Corporate governance and R&D investment: the role of debt financing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper examines the role of debt financing in the relationship between corporate governance and research and development (R&D) investment using a sample of publicly traded U.S. pharmaceutical firms from 2009 to 2018. The results show a positive and significant association between corporate governance mechanisms (such as board size, board independence, board gender diversity, and ownership concentration) and R&D investment and a negative and significant association between debt financing and R&D investment. In addition, we show that debt financing plays a moderating role and a partial mediating role in the relationship between corporate governance mechanisms and R&D investment. Specifically, debt financing attenuates the negative effect of board size on R&D investment and accentuates the positive effect of ownership concentration on R&D investment. Our study helps to shed light on a close and complex relationship existing between the firm’s choices of corporate governance, debt financing, and R&D investments, which the previous literature has so far examined in a partial and fragmented way. To ensure effective R&D investment, firms need to consider the effect of debt financing on corporate governance decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".