The Effect of Board Capital Development on Innovation Performance of High-Tech Enterprises in Shandong Province, China

Main Article Content

Wang Fei
Chalermkiat Wongvanichtawee
Jidapa Chollathanrattanapong

Abstract

The objectives of this study were threefold: This study aimed to investigate the influence of board capital investment on technological innovation performance in high-tech enterprises. Specifically, it examined the relationships between board capital, technological innovation resources, and the quality of innovation strategies, as well as their collective impact on innovation performance. Utilizing a quantitative research method, 450 questionnaires were distributed to board members of high-tech enterprises in Shandong Province, with 401 valid responses, yielding an 89.11% validity rate. Structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were employed to test the proposed hypotheses.


The results revealed several key findings: 1) Human capital (HCB), social capital (SCB), and institutional capital (ICB) of the board significantly affect the innovation performance of high-tech enterprises; 2) The human capital of the board has a significant positive impact on resource acquisition and the quality of strategic decisions, while social capital significantly impacts strategic decision quality but not resource acquisition. Institutional capital does not significantly affect resource acquisition but positively influences the quality of strategic decisions; and 3) Technological innovation resource acquisition and the quality of strategic decision-making both have significant positive effects on technological innovation performance.

Article Details

How to Cite
Fei, W., Wongvanichtawee, C., & Chollathanrattanapong, J. (2024). The Effect of Board Capital Development on Innovation Performance of High-Tech Enterprises in Shandong Province, China. Journal of Multidisciplinary in Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(6), 3227–3242. Retrieved from https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jmhs1_s/article/view/273007
Section
Research Articles

References

Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.942092

Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2021). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46.

Bendig, D., Foege, J. N., Endriß, S., & Brettel, M. (2020). The effect of family involvement on innovation outcomes: The moderating role of board social capital. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(3), 249-272. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12522

Billand, P., Bravard, C., & Durieu, J. (2019). Firm heterogeneity and the Pattern of R&D collaborations. Economic Inquiry, 57(4), 1896-1914.

Boukouras, A. (2011). Separation of ownership and control: Delegation as a commitment device. Electronic Journal, 33(44). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1839245

Byun, J., Sung, T.E., & Park, H.W. (2017). Technological innovation strategy: How do technology life cycles change by technological area. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(1), 98-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2017.1297397

Chiu, C.M., Hsu, M.H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001

Cornforth, C. (2001). What makes boards effective? An examination of the relationships between board inputs, structures, processes and effectiveness in non-profit organizations. Corporate Governance, 9(3), 217-227.

Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154-1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x

Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2019). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50

Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (2021). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325.

Feng, J., Pan, Y., & Zhuang, W. (2022). Measuring the enterprise green innovation strategy decision-making quality: A moderating—mediating model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(22). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.915624

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

Grant, R. M. (2021). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109-122.

Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

Latour, B. (2022). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225-248. https://doi.org/10.1086/421123

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (2020). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252308

Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2017). The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 369-380.

Nutt, P. C. (2008). Investigating the success of decision-making processes. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 425-455.

Xie, Y. (2003). Current situation and problems of China’s board of directors’ constraint mechanism: A descriptive empirical analysis of 500 listed companies in China. Business Research, 2(19), 63-66.

Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Tontti, V. (2002). Social capital, knowledge, and the international growth of technology-based new firms. International Business Review, 11(3), 279-304.

Zhou, G., Zhang, L., & Zhang, L. (2019). Corporate social responsibility, the atmospheric environment, and technological innovation investment. Sustainability, 11(2), 481.