Results
- Showing results for:
- Reset all filters
Search results
-
Journal articleMurtinu S, Park HD, Tucci CL, et al., 2027, , Journal of Business Venturing, Vol: 42, ISSN: 0883-9026
Rapid technological advances in artificial intelligence and other digital technologies play a critical role in enabling established organizations to venture into new entrepreneurial opportunities. These advances present new challenges for corporate venturing (CV): how to organize, transfer information, and execute venturing activities as existing organizational structures and competencies become obsolete. This article introduces a framework for understanding how digital technologies reshape knowledge search in CV contexts under varying levels of environmental complexity, and proposes a typology of human-machine configurations that serves as a diagnostic tool for assessing the degree of machine autonomy in CV decisions. It further explores the opportunities and unintended consequences of these evolving digital venturing practices.
-
Journal articleBaz S, Cathcart L, Michaelides A, et al., 2026,
Climate regulatory exposure and the stock market: evidence from the Trump elections
, European Financial Management, ISSN: 1354-7798Using the 2016 and 2024 Trump elections as exogenous climate deregulatory shocks, we identify a positive effect on stock returns for firms with higher climate regulatory exposures. We construct firm-level climate regulatory exposure using 10-K filings; firms with higher exposure experience economically and statistically significant higher cumulative stock returns after both elections but the responses are economically stronger, faster, and more persistent after the 2024 election. Results remain robust after controlling for carbon emissions, corporate taxation exposures and trade policy uncertainty, and provide evidence that climate regulatory risks are important in valuation.
-
Journal articleBolton P, Eskildsen M, Kacperczyk M, 2026,
Carbon home bias
, Journal of Financial Economics, ISSN: 0304-405XInstitutional investors apply stricter carbon screens abroad than at home. Using global equity holdings for roughly 13,400 institutions across 48 countries over 2005–2024, we show that higher firm emissions predict lower foreign institutional ownership with no corresponding reduction at home; the domestic-foreign ownership gap widens with emissions, and domestic ownership rises with Scope 3 emissions. This carbon home bias remains in within-investor and within-firm comparisons and is not explained by the countrypair determinants of ordinary home bias. It operates through both re-entry (foreign high emitters face a higher hurdle to re-enter a portfolio) and exit (a higher hazard of leaving it). This bias intensified after the Paris Agreement and did not unwind during the subsequent anti-ESG reaction. It is concentrated in discretionary rather than index-constrained holdings; at the extensive margin, the incremental bias is largest among pension funds—institutions particularly associated with formal investment-policy restrictions, and better covered by European than by U.S. filings—rather than among managers best placed to exploit an informational advantage. Overall, the evidence is more consistent with institutional constraints and screening policies than with a simple information-advantage explanation.
-
Journal articleKosova R, Michaelides A, 2026,
Trust and investment loss: evidence from uk financial corporate failures
, Journal of Financial Literacy and Wellbeing, Vol: 4, ISSN: 2753-3212How does experiencing direct investment loss affect individuals’ trust in the financial system? Exploiting recent UK corporate financial failures that generated press headlines, government debates and institutional criticisms, we design and analyse a survey involving investors in these failures. We find that direct exposure to investment losses significantly reduces trust in financial markets, regulators, big audit firms, and the likelihood of future risky asset market participation. Moreover, trust loss is not fully reversible even with possible compensation. Individual characteristics are not the key drivers of trust losses/gains either. We also survey master’s students exposed to reading about these failures. Information about losses of others reduces trust but less than direct experience. Overall, our results emphasize the role of personal experience in determining trust and future investment decisions.
-
Journal articleGoldman J, Iyer R, Nanda R, 2026,
Amplifying a fiscal stimulus: the role of banks
, Journal of Finance, ISSN: 0022-1082Exploiting increases in US defense spending following the 9/11 attacks, we show that the procurement-driven fiscal stimulus led to lower non-performing loans at banks.In turn, constrained banks responded by increasing lending to small businesses in not-directly-impacted counties. We find the additional economic activity enabled by the increased lending capacity is quantitatively important– amplification from this ‘credit multiplier’ is about 10%-15% as large as typical fiscal multipliers estimated inthe literature. Since intermediaries are more likely to face constraints in times when a fiscal stimulus is needed, this ’credit multiplier’ can substantially amplify a stimulus’overall impact in downturns.
-
Journal articleKacperczyk M, Peydro J-L, 2026, , The Review of financial studies, ISSN: 0893-9454
We study how firm-level carbon emissions affect bank lending and real outcomes in a sample of global firms with syndicated loans. We exploit bank-level climate commitments as firm-level shocks to lending relationships, using firms' prior credit exposures to identify credit supply effects. Firms with higher emissions that previously borrowed from committed banks receive less bank credit. Evidence from lending volumes, prices, and within-firm-time loan-level data indicates a supply-side shift away from high-emission firms, not explained by borrower risk. Affected firms reduce debt, leverage, size, and investment, yet we find no reduction in future emissions, instead documenting evidence consistent with greenwashing.
-
BookKitten M, Chemla G, 2026,
Private Equity in Healthcare and Life Sciences - Strategies, Cases, and Industry Insights
, Wiley, Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, ISBN: 9781394292592Private equity already manages 5 to 10% of global corporate equity and keeps rising. Nearly all new large innovative firms are funded with PE. Healthcare is one of the most heavily impacted sectors. Does PE create value? How? How do AI and tokenization transform PE? As public invstment dries out and large firms buy PE-backed innovation and sell poorly performing business lines to PE, what is the impact of PE on patients and other stakeholders? This book addresses all these questions in depth by combining academic and practitioner perspectives.
-
Journal articleLee H, Viscusi G, Tucci CL, 2026, , Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, ISSN: 1932-4391
Research SummaryPrior studies have often conceptualized entrepreneurial experimentation as an activity over which founders exert a high amount of discretion in decision-making. However, the locus of control over experimentation programs is dynamic, shifting with varying external stakeholder influence and venture growth. This paper proposes an integrative framework explaining how different stakeholder influence mechanisms function as frictions or enablers, shaping a venture's experimentation program. Resource provision mechanisms determine ventures' capacity for experimentation, while stakeholder strategic orientation and governance mechanisms shape the context within which ventures experiment, influencing how ventures deploy resources toward experiments. We further discuss how a venture's development stage shapes the relative value and impact of these stakeholder influences.Managerial SummaryExperimentation and the Lean Startup approach are well-established methods for navigating the inherent uncertainties of entrepreneurial ventures. While conventional wisdom often portrays founders as exercising substantial discretion over experimentation, this research demonstrates that a venture's experimentation program can be systematically shaped by external stakeholders. Rather than being solely founder-driven, entrepreneurial experimentation is embedded in a broader stakeholder context that conditions what can be tested, how broadly, and how radically. Stakeholders shape ventures' experimentation by providing and controlling resources, influencing strategic directions, and structuring governance relationships. Strategic attention to which actors influence experimentation, how that influence is exercised, and how its relative importance shifts across venture development stages is important for fostering experimentation and improving venture performance.
-
Journal articleBolton P, Kacperczyk M, 2026, , European Accounting Review, ISSN: 0963-8180
We link voluntary and mandatory disclosure of carbon emissions with stock returns and volatility in a global cross-section of publicly listed firms. We find that voluntary disclosure of scope 1 emissions predicts lower stock returns relative to non-disclosing companies. We also find that UK mandatory carbon disclosure rules for publicly traded companies resulted in lower stock-level uncertainty. The effect of these mandatory disclosure rules also spilled over into other markets, especially those with close geographic and economic proximity, and companies in the same industry.
-
Journal articleLanzolla G, Pagani M, Tucci C, 2026,
Scaling AI with adaptive governance
, MIT Sloan Management Review, ISSN: 1532-9194Leaders with even a cursory understanding of AI know that while this powerful technology can help them to improve productivity and capture new opportunities, it can also expose their organizations to many risks. Those who know a bit more are aware that surfacing and mitigating those risks requires adopting responsible AI practices. And for those scaling AI implementation at their organization, it will become obvious that ad hoc attention to those practices is inadequate, and they will require a systematic capacity to govern AI at scale. Yet building that capacity is proving far harder than most executives expect. They know what they need to accomplish: frameworks from governments and regulators1 define important guardrails and principles such as transparency, fairness, and accountability. But to implement controls and principles into day-to-day workflows and decision-making, organizations must rethink AI governance. They must frame that task not as a compliance obligation, but as a strategic, adaptive capability that evolves as AI systems scale, use cases expand, and risks shift over time. In this article, we show how leading organizations are doing exactly that. We introduce an approach to adaptive AI governance built on two principles: matching governance controls to the type of AI system and risk involved, and embedding those controls directly into workflows, decision rights, and accountability structures.
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.