予了较多补充。同时,本文的研究将对我国企业的管理者和政策制定者在国家深化改革发展的进程中不断完善企业制度促进企业创新发展方面提供有益的参考。
Entering the21st century---an era of knowledge economy, technological innovation has become more important for both the enterprises and regional development. In the Twelfth Five-Year Plan, the Chinese government clearly points out the major role of the enterprises in state technological innovation, and actively promotes the Chinese enterprises to transfer themselves from "Made in China" to "Created in China", so that China can gradually get rid of the dependence on the foreign technology, change the mode of economy growth and achieve a long-term development. In this situation, how do the Chinese enterprises play their role in the national technological innovation well? There is a common phenomenon that the enterprises face the same external environment, but exhibit different innovation performance. It is necessary to look for answers from within the enterprises. Thus, from the view of enterprise internal system environment, this study is aimed to analyze the relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation. Unfortunately, there is a small number of literatures on researching the relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation now, and some key issues, namely the relation path, inherent mechanism and effect mode, are still in exploration and need more systematic and in-depth study.
According to the questions mentioned above, this dissertation has carried out the following research and made some findings:
1. It is analyzed whether there is a certain relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation. This dissertation makes analysis from the views of key factors forming or influencing technological innovation, from conditions of technological innovation and from characteristics of technological innovation. It is found that corporate governance plays an important role in technological innovation activities, as far as institutional system guarantee, power delivery and resource supply are concerned. Then through tracing back to the theories with regard to the relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation, the theoretical foundation is laid for the further study.
2. It is intended to build a model of the relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation by using Grounded Theory with data from practice. In-depth interviews with the veterans in business and academy are made, and then according to the procedures and analytical methods of Grounded Theory, three relationship paths are formed, namely the relationship between institutional system of corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation, the relationship between power system of corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation, the relationship between resource system of corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation. The model provides premise and solid foundation for the further research on the inherent mechanism.
3. An analysis is made of the inherent mechanism of three systems of corporate governance in detail. Based on the established model, it is analyzed how the three systems of corporate governance respectively effect enterprise technological innovation, and accordingly some key factors are selected. The institutional system mainly involves the factors of property right system, operation of shareholder, board of directors and supervisor organs, the system of board; the power system mainly involves structure and nature of equity stake, long-term and short-term incentive mechanism of top management; and the resource system refers to the resource input of corporate governance subjects. The extracted factors make the impact path from corporate governance to enterprise technological innovation more clear, and quantitative analysis can be performed through them.
4. An empirical research is made on the influence of the key factors of three corporate governance systems on enterprise technological innovation. Statistic analysis with the latest data of Chinese listed companies in competitive industry and case study with APES research method are used in the empirical research. The conclusions show, regarding the institutional system, in addition to clear property rights, regulatory and effective operation of governance institutional organs, moderate size and independence of board are in favor of enterprise technological innovation; regarding the power system, the ownership balancing and long-term incentive such as stock ownership are conducive to enterprise technological innovation; regarding the resource system, the subjects of corporate governance in different governance organs supply enterprise technological innovation with necessary or important resources and meanwhile form a network acting on the technological innovation. In general, shareholders provide financial resource, while in the process of innovation decision and implementation, board, general manager and R&D department are the most important participants, and the general manager and R&D department are the two core organs in the network of enterprise technological innovation activities.
5. Some recommendations for the enterprises in practice have been proposed. People can promote technological innovation effectively through the three systems of corporate governance. The three systems of corporate governance are not separated, but are closely related. On the basis of healthy institutional system, a strong power system can be produced for enterprise technological innovation through measures of corporate governance, and the power system can push the corporate governance subjects to devote their resources into innovation activities. According to the theoretical analysis and empirical research, this dissertation also gives some advice for the Chinese enterprises on how to improve technological innovation by completing the institutional system of corporate governance, by strengthening power systems of corporate governance and by optimizing resource system of corporate governance.
The new ideas contributed to theory and practice are listed below:
1. Through building the three-level relationship model, namely the institutional system, power system and resource system of corporate governance related with enterprise technological innovation, the mechanism of corporate governance influencing enterprise technological innovation is analyzed both theoretically and empirically, which solves the problem in previous literatures on how to comprehensively and systematically demonstrate the relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation. And in this study, the analysis is carried out from the perspective of enterprise technological innovation, concretely from its factors, its conditions, its characteristics, in combination with system factors of corporate governance to find the inner relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation, which makes some contributions to further research on the interaction between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation.
2. Grounded Theory is applied in this study to build the three-level relationship model, which makes the model have theoretical foundation from qualitative analysis for the first time. In the empirical research part, APES method is applied in the case study to show how the resources of corporate governance subjects in different organs play their roles in the process of enterprise technological innovation.
3. A research is made on the influence of resource system of corporate governance on enterprise technological innovation. It is proposed that there exists a relationship between the resource system of corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation. By using Chinese typical innovative enterprise as a case, the empirical study exhibits how the resources of governance subjects in different corporate organs act on innovation. This extends and complements the research content in this field.
Above all, the relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation lacks more comprehensive and in-depth study now. This dissertation has tried to establish the relationship model between them based on the literatures, theories and data in practice, analyze the inherent mechanism and carry out empirical research, so as to provide new views to this area. And it is hoped that this dissertation will help managers and policy makers improve the enterprise institutional system and promote enterprise technological innovation in the process of deepening reform and development in our country.
基于上述问题,本文主要开展了以下研究,并取得了一些研究成果：
1.分析了公司治理与企业技术创新是否存在一定的关系。针对这一问题,从企业技术创新形成或影响的要素、企业技术创新的条件和特征的角度来分析两者之间的关系,发现了公司治理在企业技术创新的制度保障、动力提供和资源使用方面扮演着重要角色。在此基础上,对两者之间的关系进行理论溯源,为进一步的分析论证奠定了理论基础。
2.使用扎根理论的方法从实践中获取数据建立了公司治理与企业技术创新的关系模型。通过对我国企业界和学术界资深人士的深度访谈,按照扎根理论研究的流程和分析方法,构建了公司治理与企业技术创新的三个关系路径,即公司治理的制度系统与企业技术创新的关系,公司治理的动力系统与企业技术创新的关系,公司治理主体的资源系统与企业技术创新的关系。模型的建立为进一步研究公司治理对企业技术创新的作用机理和影响方式提供了前提和坚实的基础。
3.具体分析了公司治理各系统对企业技术创新的作用机理。在模型构建的基础上,详细分析了公司治理三个系统对企业技术创新的作用机理,并由此提取了其中的关键要素,制度系统主要涉及产权制度、三会(股东会、董事会和监事会)运作、核心治理机构一董事会制度要素；动力系统主要涉及股权结构、股权性质、高管的长期和短期激励机制要素；资源系统主要涉及企业技术创新过程中治理主体的资源投入要素。要素的提取使公司治理对企业技术创新的影响路径描述得更加清晰且能够进行一定的定量分析。
4.就公司治理各系统要素对企业技术创新的影响作用进行了实证研究。采用中国上市公司具有竞争性行业的最新企业数据,使用统计分析以及APES案例研究等方法详细分析了公司治理三个系统中的要素对企业技术创新的影响。实证分析显示,在公司治理的制度系统方面,除了产权明晰、治理机构运作规范和有效,董事会规模适度且具有一定的独立性有利于企业技术创新；在公司治理的动力系统方面,股权配置具有一定制衡度以及对高管的长期激励机制有利于企业技术创新；在公司治理主体的资源系统方面,分布在不同治理机构的治理主体为技术创新投入所需的各类资源,同时形成一个联络网络,作用于创新活动,股东一般提供资金资源,而在具体的技术创新决策和执行过程中,董事会、高层管理者、研发技术部门参与重要程度高,而高层管理者和研发技术部门是技术创新活动网络中的两大核心机构。
5.为指导实践提出了参考建议。企业可以通过以上公司治理的三个系统来促进企业技术创新活动。公司治理这三个系统并不是孤立的,是联系紧密、相辅相成的,在完善的制度系统基础上通过公司治理的安排则可以形成强劲的动力系统,在动力系统的作用下便可充分发挥治理主体的资源系统为企业技术创新服务。基于理论分析以及实证研究,本研究针对我国企业现状,为如何完善公司治理的制度系统,加强公司治理的动力系统,优化公司治理主体的资源系统从而提高企业技术创新方面给予了参考意见。
本文的创新点可以概括为以下几个方面：
1.通过构建公司治理与企业技术创新三个层面的关系模型,即公司治理的制度系统、动力系统、治理主体的资源系统与企业技术创新间的关系模型,从理论层面并实证分析了公司治理各系统对企业技术创新的作用机理,解决了以往学术文献无法系统完整描述公司治理和企业技术创新关系的问题。而且本研究以企业技术创新的要素、创新的条件以及创新的特点为研究基点,结合公司治理的系统要素,挖掘了两者之间的关系,为进一步深入探究公司治理与企业技术创新之间的相互作用做出了一定贡献。
2.研究中使用扎根理论(grounded theory)来构建了公司治理与企业技术创新三个层面的关系模型,第一次使模型的构建具有了质性分析的理论基础。在实证研究部分,应用了基于APES方法的案例研究,分析说明了存在于不同公司治理机构的治理主体的资源对企业技术创新的作用。
3.研究了公司治理主体的资源系统在企业技术创新过程中的作用。本研究提出了公司治理主体的资源系统与企业技术创新的关系,并以中国典型创新企业作为案例对此进行了实证研究,展现了不同治理机构的治理主体资源在企业技术创新过程中的作用,延伸并补充了本领域的研究内容。
总之,关于公司治理与企业技术创新之间的关系尚缺乏系统而深入的研究,本研究在文献和理论分析以及实际数据的基础上,使用科学的研究方法探索构建了全面和清晰的公司治理与企业技术创新的关系模型,对作用机理进行了详细分析并开展了实证研究,结论对此领域的研究给予了较多补充。同时,本文的研究将对我国企业的管理者和政策制定者在国家深化改革发展的进程中不断完善企业制度促进企业创新发展方面提供有益的参考。
Entering the21st century---an era of knowledge economy, technological innovation has become more important for both the enterprises and regional development. In the Twelfth Five-Year Plan, the Chinese government clearly points out the major role of the enterprises in state technological innovation, and actively promotes the Chinese enterprises to transfer themselves from "Made in China" to "Created in China", so that China can gradually get rid of the dependence on the foreign technology, change the mode of economy growth and achieve a long-term development. In this situation, how do the Chinese enterprises play their role in the national technological innovation well? There is a common phenomenon that the enterprises face the same external environment, but exhibit different innovation performance. It is necessary to look for answers from within the enterprises. Thus, from the view of enterprise internal system environment, this study is aimed to analyze the relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation. Unfortunately, there is a small number of literatures on researching the relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation now, and some key issues, namely the relation path, inherent mechanism and effect mode, are still in exploration and need more systematic and in-depth study.
According to the questions mentioned above, this dissertation has carried out the following research and made some findings:
1. It is analyzed whether there is a certain relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation. This dissertation makes analysis from the views of key factors forming or influencing technological innovation, from conditions of technological innovation and from characteristics of technological innovation. It is found that corporate governance plays an important role in technological innovation activities, as far as institutional system guarantee, power delivery and resource supply are concerned. Then through tracing back to the theories with regard to the relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation, the theoretical foundation is laid for the further study.
2. It is intended to build a model of the relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation by using Grounded Theory with data from practice. In-depth interviews with the veterans in business and academy are made, and then according to the procedures and analytical methods of Grounded Theory, three relationship paths are formed, namely the relationship between institutional system of corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation, the relationship between power system of corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation, the relationship between resource system of corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation. The model provides premise and solid foundation for the further research on the inherent mechanism.
3. An analysis is made of the inherent mechanism of three systems of corporate governance in detail. Based on the established model, it is analyzed how the three systems of corporate governance respectively effect enterprise technological innovation, and accordingly some key factors are selected. The institutional system mainly involves the factors of property right system, operation of shareholder, board of directors and supervisor organs, the system of board; the power system mainly involves structure and nature of equity stake, long-term and short-term incentive mechanism of top management; and the resource system refers to the resource input of corporate governance subjects. The extracted factors make the impact path from corporate governance to enterprise technological innovation more clear, and quantitative analysis can be performed through them.
4. An empirical research is made on the influence of the key factors of three corporate governance systems on enterprise technological innovation. Statistic analysis with the latest data of Chinese listed companies in competitive industry and case study with APES research method are used in the empirical research. The conclusions show, regarding the institutional system, in addition to clear property rights, regulatory and effective operation of governance institutional organs, moderate size and independence of board are in favor of enterprise technological innovation; regarding the power system, the ownership balancing and long-term incentive such as stock ownership are conducive to enterprise technological innovation; regarding the resource system, the subjects of corporate governance in different governance organs supply enterprise technological innovation with necessary or important resources and meanwhile form a network acting on the technological innovation. In general, shareholders provide financial resource, while in the process of innovation decision and implementation, board, general manager and R&D department are the most important participants, and the general manager and R&D department are the two core organs in the network of enterprise technological innovation activities.
5. Some recommendations for the enterprises in practice have been proposed. People can promote technological innovation effectively through the three systems of corporate governance. The three systems of corporate governance are not separated, but are closely related. On the basis of healthy institutional system, a strong power system can be produced for enterprise technological innovation through measures of corporate governance, and the power system can push the corporate governance subjects to devote their resources into innovation activities. According to the theoretical analysis and empirical research, this dissertation also gives some advice for the Chinese enterprises on how to improve technological innovation by completing the institutional system of corporate governance, by strengthening power systems of corporate governance and by optimizing resource system of corporate governance.
The new ideas contributed to theory and practice are listed below:
1. Through building the three-level relationship model, namely the institutional system, power system and resource system of corporate governance related with enterprise technological innovation, the mechanism of corporate governance influencing enterprise technological innovation is analyzed both theoretically and empirically, which solves the problem in previous literatures on how to comprehensively and systematically demonstrate the relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation. And in this study, the analysis is carried out from the perspective of enterprise technological innovation, concretely from its factors, its conditions, its characteristics, in combination with system factors of corporate governance to find the inner relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation, which makes some contributions to further research on the interaction between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation.
2. Grounded Theory is applied in this study to build the three-level relationship model, which makes the model have theoretical foundation from qualitative analysis for the first time. In the empirical research part, APES method is applied in the case study to show how the resources of corporate governance subjects in different organs play their roles in the process of enterprise technological innovation.
3. A research is made on the influence of resource system of corporate governance on enterprise technological innovation. It is proposed that there exists a relationship between the resource system of corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation. By using Chinese typical innovative enterprise as a case, the empirical study exhibits how the resources of governance subjects in different corporate organs act on innovation. This extends and complements the research content in this field.
Above all, the relationship between corporate governance and enterprise technological innovation lacks more comprehensive and in-depth study now. This dissertation has tried to establish the relationship model between them based on the literatures, theories and data in practice, analyze the inherent mechanism and carry out empirical research, so as to provide new views to this area. And it is hoped that this dissertation will help managers and policy makers improve the enterprise institutional system and promote enterprise technological innovation in the process of deepening reform and development in our country.
引文
[1]Ang J., Cole R., Lin J. Agency costs and ownership structure [J]. Journal of Finance,2000, 55:81-106
[2]Bagno R.B., Cheng L. C. In Search of the Elements of an Intra-organizational Innovation System for Brazilian Automotive Subsidiaries [J]. Complex Systems Concurrent Engineering,2007,693-700
[3]Baysinger B.D., Kosnik R.D., Turk T.A. Effects of Board and Ownership Structure on Corporate R&D Strategy [J]. Academy of Management Journal,1991,34(1):205-214
[4]Belloc F. Corporate Governance and Innovation:a survey [J]. Journal of Economic Surveys, 2012,26(5):835-864
[5]Bergman M. M. Advances in mixed method research. London:Sage Publications,2008a
[6]Berle A., Means G. The Modern Corporation and Private Property, New York:Commerce Clearing House,1932
[7]Boone A.L, Field L.C., Karpof J.M., Raheja C.G. The determinants of corporate board size and composition:An empirical analysisi [R].2005
[8]Brickley J.A., Coles J.L., Jarrell G.A. Leadership structure:Separating the CEO and chairman of the board [J]. Journal of Corporate Finance,1997,4:189-220
[9]Burgelman R. A., Kosnik T. J., Poel M. V. Toward an innovative capabilities audit framework [M].Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation,1988
[10]Burgelman R. A., Maidique M. A., Wheelwright S.C. Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation [M]. NewYork, Mc-Graw-Hill,2004
[11]Chen H. L. CEO Tenure, Independent Directors and Corporate Innovation [J]. Journal of Applied Finance & Banking,2013,3(5):187-197
[12]Chiesa V., Coughlan P., Voss C. A. Development of a Technical Innovation Audit [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1996,13:105-136
[13]Christensen M C, Bower L J. Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(3):197-218
[14]Coles J. L., Daniel N. D., Naveen L. Boards:Does one size fit all? [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,2008,87(2):329-356
[15]Corbin J., Strauss A. Grounded theory research:procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria [J]. Qualitative Sociology,1990,13(1):3-21
[16]Cragg M. I., Dyck I. J. A. Privatization and management incentives:evidence from United Kingdom, Harvard Business School, Boston:MA 02163, October 2002
[17]Dalziel T., Gentry R.J.,Bowerman M. An Integrated Agency-Resource Dependence View of the Influence of Directors' Human and Relational Capital on Firms'R&D Spending[J]. Journal of Management Studies,2011,48(6):1217-1242
[18]David P., Hitt M. A., Gimeno J. The Influence of Activism by Institutional Investors on R&D [J]. The Academy of Management Journal,2001, (44):144-157
[19]De Cleyn S.H., Braet J. Do board composition and investor type influence innovativeness in SMEs? [J]. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2012,8(3):285-308
[20]DeHayes D. W., Haeberle W. L. University alumni small business research program:A study of emerging businesses, Centre for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Indiana University, Bloomington,1990
[21]Denis Diane K., McConnell John J. International Corporate Governance. Purdue CIBER Working Papers (2001), Paper 17. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ciberwp/17
[22]Dooley L., Cormican K., Wreath S., O'Sullivan D. Supporting systems innovation [J]. International Journal of Innovation Management,2000,4(3):277-299
[23]Drakos A.A., Bekiris F.V. Corporate performance, managerial ownership and endogeneity:A simultaneous equations analysis for the Athens stock exchange [J]. Research in International Business and Finance,2010,24(1):24-38
[24]Eisenberg T., Sundgren S., Wells M. T. Larger board size and decreasing firm value in mall firms [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,1998,48:35-54
[25]Eisenhardt K.M., Graebner M.E. Theory building from case studies:opportunities and challenges [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(1):25-32
[26]Faccio M., Lang L. The ultimate ownership of western european corporations [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,2002,65:265-395
[27]Fama E., Jensen M. Separation of ownership and control [J]. Journal of Law and Economics, 1983, (26):301-325
[28]Francis J., Smith A. Agency costs and innovation some empirical evidence[J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics,1995,19(2-3):383-409
[29]Ghosh B. C., Liang T. W., Meng T. T., Chen B. The key success factors, distinctive capabilities, and strategic thrusts of top SMEs in Singapore [J]. Journal of Business Research,2001,51(3):209-221
[30]Glaser B. G., Strauss A. L. The discovery of grounded theory:strategies for qualitative research [M]. Chicago:Aldine.1967
[31]Glunk U, Heijltjes M.G, Olie R. Design Characteristics and Functioning of Top Management Teams in Europe [J]. European Management Journal,2001,19(3):291-300
[32]Grant R. M. Prosporing in dynamically-competitive environments:organizational capability as knowledge integration [J]. Organization Science,1996, (4):375-388
[33]Greg A. Stevens and James Burley, "3000 Raw Ideas= 1 Commercial Success!" Research Technology Management, May-June 1997
[34]Hadlock C. J., Lumer G. B. Compensation, turnover, and top management incentives: historical evidence [J]. The Journal of Business,1997,70(2):153-187
[35]Hambrick D. C, Mason P. A. Upper Echelons:the organization as a reflection of its top managers [J]. The Academy of Management Review,1984,9(2):193-206
[36]Hansen G S., Hill C. W. L. Are Institutional Investors Myopic? A Time-series Study of Four Technology Driven Industries [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1991,12(1):1-16
[37]Hewitt-Dundas N. Resource and capability constraints to innovation in small and large plants [J]. Small Business Economics,2006,26 (3):257-277
[38]Hill C.W.L, Snell S. A., Effects of Ownership Structure and Control on Corporate Productivity [J]. Academy of Management Journal,1989,32(1):25-46
[39]Himmelberg C. P., Hubbard R. G. Incentive pay and the market for CEOs:an analysis of pay-for-performance sensitivity [C]. Tuck-JFE Contemporary Corporate Governance Conference, June 2000
[40]Holmstrom B. Agency costs and innvoation" [J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,1989,12(3):305-327
[41]Hoskisson R. E., Hitt M. A. Strategic control system and relative R&D investment in multproduct firms [J]. Academy of Management Journal,1988,9(6):605-621
[42]Hoskisson R. E., Hitt M. A., Johnson R A., Grossman W. Conflicting voices:the effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies [J]. Academy of Management,2002,45(4):697-716
[43]Hosono K, Tomiyama M, Miyagawa T. Corporate governance and research and evelopment: Evidence from Japan[J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,2004,13(2): 141-164
[44]Huson M., Parrino R., Starks L. Internal monitoring mechanisms and CEO turnover:A long-term perspective[J]. Journal of Finance,2001,56:2265-2297
[45]Jensen M. C. The modern industrial revolution, exit and the failure of internal control systems [J]. Journal of Finance.1993,48:831-880
[46]Jensen M. C., Meckling W. H. Theory of the firm:managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,1976,3:305-360.
[47]Jensen M. C., Murphy K. J. Performance pay and top-management incentives [J], Journal of Political Economy,1990,98(2):.225-264
[48]Jones K., Hall C., Bilalis N. Product innovation profiling for European SMEs, Utilising the PIP SCORE approach to enhance product innovation through supported training, in Proceedings of the 31st ECBS, Dublin,2001
[49]Kim K.H., Buchanan R. CEO Duality Leadership And Firm Risk-Taking Propensity [J]. The Journal of Applied Business Research-First Quarter,2011,24(1):27-42
[50]Kim Y., Song K., Lee J. Determinants of technological innovation in the small firms of Korea [J]. R & D management,1993,23 (3):215-226
[51]La Porta R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. Corporate ownership around the world [J]. Journal of Finance,1999,54:471-517
[52]La Porta R., Lopez-de-Silanes R, Shleifer A., Vishny R. Investor protection and corporate governance [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,2000,58(1-2):3-27
[53]La Porta R., Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A., Vishny R.. Investor protection and corporate valuation [J]. Journal of Finance,2002,57:1147-1170
[54]Lazonick, O'Sullivan,2000, Corporate Governance, Innovation, and Economic Performance in the EU, Project policy report, June,2000
[55]Lee P. M., O'neill H. M. Ownership Structures and R&D Investments of U.S. and Japanese Firms:Agency and Stewardship Perspectives [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2003, 46(2):212-225
[56]Lipton M., Lorsch J.W. A modest proposal for improved corporate governance [J]. The Business Lawyer,1992,48(1):59-77
[57]Madden G., Savage S. J. Telecommunications productivity, catch-up and innovation [J]. Telecommunications Policy,1999,23:65-81
[58]Mak Y. T., Yuanto K. Board Size Really Matters:Further Evidence on the Negative Relationship Between Board Size and Firm Value.2003, Pulses by Singapore Stock Exchange
[59]Miller J. S., Wiseman R. M., Gomez-Mejia L. R., The fit between CEO compensation design and firm risk [J]. Academy of Management,2002,45(4):745-756
[60]Miozzo M., Dewick P. Building competitive advantage:innovation and corporate governance in European construction [J]. Research Policy,2002,31(6):989-1008
[61]Morck R., Shleifer A., Vishny R. W. Management ownership and market valuation:an empirical analysis [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,1988,64:215-241
[62]Murphy K. J. "Executive Compentation", Handbook of Labor Economics, Orley Ashenfelter and David Card, eds. North Holland,1999:2485-2563
[63]Nulla Y. M. The Study of CEO Compensation System in American Health Companies:An Analysis between CEO Compensation, Firm Size, Accounting Firm Performance, and Corporate Governance [J]. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research,2012, 3(8):1-10
[64]OECD. OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34813_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
[65]Oliver C. Strategic responses to Institutional Processes [J]. Academy of Managemen Review, 1991,16(1):145-179
[66]O'Sullivan M., A. Innovation, Industrial Department, and Corporate Government [D]. Harvard University,1996
[67]Pandit N. R. The creation of theory:a recent application of the grounded theory method[EB/OL]. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/pandit.html.
[68]Pearce J. A., Zahra S. A. The relative power of ceos and boards of directors:Associations with corporate performance [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1991,12(2):135-153
[69]Penrose E. T. The theory of the growth of the firm [M]. New York:Wiley,1959
[70]Peteraf, M. A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage:A resource-based view [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14(3):179-191
[71]Qi Daqing, Wu Woody, Zhang Hua. Shareholding structure and corporate performance of partially privatized firms:Evidence from listed Chinese companies [J]. Pacific Basin Finance Journal,2000,8(5):587-610
[72]Rajna R. G, Zingales L. Power in a theory of the firm [J]. The QuarterlyJournal of Economics,1998,113(2):387-432
[73]Rajna R. G, Zingales L. The governance of the new enterprise. NBER Working Paper,2000
[74]Schmookler J. Invention and Economic Growth [M].1966, Cambridge
[75]Shakir R. Board size, executive directors and property firm performance in Malaysia [J]. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal,2008,14(1):66-80
[76]Shleifer A., Vishny R.W. Large Shareholders and Corporate Control [J]. Journal of Political Economy,1986,94(3):461-488
[77]Steven G A., Burley J.3000 raw ideas equals 1 commercial successl [J]. Research Technological Management,1997,40(May-June):16-27
[78]Strauss A. L., Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research:grounded theory procedures and techniques [M]. Newbury Park, California:Sage,1990
[79]Suddaby R. From the editors:what grounded theory is not [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4):633-642
[80]Teece D. Profiting from technological innovation:implication for integration, collaboration, licensing and public [J]. Research Policy,1986,15(2):285-305
[81]Tricker R. International Corporate Governance:Text, Readings and Cases, Prentice Hall, New Jersey,1994
[82]Tricker R.I. Corporate governance:Practices, procedures, and powers in British companies and their boards of directors [M].1984, Gower Pub. Co.
[83]Tylecote A., Conesa E. Corporate governance, innovation systems and industrial performance[J]. Industry and Innovation,1999,6:25-50.
[84]Vafeas N. Board Structure and the Informativeness of Earnings [J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,2000,19(2):139-160
[85]Vicentin F., Tylecote A. Financial and corporate governance systems and technological change:the incompleteness of fit the UK and Italy [J]. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics,2003, (114):81-108
[86]Wang L.F., Zhao X. K. A research on the management incentive mechanism of the Chinese corporations [C]. Information Technology in Medicine and Education (ITME), Hokodate, Hokkaido,2012, (2):1051-1055
[87]Wu Y. Honey, CalPERS Shrunk the Board. Working Paper.2000, University of Chicago
[88]Wu Y. The impact of public opinion on board structure changes, director progression, and CEO turnover:evidence from CalPERS corporate governance program. Journal of Corporate Finance,2004,10,199-227
[89]Yermack D. Higher Market Valuation of Companies with a Small Board of Directors [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,1996,(40):185-211
[90]Zahra S.A., Neubaum D. O., Huse M. Entrepreneurship in Medium-Size Companies: Exploring the Effects of Ownership and Governance Systems [J]. Journal of Management, 2000,26(5):947-976
[91]Zhang G. P., Fan T., Wang Z. Y. The Effectiveness of Corporate Governance:Moderating Effect of Directorates' Characteristics and TMT Turnover [J]. Technology for Education and Learning Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing,2012, (136):395-403
[92]Zuaini Ishak, Nor Aziah Abdul Manaf. Board of Directors and Corporate Diversification in Malaysia [J]. International Journal of Critical Accounting,2013,5(2):123-142
[93]安同良,方艳,卢多维克.阿尔科塔.中国制造业企业技术创新的障碍与对策-基于江苏省制造业企业问卷调查的实证分析[J].经济理论与经济管理,2005,(7)：41-46
[94]曹崇延,王淮学.企业技术创新能力评价指标体系研究[J].预测,1998,(2)：66-68
[95]陈劲,耿雪松.基于审计的企业技术创新管理[J]_管理工程学报,1999,13(3)：1-4
[96]费方域.什么是公司治理?[J].上海经济研究,1996,(5)：36-39
[97]冯福根,温军.中国上市公司治理与企业技术创新关系的实证分析[J].中国工业经济,2008.7：91-101
[98]傅家骥.技术创新学[M].1998,清华大学出版社,北京
[99]高道才,张忠,黄金光.自主创新的主体动力系统探析[J],青岛农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(9)：62-66
[100]高建,傅家骥.中国企业技术创新的关键问题：1051家企业技术创新调查分析[J].中外科技政策与管理,1996,(1)：24-33
[101]哈默,布林.管理大未来[M].2008,中信出版社,北京,陈劲译
[102]韩超群,赵维双,王育红,李敏.企业技术创新能力的模糊综合评价模型研究[J].沈阳工业学院学报,2003,22(3)：88-91
[103]贺灵,程鑫,邱建华.技术创新要素协同对企业创新绩效影响的实证分析[J].财经理论与实践,2012,39(177)：103-107
[104]胡汝银,司徒大年.投资者保护：理论与实践综述[R].上海证券交易所研究中心.2002
[105]华锦阳.试论公司治理对企业技术创新的影响[J].自然辩证法通讯,2002,(1)：52-57
[106]华锦阳.公司治理对公司绩效的作用机制[J].经济管理,2003,(18)：13-19
[107]黄园,陈昆玉.高管层股权激励对企业技术创新的影响研究-基于深沪A股上市公司的面板分析[J].科技管理研究,2012,32(12)：179-182
[108]贾旭东,谭新辉.经典扎根理论及其精神对中国管理研究的现实价值[J].管理学报.2010,7(5)：657-665
[109]雷辉,刘鹏.中小企业高管团队特征对技术创新的影响-基于所有权性质视角[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2013,(1)：149-156
[110]雷家骗,洪军.技术创新管理[M].2012,机械工业出版社,北京
[111]李超玲,曹兴.分离性、关联性与公司法人财产权-基于法经济学的公司治理起源研究[C].南开大学第四届公司治理国际会议,2007
[112]李维安,曹廷求.股权机构,治理机制与城市银行绩效-来自河南,山东两省的调查证据[J].经济研究,2004,(12)：4-15
[113]李维安,李汉军.股权结构、高管持股与公司绩效—来自民营上市国内公司的证据[J].南开管理评论,2006,9(5)：4-10
[114]李维安.公司治理学[M].2009,第二版,高等教育出版社,北京
[115]李垣,方润生,杨建君,刘益.企业治理结构与企业创新行为选择[M].2004,河南人民出版社,郑州
[116]林毅夫,蔡窻,李周.现代企业制度的内涵与国有企业改革方向[J].经济研究,1997,(3)：3-10
[117]刘三林,孟凡萍.技术创新与制度和管理创新的一体化[J].研究与发展管理,2000,12(5)：17-20
[118]刘伟,刘星.公司治理机制对信息技术投入的影响研究[J].科技进步与对策,2007,24(2)：93-95
[119]刘小斌,韩玉启.企业技术创新的条件、问题和模式研究[J].商场现代化,2009,(11)：74-75
[120]刘晓敏,李垣,史会斌.治理机制对企业技术创新的影响路径研究[J].科学学研究,2005,23(5)：697-702
[121]刘媛媛,黄卓,谢德逊,何小锋.中国上市公司股权结构与公司绩效实证研究[J].经济与管理研究,2011,(2)：24-32
[122]马宁,官建成.企业技术创新能力审计内容与审计基准[J].中国软科学,2000,(5)：80-85
[123]马永斌.公司治理与股权激励[M].2010,清华大学出版社,北京
[124]毛荐其.企业技术创新审计[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2000,21(8)：22-24
[125]宁家耀,王蕾.中国上市公司董事会行为与公司绩效关系实证研究[J].管理科学,2008,21(2)：9-17
[126]钱颖一.企业的治理结构改革和融资改革[J].经济研究,1995,(1)：20-29
[127]邱建华,贺灵.技术创新要素的全面协同与企业核心竞争力关系的实证研究[J].财务与金融,2012,(4)：48-52
[128]任海云.公司治理对R&D投入与企业绩效关系调节效应研究[J].管理科学,2011,(5)：37-47
[129]任力.马克思对技术创新理论的贡献[J].当代经济研究,2007,7：16-20
[130]塞德曼.质性研究中的访谈：教育与社会科学研究者指南[M].2009,第3版,重庆人学山版社,重庆,周海涛主译
[131]沈满洪,张兵兵.交易费用理论综述[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2013,43(2)：45-58
[132]宋刚,唐蔷,陈锐,纪阳.复杂性科学视野下的科技创新[J].科学对社会的影响,2008,2：28-33
[133]宋增基,夏铭,陈开.中国上市银行薪酬激励与银行绩效[J].金融论坛,2011,6：18-24
[134]宋志红.企业创新能力来源的实证研究[D].对外经济贸易大学,2006
[135]孙健,薛永玲,韩广智,徐惠.阻碍中小企业技术创新的因素分析-青岛市中小企业创新状况问卷调查分析[J].山东经济,2001,(1)：72-74
[136]孙细明,杨娟,张金隆.企业技术创新能力的三级模糊评价[J].武汉化工学院学报,2003,25(3)：85-87
[137]孙晓娥.扎根理论在深度访谈研究中的实例探析[J].西安大学交通大学学报(社会科学版),2011,(6)：87-92
[138]谭庆美,何娟,马娇.董事会结构、股权结构与中小企业绩效[J].广州金融学院学报.2011,26(3)：16-33
[139]王德武.中国上市公司治理的有效性评价研究[D].2007,辽宁大学
[140]王昌林.基于公司治理机制的企业技术创新行为研究[D].2004,重庆大学
[141]王昌林,蒲勇健.公司治理、技术创新路径与产业专业化[J].管理工程学,2005,(3)：10-14
[142]王丽芳,赵晓康.论公司治理对企业技术创新的影响[J].河北学刊,2012,(2)：144-147
[143]王璐,高鹏.扎根理论及其在管理学研究中的应用问题探讨[J].外国经济与管理,2010,32(12)：10-18
[144]王永明,宋艳伟.独立董事对上市公司技术创新投资的影响研究[J].科学管理研究,2010,28(5)：94-97
[145]魏江,郭斌,许庆瑞.企业技术能力与技术创新能力的评价指标体系[J].中国高新技术企业评价,1995,(5)：33-38
[146]魏杰.人力资本的激励机制[J].中外企业文化,2001,(20)：10-15
[147]文芳.中国上市公司R&D投资影响因素及其经济后果研究[D].2008,暨南大学
[148]吴敬琏.现代企业与企业改革[M].1994,天津人民出版社,天津
[149]解学梅,曾赛星.基于分类回归的技术创新影响因素测评[J].工业工程与管理,2009,14(6)：77-84
[150]熊彼特.经济发展理论[M].1990,商务印书馆,北京
[151]徐二明,张晗.中国上市公司国有股权对技术创新方式的影响[J].经济管理,2008,15(2)：194-210
[152]许庆瑞.研究、发展与技术创新[M].2000,高等教育出版社,北京
[153]许庆瑞,郑刚,陈劲.全面创新管理：创新管理新范式初探[J].管理学报,2006,3(2)：135-142
[154]许庆瑞,朱凌,王方瑞.从研发-营销的整合到技术创新·市场创新的整合[J].科研管理,2006,27(2)：22-30
[155]杨建君.公司治理与企业技术创新关系研究综述[J].科技管理研究,2007,(11)：132-134
[156]杨勇,达庆利,周勤.公司治理对企业技术创新投资影响的实证研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007,11：61-65
[157]姚红义.青海中小企业技术创新实证分析[J].青海社会科学,2006,(5)：48-51
[158]叶克林,胡荣华,刘光平.企业技术创新影响因素的实证研究[J].学海,2003,(3)3：85-91
[159]殷.案例研究：设计与方法[M].2009,重庆大学出版社,重庆,周海涛等译
[160]于骥,宋海霞.公司治理与企业技术创新的关系探析[J].市场论坛,2009.64(07)：33-35
[161]张炜.基于技术创新审计的创新型企业评价标准构建[J].科学学研究,2007,25(2)：466-469
[162]张五常.企业的契约性质[J]. Journal of Law and Economics,1983,26:1-21
[163]张璇,高蓓蓓.公司治理对企业R&D投资影响的研究-基于中国上市公司分行业的实证研究[J].中国管理科学,2009,17(special issue):260-265
[164]张业韬,王成军,刘渐和.国有股对企业技术创新的影响路径研究[J].科技与经济,2009,22(6)：10-13
[165]张业韬,王成军,刘渐和.高管持股对企业创新投入的影响研究[J].财会通讯,2012,(2)：132-137
[166]赵洪江,陈学华,夏晖.公司自主创新投入与治理结构特征实证研究[J].中国软科学,2008,(7)：145-149
[167]郑刚.基于TIM视角的技术创新过程中各创新要素全面协同机制研究[D].杭州,浙江大学,2004
[168]郑海涛,谢洪明,杨英楠,王成.技术创新的影响因素的"CCLEⅡ"模型研究[J].科研管理,2011,32(10)：1-9
[169]仲伟俊,梅姝娥.企业技术创新管理理论与方法[M].2009,科学出版社,北京
[170]周杰,薛有志.公司内部治理机制对R&D投入的影响-基于总经理持股与董事会结构的实证研究[J].研究与发展管理,2008,(3)：1-9
[171]周其仁.市场里的企业：一个人力资本与非人力资本的特别合约[J].经济研究,1996,(6)：71-80
[172]周中胜.公司治理改善与资源配置效率优化-来自中国上市公司的经验数据[J].山西财经大学学报,2011,33(2)：69-75
[2]Bagno R.B., Cheng L. C. In Search of the Elements of an Intra-organizational Innovation System for Brazilian Automotive Subsidiaries [J]. Complex Systems Concurrent Engineering,2007,693-700
[3]Baysinger B.D., Kosnik R.D., Turk T.A. Effects of Board and Ownership Structure on Corporate R&D Strategy [J]. Academy of Management Journal,1991,34(1):205-214
[4]Belloc F. Corporate Governance and Innovation:a survey [J]. Journal of Economic Surveys, 2012,26(5):835-864
[5]Bergman M. M. Advances in mixed method research. London:Sage Publications,2008a
[6]Berle A., Means G. The Modern Corporation and Private Property, New York:Commerce Clearing House,1932
[7]Boone A.L, Field L.C., Karpof J.M., Raheja C.G. The determinants of corporate board size and composition:An empirical analysisi [R].2005
[8]Brickley J.A., Coles J.L., Jarrell G.A. Leadership structure:Separating the CEO and chairman of the board [J]. Journal of Corporate Finance,1997,4:189-220
[9]Burgelman R. A., Kosnik T. J., Poel M. V. Toward an innovative capabilities audit framework [M].Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation,1988
[10]Burgelman R. A., Maidique M. A., Wheelwright S.C. Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation [M]. NewYork, Mc-Graw-Hill,2004
[11]Chen H. L. CEO Tenure, Independent Directors and Corporate Innovation [J]. Journal of Applied Finance & Banking,2013,3(5):187-197
[12]Chiesa V., Coughlan P., Voss C. A. Development of a Technical Innovation Audit [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1996,13:105-136
[13]Christensen M C, Bower L J. Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(3):197-218
[14]Coles J. L., Daniel N. D., Naveen L. Boards:Does one size fit all? [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,2008,87(2):329-356
[15]Corbin J., Strauss A. Grounded theory research:procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria [J]. Qualitative Sociology,1990,13(1):3-21
[16]Cragg M. I., Dyck I. J. A. Privatization and management incentives:evidence from United Kingdom, Harvard Business School, Boston:MA 02163, October 2002
[17]Dalziel T., Gentry R.J.,Bowerman M. An Integrated Agency-Resource Dependence View of the Influence of Directors' Human and Relational Capital on Firms'R&D Spending[J]. Journal of Management Studies,2011,48(6):1217-1242
[18]David P., Hitt M. A., Gimeno J. The Influence of Activism by Institutional Investors on R&D [J]. The Academy of Management Journal,2001, (44):144-157
[19]De Cleyn S.H., Braet J. Do board composition and investor type influence innovativeness in SMEs? [J]. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2012,8(3):285-308
[20]DeHayes D. W., Haeberle W. L. University alumni small business research program:A study of emerging businesses, Centre for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Indiana University, Bloomington,1990
[21]Denis Diane K., McConnell John J. International Corporate Governance. Purdue CIBER Working Papers (2001), Paper 17. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ciberwp/17
[22]Dooley L., Cormican K., Wreath S., O'Sullivan D. Supporting systems innovation [J]. International Journal of Innovation Management,2000,4(3):277-299
[23]Drakos A.A., Bekiris F.V. Corporate performance, managerial ownership and endogeneity:A simultaneous equations analysis for the Athens stock exchange [J]. Research in International Business and Finance,2010,24(1):24-38
[24]Eisenberg T., Sundgren S., Wells M. T. Larger board size and decreasing firm value in mall firms [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,1998,48:35-54
[25]Eisenhardt K.M., Graebner M.E. Theory building from case studies:opportunities and challenges [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(1):25-32
[26]Faccio M., Lang L. The ultimate ownership of western european corporations [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,2002,65:265-395
[27]Fama E., Jensen M. Separation of ownership and control [J]. Journal of Law and Economics, 1983, (26):301-325
[28]Francis J., Smith A. Agency costs and innovation some empirical evidence[J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics,1995,19(2-3):383-409
[29]Ghosh B. C., Liang T. W., Meng T. T., Chen B. The key success factors, distinctive capabilities, and strategic thrusts of top SMEs in Singapore [J]. Journal of Business Research,2001,51(3):209-221
[30]Glaser B. G., Strauss A. L. The discovery of grounded theory:strategies for qualitative research [M]. Chicago:Aldine.1967
[31]Glunk U, Heijltjes M.G, Olie R. Design Characteristics and Functioning of Top Management Teams in Europe [J]. European Management Journal,2001,19(3):291-300
[32]Grant R. M. Prosporing in dynamically-competitive environments:organizational capability as knowledge integration [J]. Organization Science,1996, (4):375-388
[33]Greg A. Stevens and James Burley, "3000 Raw Ideas= 1 Commercial Success!" Research Technology Management, May-June 1997
[34]Hadlock C. J., Lumer G. B. Compensation, turnover, and top management incentives: historical evidence [J]. The Journal of Business,1997,70(2):153-187
[35]Hambrick D. C, Mason P. A. Upper Echelons:the organization as a reflection of its top managers [J]. The Academy of Management Review,1984,9(2):193-206
[36]Hansen G S., Hill C. W. L. Are Institutional Investors Myopic? A Time-series Study of Four Technology Driven Industries [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1991,12(1):1-16
[37]Hewitt-Dundas N. Resource and capability constraints to innovation in small and large plants [J]. Small Business Economics,2006,26 (3):257-277
[38]Hill C.W.L, Snell S. A., Effects of Ownership Structure and Control on Corporate Productivity [J]. Academy of Management Journal,1989,32(1):25-46
[39]Himmelberg C. P., Hubbard R. G. Incentive pay and the market for CEOs:an analysis of pay-for-performance sensitivity [C]. Tuck-JFE Contemporary Corporate Governance Conference, June 2000
[40]Holmstrom B. Agency costs and innvoation" [J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,1989,12(3):305-327
[41]Hoskisson R. E., Hitt M. A. Strategic control system and relative R&D investment in multproduct firms [J]. Academy of Management Journal,1988,9(6):605-621
[42]Hoskisson R. E., Hitt M. A., Johnson R A., Grossman W. Conflicting voices:the effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies [J]. Academy of Management,2002,45(4):697-716
[43]Hosono K, Tomiyama M, Miyagawa T. Corporate governance and research and evelopment: Evidence from Japan[J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,2004,13(2): 141-164
[44]Huson M., Parrino R., Starks L. Internal monitoring mechanisms and CEO turnover:A long-term perspective[J]. Journal of Finance,2001,56:2265-2297
[45]Jensen M. C. The modern industrial revolution, exit and the failure of internal control systems [J]. Journal of Finance.1993,48:831-880
[46]Jensen M. C., Meckling W. H. Theory of the firm:managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,1976,3:305-360.
[47]Jensen M. C., Murphy K. J. Performance pay and top-management incentives [J], Journal of Political Economy,1990,98(2):.225-264
[48]Jones K., Hall C., Bilalis N. Product innovation profiling for European SMEs, Utilising the PIP SCORE approach to enhance product innovation through supported training, in Proceedings of the 31st ECBS, Dublin,2001
[49]Kim K.H., Buchanan R. CEO Duality Leadership And Firm Risk-Taking Propensity [J]. The Journal of Applied Business Research-First Quarter,2011,24(1):27-42
[50]Kim Y., Song K., Lee J. Determinants of technological innovation in the small firms of Korea [J]. R & D management,1993,23 (3):215-226
[51]La Porta R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. Corporate ownership around the world [J]. Journal of Finance,1999,54:471-517
[52]La Porta R., Lopez-de-Silanes R, Shleifer A., Vishny R. Investor protection and corporate governance [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,2000,58(1-2):3-27
[53]La Porta R., Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A., Vishny R.. Investor protection and corporate valuation [J]. Journal of Finance,2002,57:1147-1170
[54]Lazonick, O'Sullivan,2000, Corporate Governance, Innovation, and Economic Performance in the EU, Project policy report, June,2000
[55]Lee P. M., O'neill H. M. Ownership Structures and R&D Investments of U.S. and Japanese Firms:Agency and Stewardship Perspectives [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2003, 46(2):212-225
[56]Lipton M., Lorsch J.W. A modest proposal for improved corporate governance [J]. The Business Lawyer,1992,48(1):59-77
[57]Madden G., Savage S. J. Telecommunications productivity, catch-up and innovation [J]. Telecommunications Policy,1999,23:65-81
[58]Mak Y. T., Yuanto K. Board Size Really Matters:Further Evidence on the Negative Relationship Between Board Size and Firm Value.2003, Pulses by Singapore Stock Exchange
[59]Miller J. S., Wiseman R. M., Gomez-Mejia L. R., The fit between CEO compensation design and firm risk [J]. Academy of Management,2002,45(4):745-756
[60]Miozzo M., Dewick P. Building competitive advantage:innovation and corporate governance in European construction [J]. Research Policy,2002,31(6):989-1008
[61]Morck R., Shleifer A., Vishny R. W. Management ownership and market valuation:an empirical analysis [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,1988,64:215-241
[62]Murphy K. J. "Executive Compentation", Handbook of Labor Economics, Orley Ashenfelter and David Card, eds. North Holland,1999:2485-2563
[63]Nulla Y. M. The Study of CEO Compensation System in American Health Companies:An Analysis between CEO Compensation, Firm Size, Accounting Firm Performance, and Corporate Governance [J]. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research,2012, 3(8):1-10
[64]OECD. OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34813_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
[65]Oliver C. Strategic responses to Institutional Processes [J]. Academy of Managemen Review, 1991,16(1):145-179
[66]O'Sullivan M., A. Innovation, Industrial Department, and Corporate Government [D]. Harvard University,1996
[67]Pandit N. R. The creation of theory:a recent application of the grounded theory method[EB/OL]. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/pandit.html.
[68]Pearce J. A., Zahra S. A. The relative power of ceos and boards of directors:Associations with corporate performance [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1991,12(2):135-153
[69]Penrose E. T. The theory of the growth of the firm [M]. New York:Wiley,1959
[70]Peteraf, M. A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage:A resource-based view [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14(3):179-191
[71]Qi Daqing, Wu Woody, Zhang Hua. Shareholding structure and corporate performance of partially privatized firms:Evidence from listed Chinese companies [J]. Pacific Basin Finance Journal,2000,8(5):587-610
[72]Rajna R. G, Zingales L. Power in a theory of the firm [J]. The QuarterlyJournal of Economics,1998,113(2):387-432
[73]Rajna R. G, Zingales L. The governance of the new enterprise. NBER Working Paper,2000
[74]Schmookler J. Invention and Economic Growth [M].1966, Cambridge
[75]Shakir R. Board size, executive directors and property firm performance in Malaysia [J]. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal,2008,14(1):66-80
[76]Shleifer A., Vishny R.W. Large Shareholders and Corporate Control [J]. Journal of Political Economy,1986,94(3):461-488
[77]Steven G A., Burley J.3000 raw ideas equals 1 commercial successl [J]. Research Technological Management,1997,40(May-June):16-27
[78]Strauss A. L., Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research:grounded theory procedures and techniques [M]. Newbury Park, California:Sage,1990
[79]Suddaby R. From the editors:what grounded theory is not [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4):633-642
[80]Teece D. Profiting from technological innovation:implication for integration, collaboration, licensing and public [J]. Research Policy,1986,15(2):285-305
[81]Tricker R. International Corporate Governance:Text, Readings and Cases, Prentice Hall, New Jersey,1994
[82]Tricker R.I. Corporate governance:Practices, procedures, and powers in British companies and their boards of directors [M].1984, Gower Pub. Co.
[83]Tylecote A., Conesa E. Corporate governance, innovation systems and industrial performance[J]. Industry and Innovation,1999,6:25-50.
[84]Vafeas N. Board Structure and the Informativeness of Earnings [J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,2000,19(2):139-160
[85]Vicentin F., Tylecote A. Financial and corporate governance systems and technological change:the incompleteness of fit the UK and Italy [J]. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics,2003, (114):81-108
[86]Wang L.F., Zhao X. K. A research on the management incentive mechanism of the Chinese corporations [C]. Information Technology in Medicine and Education (ITME), Hokodate, Hokkaido,2012, (2):1051-1055
[87]Wu Y. Honey, CalPERS Shrunk the Board. Working Paper.2000, University of Chicago
[88]Wu Y. The impact of public opinion on board structure changes, director progression, and CEO turnover:evidence from CalPERS corporate governance program. Journal of Corporate Finance,2004,10,199-227
[89]Yermack D. Higher Market Valuation of Companies with a Small Board of Directors [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,1996,(40):185-211
[90]Zahra S.A., Neubaum D. O., Huse M. Entrepreneurship in Medium-Size Companies: Exploring the Effects of Ownership and Governance Systems [J]. Journal of Management, 2000,26(5):947-976
[91]Zhang G. P., Fan T., Wang Z. Y. The Effectiveness of Corporate Governance:Moderating Effect of Directorates' Characteristics and TMT Turnover [J]. Technology for Education and Learning Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing,2012, (136):395-403
[92]Zuaini Ishak, Nor Aziah Abdul Manaf. Board of Directors and Corporate Diversification in Malaysia [J]. International Journal of Critical Accounting,2013,5(2):123-142
[93]安同良,方艳,卢多维克.阿尔科塔.中国制造业企业技术创新的障碍与对策-基于江苏省制造业企业问卷调查的实证分析[J].经济理论与经济管理,2005,(7)：41-46
[94]曹崇延,王淮学.企业技术创新能力评价指标体系研究[J].预测,1998,(2)：66-68
[95]陈劲,耿雪松.基于审计的企业技术创新管理[J]_管理工程学报,1999,13(3)：1-4
[96]费方域.什么是公司治理?[J].上海经济研究,1996,(5)：36-39
[97]冯福根,温军.中国上市公司治理与企业技术创新关系的实证分析[J].中国工业经济,2008.7：91-101
[98]傅家骥.技术创新学[M].1998,清华大学出版社,北京
[99]高道才,张忠,黄金光.自主创新的主体动力系统探析[J],青岛农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(9)：62-66
[100]高建,傅家骥.中国企业技术创新的关键问题：1051家企业技术创新调查分析[J].中外科技政策与管理,1996,(1)：24-33
[101]哈默,布林.管理大未来[M].2008,中信出版社,北京,陈劲译
[102]韩超群,赵维双,王育红,李敏.企业技术创新能力的模糊综合评价模型研究[J].沈阳工业学院学报,2003,22(3)：88-91
[103]贺灵,程鑫,邱建华.技术创新要素协同对企业创新绩效影响的实证分析[J].财经理论与实践,2012,39(177)：103-107
[104]胡汝银,司徒大年.投资者保护：理论与实践综述[R].上海证券交易所研究中心.2002
[105]华锦阳.试论公司治理对企业技术创新的影响[J].自然辩证法通讯,2002,(1)：52-57
[106]华锦阳.公司治理对公司绩效的作用机制[J].经济管理,2003,(18)：13-19
[107]黄园,陈昆玉.高管层股权激励对企业技术创新的影响研究-基于深沪A股上市公司的面板分析[J].科技管理研究,2012,32(12)：179-182
[108]贾旭东,谭新辉.经典扎根理论及其精神对中国管理研究的现实价值[J].管理学报.2010,7(5)：657-665
[109]雷辉,刘鹏.中小企业高管团队特征对技术创新的影响-基于所有权性质视角[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2013,(1)：149-156
[110]雷家骗,洪军.技术创新管理[M].2012,机械工业出版社,北京
[111]李超玲,曹兴.分离性、关联性与公司法人财产权-基于法经济学的公司治理起源研究[C].南开大学第四届公司治理国际会议,2007
[112]李维安,曹廷求.股权机构,治理机制与城市银行绩效-来自河南,山东两省的调查证据[J].经济研究,2004,(12)：4-15
[113]李维安,李汉军.股权结构、高管持股与公司绩效—来自民营上市国内公司的证据[J].南开管理评论,2006,9(5)：4-10
[114]李维安.公司治理学[M].2009,第二版,高等教育出版社,北京
[115]李垣,方润生,杨建君,刘益.企业治理结构与企业创新行为选择[M].2004,河南人民出版社,郑州
[116]林毅夫,蔡窻,李周.现代企业制度的内涵与国有企业改革方向[J].经济研究,1997,(3)：3-10
[117]刘三林,孟凡萍.技术创新与制度和管理创新的一体化[J].研究与发展管理,2000,12(5)：17-20
[118]刘伟,刘星.公司治理机制对信息技术投入的影响研究[J].科技进步与对策,2007,24(2)：93-95
[119]刘小斌,韩玉启.企业技术创新的条件、问题和模式研究[J].商场现代化,2009,(11)：74-75
[120]刘晓敏,李垣,史会斌.治理机制对企业技术创新的影响路径研究[J].科学学研究,2005,23(5)：697-702
[121]刘媛媛,黄卓,谢德逊,何小锋.中国上市公司股权结构与公司绩效实证研究[J].经济与管理研究,2011,(2)：24-32
[122]马宁,官建成.企业技术创新能力审计内容与审计基准[J].中国软科学,2000,(5)：80-85
[123]马永斌.公司治理与股权激励[M].2010,清华大学出版社,北京
[124]毛荐其.企业技术创新审计[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2000,21(8)：22-24
[125]宁家耀,王蕾.中国上市公司董事会行为与公司绩效关系实证研究[J].管理科学,2008,21(2)：9-17
[126]钱颖一.企业的治理结构改革和融资改革[J].经济研究,1995,(1)：20-29
[127]邱建华,贺灵.技术创新要素的全面协同与企业核心竞争力关系的实证研究[J].财务与金融,2012,(4)：48-52
[128]任海云.公司治理对R&D投入与企业绩效关系调节效应研究[J].管理科学,2011,(5)：37-47
[129]任力.马克思对技术创新理论的贡献[J].当代经济研究,2007,7：16-20
[130]塞德曼.质性研究中的访谈：教育与社会科学研究者指南[M].2009,第3版,重庆人学山版社,重庆,周海涛主译
[131]沈满洪,张兵兵.交易费用理论综述[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2013,43(2)：45-58
[132]宋刚,唐蔷,陈锐,纪阳.复杂性科学视野下的科技创新[J].科学对社会的影响,2008,2：28-33
[133]宋增基,夏铭,陈开.中国上市银行薪酬激励与银行绩效[J].金融论坛,2011,6：18-24
[134]宋志红.企业创新能力来源的实证研究[D].对外经济贸易大学,2006
[135]孙健,薛永玲,韩广智,徐惠.阻碍中小企业技术创新的因素分析-青岛市中小企业创新状况问卷调查分析[J].山东经济,2001,(1)：72-74
[136]孙细明,杨娟,张金隆.企业技术创新能力的三级模糊评价[J].武汉化工学院学报,2003,25(3)：85-87
[137]孙晓娥.扎根理论在深度访谈研究中的实例探析[J].西安大学交通大学学报(社会科学版),2011,(6)：87-92
[138]谭庆美,何娟,马娇.董事会结构、股权结构与中小企业绩效[J].广州金融学院学报.2011,26(3)：16-33
[139]王德武.中国上市公司治理的有效性评价研究[D].2007,辽宁大学
[140]王昌林.基于公司治理机制的企业技术创新行为研究[D].2004,重庆大学
[141]王昌林,蒲勇健.公司治理、技术创新路径与产业专业化[J].管理工程学,2005,(3)：10-14
[142]王丽芳,赵晓康.论公司治理对企业技术创新的影响[J].河北学刊,2012,(2)：144-147
[143]王璐,高鹏.扎根理论及其在管理学研究中的应用问题探讨[J].外国经济与管理,2010,32(12)：10-18
[144]王永明,宋艳伟.独立董事对上市公司技术创新投资的影响研究[J].科学管理研究,2010,28(5)：94-97
[145]魏江,郭斌,许庆瑞.企业技术能力与技术创新能力的评价指标体系[J].中国高新技术企业评价,1995,(5)：33-38
[146]魏杰.人力资本的激励机制[J].中外企业文化,2001,(20)：10-15
[147]文芳.中国上市公司R&D投资影响因素及其经济后果研究[D].2008,暨南大学
[148]吴敬琏.现代企业与企业改革[M].1994,天津人民出版社,天津
[149]解学梅,曾赛星.基于分类回归的技术创新影响因素测评[J].工业工程与管理,2009,14(6)：77-84
[150]熊彼特.经济发展理论[M].1990,商务印书馆,北京
[151]徐二明,张晗.中国上市公司国有股权对技术创新方式的影响[J].经济管理,2008,15(2)：194-210
[152]许庆瑞.研究、发展与技术创新[M].2000,高等教育出版社,北京
[153]许庆瑞,郑刚,陈劲.全面创新管理：创新管理新范式初探[J].管理学报,2006,3(2)：135-142
[154]许庆瑞,朱凌,王方瑞.从研发-营销的整合到技术创新·市场创新的整合[J].科研管理,2006,27(2)：22-30
[155]杨建君.公司治理与企业技术创新关系研究综述[J].科技管理研究,2007,(11)：132-134
[156]杨勇,达庆利,周勤.公司治理对企业技术创新投资影响的实证研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007,11：61-65
[157]姚红义.青海中小企业技术创新实证分析[J].青海社会科学,2006,(5)：48-51
[158]叶克林,胡荣华,刘光平.企业技术创新影响因素的实证研究[J].学海,2003,(3)3：85-91
[159]殷.案例研究：设计与方法[M].2009,重庆大学出版社,重庆,周海涛等译
[160]于骥,宋海霞.公司治理与企业技术创新的关系探析[J].市场论坛,2009.64(07)：33-35
[161]张炜.基于技术创新审计的创新型企业评价标准构建[J].科学学研究,2007,25(2)：466-469
[162]张五常.企业的契约性质[J]. Journal of Law and Economics,1983,26:1-21
[163]张璇,高蓓蓓.公司治理对企业R&D投资影响的研究-基于中国上市公司分行业的实证研究[J].中国管理科学,2009,17(special issue):260-265
[164]张业韬,王成军,刘渐和.国有股对企业技术创新的影响路径研究[J].科技与经济,2009,22(6)：10-13
[165]张业韬,王成军,刘渐和.高管持股对企业创新投入的影响研究[J].财会通讯,2012,(2)：132-137
[166]赵洪江,陈学华,夏晖.公司自主创新投入与治理结构特征实证研究[J].中国软科学,2008,(7)：145-149
[167]郑刚.基于TIM视角的技术创新过程中各创新要素全面协同机制研究[D].杭州,浙江大学,2004
[168]郑海涛,谢洪明,杨英楠,王成.技术创新的影响因素的"CCLEⅡ"模型研究[J].科研管理,2011,32(10)：1-9
[169]仲伟俊,梅姝娥.企业技术创新管理理论与方法[M].2009,科学出版社,北京
[170]周杰,薛有志.公司内部治理机制对R&D投入的影响-基于总经理持股与董事会结构的实证研究[J].研究与发展管理,2008,(3)：1-9
[171]周其仁.市场里的企业：一个人力资本与非人力资本的特别合约[J].经济研究,1996,(6)：71-80
[172]周中胜.公司治理改善与资源配置效率优化-来自中国上市公司的经验数据[J].山西财经大学学报,2011,33(2)：69-75