The impact of industrial robot uses on the labor cost stickiness of Chinese firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The study aims to investigate the impact of industrial robot application on corporate labor cost stickiness and labor investment efficiency in China. Design/methodology/approach Using the textual analysis to construct firm-level industrial robot application indicators in China, we implement the methodology in Anderson et al. (2003) and Banker and Byzalov (2014) to estimate cost stickiness. Findings We argue that the industrial robot uses in China would increase firms’ labor adjustment costs by increasing the employment scale and upgrading the employment structure (i.e. by employing more high-skilled and high-educated labor). Consistent with our expectation through the channel of labor adjustment costs, the use of robotics increases firms’ labor cost stickiness. We further find that the positive impact is more significant among labor-intensive industries, and among state-owned enterprises with lower labor adjustment flexibility. We also find that industrial robot uses do not decrease the labor cost stickiness even when robots are more likely to substitute labor. Finally, we find that industrial robot uses significantly facilitate more efficient hiring practices by mitigating overinvestment in labor (i.e. over-hiring). Originality/value Against the backdrop of intelligent manufacturing worldwide, our study sheds new insight into the effects of new technologies on corporate labor cost behavior in developing countries. We contribute to scant studies examining how robotics, AI adoption or other automation technologies (e.g. specialized machinery, software, etc.) affect corporate cost behavior.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".