研发价值链定位与全球电子产业的企业绩效[外文翻译]

1、本科毕业论文（设计）外 文 翻 译原文：r&d, value chain location and firm performance in the global electronics industryin todays global electronics industry, innovation is carried out by various value chain participants, including brand-name manufacturers (sometimes called lead firms), contract manufacturers and comp

2、onent suppliers, but there is little understanding of who benefits most from innovation in such networks. this research examines empirically the relationship of r&d spending and location in the value chain (lead vs. non-lead firms) to firm performance in the global electronics industry by using the

3、electronic business 300 data set for 20002005. our results show that firms spending more on r&d have higher gross profits, but do not have higher return on equity (roe) and return on assets (roa). there is a strong positive relationship between lead firms and performance as measured by gross profit,

4、 roe and roa, but the relationship between lead firms and gross profit becomes insignificant when the interaction term of r&d and lead firm is included in the analysis. finally, lead firm status has a positive interaction effect on the relationship between r&d and gross profit. these findings sugges

5、t that the relationship of r&d to performance is mixed, but that lead firms can capture higher value (gross profit) from r&d than contract manufacturers and component suppliers.in todays global economy, outsourcing has become a strategic necessity, especially in fiercely competitive and rapidly chan

6、ging sectors such as electronics. value chains in the electronics industry have steadily disintegrated across corporate and national boundaries for the past several decades. according to baldwin and clark (2006), the electronics industry has evolved to a modular structure in which firms keep a small

7、er set of activities in-house (a smaller footprint) by outsourcing the functions that do not constrain overall business performance. in the past, large electronics firms designed and developed their own products, often using their internal supply chains (linden et al., 2007). today, lead firms (bran

8、d-name manufacturers) focus on core competencies, especially product innovation, marketing and other activities related to brand development, while using specialized suppliers for non-core functions such as manufacturing (sturgeon, 2002; gereffi et al., 2005; yeung, 2006). by outsourcing, lead firms

9、 can get more products faster, reap value from innovations before imitators enter the market, and all of these without making huge capital investments or idling in-house capital assets to meet rapid technological change and volatile market demand (sturgeon, 2002).innovation is often a source of valu

10、e creation and competitiveness (schumpeter, 1934). in todays electronics industry, innovation is carried out by various value chain participants, including lead firms, contract manufacturers (cms) and component suppliers. these diverse companies often cross national borders and form global productio

11、n networks (or value chains). these firms are independent organizations, working closely to leverage local knowledge into commercial success. value created from innovation in the global electronics industry is distributed not only to the lead firm, but also to partners in the firms supply chain (ded

12、rick et al., 2008). while most core technological innovations are done by component suppliers upstream in the industry, lead firms innovate by identifying new product markets and designing products that incorporate new technologies to serve those markets.however, there is little understanding of who

13、 benefits most from innovation in the global electronics industry. the key questions we raise for this research are as follows: what is the relationship of r&d to firm performance? do firms at different levels in the value chain, particularly lead vs. non-lead firms, perform differently? do lead fir

14、ms capture higher value from r&d than non-lead firms? in order to tackle these questions, we conduct an exploratory study by examining empirically the relationship of r&d spending and location in the value chain to firm performance in the global electronics industry. we employ the electronic busines

15、s 300 data set and the hoovers database for the six years from 2000 to 2005.in the next section, we describe the global production network of the electronics industry. section 3 discusses the relationship of r&d and value chain location to firm performance, and proposes hypotheses. section 4 describ

16、es our general empirical model, as well as our data sources and research methodology. we outline our results in section 5. discussion and conclusions are provided in section 6.todays electronics industry consists of a global production network (supply chain) of independent component suppliers, cms o

17、r original design manufacturers (odms), branded firms, distributors and retailers. the supply chain model (figure 1) shows various activities, such as r&d, manufacturing, design and branding, and distribution, sales and service, which are involved in creating value from component suppliers to final

18、customers. each producer purchases inputs and then adds value, which then becomes part of the cost of the next stage of production. the sum of the value added by everyone in the chain equals the final product price (linden et al., 2007; dedrick et al., 2008).most component-level r&d is done by large

19、 manufacturers who supply high-value components such as visual displays, hard drives or key integrated circuits. these components are the most likely to embody proprietary knowledge that helps differentiate the final product and command commensurately higher margins, thereby accounting for a relativ

20、ely large share of the total value added along the supply chain. most other components are low value, such as capacitors and resistors. the suppliers of these components contribute relatively little innovation and earn thin margins, thereby accounting for a small share of the total value added (lind

21、en et al., 2007; dedrick et al., 2008).the assembly of these components into the final product is done mostly by a number of large cms or odms who provide assembly services to brand-name manufacturers. these assemblers compete fiercely for high-volume opportunities, limiting their margins.branded fi

22、rms collaborate with cms/odms to bring new products to market using components from upstream suppliers. these lead firms are system integrators, specializing in high return premium product markets and high value-added activities such as r&d, product design, branding and marketing (sturgeon, 2002; ye

23、ung, 2006). while these firms innovate through product design and system integration, the upstream innovation is a major factor shaping the configuration of final products. creation of new product markets by lead firms in turn can influence the direction of upstream innovation in components (dedrick

24、 and kraemer, 2007). lead firms must thus work closely with component suppliers to integrate advanced technologies in highly sophisticated designs. they can create value by leveraging the innovations of upstream firms to enhance products that consumers find useful and usable (linden et al., 2007; de

25、drick et al., 2008).distribution is mostly decentralized and local, although there are a few large distributors who operate internationally, such as ingram micro and arrow electronics (dedrick and kraemer, 2007). sales are done by large retail chains such as best buy, circuit city, frys, costco, sta

26、ples and walmart. retail outlets operate on a relatively fixed margin from the vendor and seek scale and reach, but price competition plus capital and operating costs keep margins low. sales are also done increasingly by branded vendors directly online, and in cases such as apple and sony, through t

27、heir own stores. the use of direct sales can contribute to the lead firms margins if retail operations are cost effective.as described above, value created from innovation in the global production network is spread out to the lead firm, as well as other firms in the firms supply chain, such as compo

28、nent suppliers and cms/odms. our main focus in this paper is on three types of firms in the global production network: lead firms, cms/odms and component suppliers.innovation generates new products, processes and services, which can create economic value and give a company a competitive edge in the

29、market. however, innovating firms often fail to obtain significant economic returns from an innovation while imitators, customers, suppliers and other industry participants benefit (teece, 1986). according to pisano and teece (2007), an innovator can improve returns on r&d (or capture a bigger slice

30、 of the pie) when it builds protective barriers either in the form of legal protection, such as patents, copyrights or trade secrets, or by other strategies such as investing in complementary assets, such as marketing, manufacturing, distribution channels, brand and technologies.in order to analyze

31、the relationship of innovation and value chain location to firm performance, we conduct stepwise regression analysis of performance measures such as gross profit, return on equity (roe) and return on assets (roa), with r&d spending, a lead firm dummy variable, which indicates whether the firm is a l

32、ead firm or a non-lead firm, an interaction term for r&d spending and the lead firm dummy variable, and industry and region control variables. the interaction term examines if there is a complementary impact of r&d spending and being a lead firm on economic performance.value created from innovation

33、is distributed among firms across the value chain, often extending beyond national boundaries. yet there has been limited theorizing or empirical research on how a firms position in the value chain affects its ability to capture the benefits of innovation. our findings contribute to theory by hypoth

34、esizing and testing a relationship between innovation effort, value chain position and firm performance.our results show that firms spending more on r&d create a greater value as measured by gross profit, but do not improve roe and roa. thus it is likely that r&d enables firms to charge a premium an

35、d earn higher gross profits, but these higher margins are negated by the cost of conducting r&d, so returns to investors are not increased. on the other hand, there is a strong positive relationship between lead firms and gross profit, roe and roa, showing that firms can capture value from branding,

36、 reputation, customer relationships and other benefits that go with their position in the value chain.our results also show a positive interaction effect of lead firm status on the relationship between r&d and gross profit, suggesting that the ability to earn a premium from innovation mostly accrues

37、 to lead firms. while some components suppliers, such as intel, qualcomm and nvidia, may be able to control standards and earn high margins, this ability does not apparently extend to most suppliers, or to cms or odms. without branding or a relationship to the final customer, these companies are for

38、ced to compete primarily on cost, with little ability to gain sustained pricing power from innovation.from strategic point of view, lead firms advantages come not only from innovation in the form of r&d, but also from capabilities such as product design, branding and market development. pisano and t

39、eece (2007) also emphasize the importance of system integration for profiting from innovation when there is considerable outsourcing.13 overseeing the innovation process over the global value chain, most lead firms collaborate with cms/odms to bring new products to market by incorporating new techno

40、logies developed by component suppliers, rather than relying mainly on internal sources of innovation. successful lead firms gain leverage from the innovation of others through system integration. gaining such a position is not easy, however, and few cms, odms or component makers have been able to m

41、ove downstream to build successful brands or develop relationships with final customers.our findings point to several directions for future research. first, this study focuses on lead firms and non-lead firms such as cms/odms and component suppliers, and does not consider other participants in the g

42、lobal electronics industry, such as distributors and retailers. it also does not distinguish hardware and software component suppliers, as well as high-value and low-value component suppliers. since they are positioned at different levels of the value chain, it would be interesting for future studie

43、s to consider them separately. future research can also address the possible problem of simultaneity (or reverse causality), which was not considered in the present study. this can be done by adjusting the influence of a companys prior performance. also, while we control for industry and regional ec

44、onomy in our analysis, there might be other industry- and economy-specific factors that can affect firm performance. future research can include such variables in the analysis.source: namchul shin，kenneth kraemer，jason dedrick,2009 r&d, value chain location and firm performance in the global electro

45、nics industry. industry & innovation,vol.3,pp.315-330.译文：研发，价值链定位与全球电子产业的企业绩效当今的全球电子业，创新在各种价值链中被执行，包括名牌制造商（有时被称为龙头企业）、合同制造商和零部件供应商，但是有一点不明白，在这样的网络创新中到底谁会收益最多。本研究以公司在全球电子业的绩效，通过使用电子商业为2000-2005年收集的300个数据，实证检验研发支出和在价值链（龙头或非龙头企业）中位置的关系。我们的研究结果表明，企业研发上投入更多，就会获得更高的收益，但没有获得更高的权益回报和资产回报率。但是当研发的互动条款和龙头企业被包括

46、在分析中，那么龙头企业和毛利之间的关系就会变得无关紧要。最后，龙头企业的地位在研发和毛利之间的关系上起着积极的互动作用。这些研究发现说明研发关联对绩效来说是多方面的，但是比起合同制造商和零部件供应商，龙头企业能够从研发中得到高价值（毛利）。现今的全球经济中，外购已经变成战略的必需，尤其是在激烈竞争和迅速变换的行业，就像电子业那样。过去的几十年里，电子行业中的价值链在企业与国家的边界已经逐步解体。根据鲍尔温和克拉克（2006），电子行业已经逐步形成一个模块结构，通过外购的那些不会束缚全部商业绩效的功能，在公司内部保持较小的一套活动。在过去，大的电子企业设计和开发他们自己的产品，经常使用内部供应链

47、（林登等，2007）。现今，龙头企业（名牌厂家）集中于核心竞争力，尤其是产品创新、销售和与品牌发展有关的其他活动，而非核心活动则使用专业生产供应商，例如制造业（斯特京，2002；格里芬等，2005；杨，2006）。通过外购，龙头企业能够更快地获得更多的产品，在模仿者进入市场前从创新中获利，并且所有的这些除了形成巨大的资本投资或者空转内部固定资产，都是来满足快速的技术进步和不稳定的市场需求。创新往往是价值创造和竞争力（熊彼特，1934）的来源。在当今的电子工业，创新是开展各种价值链参与者，包括龙头企业、合同制造商和部件供应商。这些不同的公司往往跨越国界，形成全球生产网络（或价值链）。这些公司都是

48、独立的组织，商业的成功运行与当地知识影响密切相关。创新在全球电子行业创造的价值是分散的，并不仅在龙头企业，也在企业的供应链合作伙伴。大部分核心技术革新是通过行业中的上游部件供应商完成的，龙头企业是通过确定新的产品市场和产品设计创新的，即并入新技术，以满足国际市场的需求。然而，是谁从全球电子行业的创新中收益最多，依然知之甚少。我们为这项研究提出的主要问题如下：什么是企业研发绩效的关系？不同层次的企业尤其是龙游企业与非龙头企业，在价值链上的绩效不同吗？龙头企业比非龙头企业从rd(research and development)上获取更高的价值？为了解决这些问题，我们通过对研发支出与在全球电子业中

49、的企业绩效价值链位置的关系的实证检验，进行了一个探索性的研究。我们利用电子商务的300个数据集和2000年到2005年六年的胡佛家族数据库。在下个部分，我们将描述电子行业的全球生产网络。第3部分将论述研发和企业绩效价值链位置的关系，并提出假说。第4部分将描述一般的经验模型，以及我们的数据来源和研究方法论。我们将在第5部分概述研究结果。讨论和总结将在第6部分提供。现今的电子业包括一个独立零部件供应商的全球性的生产网络（供应链），合同制造商或原始设计制造商，品牌企业，分销商和零售商。供应链模型（图1）显示了各项活动，例如研发、制造、设计和品牌、配送、销售和服务，这些都涉及到组成最终客户的零部件供应

50、商创造的价值。每一个生产者购买投入，然后增加价值，这些价值于是成为下一阶段的生产成本的一部分。供应链中每个成员增加的价值总和等于最终的产品价格（林登等，2007;德德里克等，2008年）。大多数组件级的rd是通过大型制造商提供的，即供应高价值组成部分，例如视觉显示器，硬盘驱动器或关键集成电路。这些组件最有可能体现有助于区分最终产品和控制相当高的利润的专业知识，从而占了供应链上总增加值相当大的份额。大多数其他组件是低价值的，例如电容和电阻。这些组件的供应商贡献较小的创新，赚取微薄的利润，从而占了总增加价值的一小部分。组成最终产品的组件主要是由许多为名牌厂家提供组装服务的大型合同制造商或原始设计制

51、造商提供的。这些装配厂商大批量的机会激烈竞争，限制了他们的利润。品牌企业与合同制造商/原始设计制造商合作，利用上游供应商的组件将新产品推向市场。这些龙头企业是系统集成商，专门从事高回报产品市场和高增值活动，例如r&d、产品设计、品牌和营销（斯特京，2002年;杨，2006）。虽然这些企业通过产品设计和系统集成创新，但是上游企业创新是形成最终产品配置的主要因素。龙头企业轮流对新产品市场的创造会在组件上影响游创新的方向（德德里克和克雷默，2007年）。因此，龙头企业必须与零件供应商紧密合作，在高度复杂的设计中结合先进的技术。他们可以通过利用上游企业的创新，以提高产品，使得消费者发现它有用和可用（林登等，2007；德德里克等，2008）。分布通常是分散和地方的，虽然有几个跨国经营的大分销商，例如英迈国际和艾睿电子（德德里克和克雷默，2007年）。销售是通过大型零售连锁店完成的，如百思买，环城百货，弗瑞斯，科思科，斯台普斯和沃尔玛。零售网点经营相当固定的利润，并寻求规模和范围，但价格竞争以及资本和运营