IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eurasi/v12y2022i4d10.1007_s40821-022-00209-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are blockchain-based digital transformation and ecosystem-based business models mutually reinforcing? The principal-agent conflict perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Ilya Ivaninskiy

    (HSE University)

  • Irina Ivashkovskaya

    (HSE University)

Abstract

This paper explores the implications of digitalization and business model innovation for the principal-agent conflict. Continuous digital transformation has recently become a feature sine qua non for companies. It is also stimulating business model innovation resulting in the growing adoption of ecosystem-based models. These trends may have significant implications for the principal-agent relationship, essential for understanding value creation by a firm. In order to analyze the impact of digital transformation, we use blockchain technology as a proxy. To measure the potential impact on the principal-agent conflict, we study management and shareholder-sponsored proposals at annual meetings. The level of shareholder involvement in governance is measured based on the number of shareholder-sponsored proposals received. In addition, we measure shareholder support for management-sponsored proposals. A sample of 2481 NYSE, Nasdaq and AMEX-traded firms for the period 2015–2019 is used. First of all, we show that digitalization per se has a mitigating impact on the agency conflict. Shareholders become more active, albeit not more hostile towards management. Secondly, we have identified the strongest impact in such sectors as information technology, communications, finance, and healthcare. These are the most significantly impacted by ecosystem-based business model innovation. We conclude that digitalization and ecosystem-based business models are mutually reinforcing in mitigating the principal-agent conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilya Ivaninskiy & Irina Ivashkovskaya, 2022. "Are blockchain-based digital transformation and ecosystem-based business models mutually reinforcing? The principal-agent conflict perspective," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(4), pages 643-670, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eurasi:v:12:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40821-022-00209-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40821-022-00209-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40821-022-00209-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40821-022-00209-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christina Zhu, 2019. "Big Data as a Governance Mechanism," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 2021-2061.
    2. Isil Erel & Léa H Stern & Chenhao Tan & Michael S Weisbach, 2021. "Selecting Directors Using Machine Learning," NBER Chapters, in: Big Data: Long-Term Implications for Financial Markets and Firms, pages 3226-3264, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    4. Lin William Cong & Zhiguo He, 2019. "Blockchain Disruption and Smart Contracts," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 1754-1797.
    5. Thomas, Randall S. & Cotter, James F., 2007. "Shareholder proposals in the new millennium: Shareholder support, board response, and market reaction," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 368-391, June.
    6. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    7. Fich, Eliezer M. & Harford, Jarrad & Tran, Anh L., 2015. "Motivated monitors: The importance of institutional investors׳ portfolio weights," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 21-48.
    8. David Yermack, 2017. "Corporate Governance and Blockchains," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 21(1), pages 7-31.
    9. Fry, John, 2018. "Booms, busts and heavy-tails: The story of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency markets?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 225-229.
    10. Manita, Riadh & Elommal, Najoua & Baudier, Patricia & Hikkerova, Lubica, 2020. "The digital transformation of external audit and its impact on corporate governance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    11. Ronia Hawash & Guenter Lang, 2020. "Does the digital gap matter? Estimating the impact of ICT on productivity in developing countries," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 10(2), pages 189-209, June.
    12. Peter Iliev & Jonathan Kalodimos & Michelle Lowry, 2021. "Investors’ Attention to Corporate Governance [The “Wall Street Walk” and shareholder activism: Exit as a form of voice]," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(12), pages 5581-5628.
    13. Karpoff, Jonathan M. & Malatesta, Paul H. & Walkling, Ralph A., 1996. "Corporate governance and shareholder initiatives: Empirical evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 365-395, November.
    14. Wulf A. Kaal, 2020. "Blockchain Solutions for Agency Problems in Corporate Governance," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kashi R Balachandran (ed.), Information for Efficient Decision Making Big Data, Blockchain and Relevance, chapter 12, pages 313-329, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Alan Dignam, 2020. "Artificial intelligence, tech corporate governance and the public interest regulatory response," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 13(1), pages 37-54.
    16. Kajtazi, Anton & Moro, Andrea, 2019. "The role of bitcoin in well diversified portfolios: A comparative global study," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 143-157.
    17. Renneboog, Luc & Szilagyi, Peter G., 2011. "The role of shareholder proposals in corporate governance," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 167-188, February.
    18. Tsujimoto, Masaharu & Kajikawa, Yuya & Tomita, Junichi & Matsumoto, Yoichi, 2018. "A review of the ecosystem concept — Towards coherent ecosystem design," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 49-58.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Muddassar Sarfraz & Kausar Fiaz Khawaja & Heesup Han & Antonio Ariza-Montes & Juan Manuel Arjona-Fuentes, 2023. "Sustainable supply chain, digital transformation, and blockchain technology adoption in the tourism sector," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Sun, Zhennan & Du, Qunyang & Du, Anna Min & Li, Zhongyuan & Yang, Tianle, 2024. "The information environment and ecological environment perspectives: Capital market openness and firm ESG rating divergence," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    3. Jinguo Xin & Kun Du & Yuqi Xia, 2024. "The Impact of Enterprise Digital Transformation on Audit Fees—An Intermediary Role Based on Information Asymmetry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-21, November.
    4. Qianxiao Zhang & Yixue Duan, 2023. "How Digitalization Shapes Export Product Quality: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-20, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ilya Ivaninskiy & Irina Ivashkovskaya & Joseph A. McCahery, 2023. "Does digitalization mitigate or intensify the principal-agent conflict in a firm?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(3), pages 695-725, September.
    2. Maria Goranova & Rahi Abouk & Paul C. Nystrom & Ehsan S. Soofi, 2017. "Corporate governance antecedents to shareholder activism: A zero-inflated process," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 415-435, February.
    3. Vicente Cuñat & Mireia Gine & Maria Guadalupe, 2012. "The Vote Is Cast: The Effect of Corporate Governance on Shareholder Value," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 67(5), pages 1943-1977, October.
    4. Siala Bouaziz Souha & Jarboui Anis & David McMillan, 2016. "Corporate governance and firm characteristics as explanatory factors of shareholder activism: Validation through the French context," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1150407-115, December.
    5. Jiang, George J. & Liu, Chang, 2021. "Getting on board: The monitoring effect of institutional directors," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    6. Souha Bouaziz Siala & Anis Jarboui, 2019. "The moderating effect of audit quality on the relation between shareholder activism and earnings management: Evidence from France," Contemporary Economics, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw., vol. 13(1), March.
    7. Denes, Matthew R. & Karpoff, Jonathan M. & McWilliams, Victoria B., 2017. "Thirty years of shareholder activism: A survey of empirical research," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 405-424.
    8. Simon Rafaqat & Sana Rafaqat & Sahil Rafaqat & Saoul Rafaqat & Dawood Rafaqat, 2023. "Shareholder Activism and Firm Performance: A Review," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 14(4), pages 31-41.
    9. Szilagyi, P.G., 2007. "Corporate governance and the agency costs of debt and outside equity," Other publications TiSEM 9520d40a-224f-43a8-9bf9-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Saurabh, Kumar & Rani, Neelam & Upadhyay, Parijat, 2024. "Towards novel blockchain decentralised autonomous organisation (DAO) led corporate governance framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    11. Sudam Shingade & Shailesh Rastogi & Venkata Mrudula Bhimavarapu & Abhijit Chirputkar, 2022. "Shareholder Activism and Its Impact on Profitability, Return, and Valuation of the Firms in India," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, March.
    12. Renneboog, L.D.R. & Szilagyi, P.G., 2009. "Shareholder Activism through the Proxy Process," Other publications TiSEM cc25d736-2965-4511-b100-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. Mukhopadhyay, Jhuma & Chakraborty, Indrani, 2017. "Foreign institutional investment, business groups and firm performance: Evidence from India," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 39(PA), pages 454-465.
    14. Peter Cziraki & Luc Renneboog & Peter G. Szilagyi, 2010. "Shareholder Activism through Proxy Proposals: The European Perspective," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 16(5), pages 738-777, November.
    15. Dasgupta, Amil & Fos, Vyacheslav & Sautner, Zacharias, 2021. "Institutional investors and corporate governance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112114, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Sun, Xiaotong & Stasinakis, Charalampos & Sermpinis, Georgios, 2024. "Decentralization illusion in Decentralized Finance: Evidence from tokenized voting in MakerDAO polls," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    17. Olivier Meier & Aurélie Sannajust, 0. "The smart contract revolution: a solution for the holdup problem?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-16.
    18. Stuart L. Gillan & Laura T. Starks, 2002. "Institutional Investors, Corporate Ownership, and Corporate Governance: Global Perspectives," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2002-09, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    19. Ameen Qasem & Shaker Dahan AL-Duais & Wan Nordin Wan-Hussin & Hasan Mohamad Bamahros & Abdulsalam Alquhaif & Murad Thomran, 2022. "Institutional Ownership Types and ESG Reporting: The Case of Saudi Listed Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-23, September.
    20. Emmanuel Mensah & Christopher Boachie, 2023. "Corporate governance mechanisms and earnings management: The moderating role of female directors," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 2167290-216, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Corporate governance; Digital transformation; Ecosystems; Corporate voting; Shareholder activism;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eurasi:v:12:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40821-022-00209-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.