Missing causality and absent institutionalization. A case of Poland and methodological challenges for future studies of interlocking directorates

Abstract

The paper has two main aims. The first one is to discuss the dominant method applied in the studies on interlocking directorates. We examine the issue raised by a number of scholars, who point out that the studies carried out in the past 50 years have been solely focused on identifying correlations, while little attention has been paid to the causes and consequences of the phenomenon of interlocking directorates. We argue that the dominant method that shapes contemporary studies on interlocks is overly concentrated on quantitative aspects and fails to distinguish between the executive and supervisory boards. Our second aim is to present the ways in which this state of affairs can be remedied. We suggest a mixed-method approach and present the instrumental case study conducted on 122 largest companies operating in Poland. We argue that humanistic coefficient is missing from the studies on interlocking directorates and demonstrate that a different methodological approach might help to fill this void.

The determinants of innovation performance: an income-based cross-country comparative analysis using the Global Innovation Index (GII)

“…However, it could be understood in such a way that role of the institution in innovation is less compared to other pillars (infrastructure, human capital and research, market sophistication, and business sophistication). Also, our further variable-level analysis reveals that variables of institution pillars such as business environment, regulatory environment, and political environment are in a set of variables in the best predicting model of innovation and also supported by previous findings (Jovovic et al, 2017;Szalacha-Jarmużek & Pietrowicz, 2018;Udimal et al, 2019). Hence, instead of treating the institution pillar in general terms, it would be preferable to treat it at a variable level.…”

“…For example, the credit system (Giang et al, 2019), access to finance (Fernandez, 2017;Osano & Languitone, 2015), academic knowledge and skills of human resources (Bate, 2021;Farsi & Toghraee, 2015;Uvarova & Vitola, 2019;You et al, 2021) play an essential role in the innovativeness of firms. Also, partnership and technology transfer and R&D activities (Hadhri et al, 2016;Qureshi et al, 2021), the pace of technological development, and the population's educational level (Grego-Planer & Kus, 2020) accelerate innovation, Weak institutions deteriorate the confidence of the investors, customers, and industries (Jovovic et al, 2017;Szalacha-Jarmużek & Pietrowicz, 2018). Technological infrastructure that includes mobile phones, internet access, online platforms, and digital workshops are believed to have a tremendous effect on the innovativeness of SMEs in all business areas (Bate, 2021;ITC, 2018;Oyedele et al, 2014).…”

“…Property rights, contracts, policies, regulations, laws, and constitutions are formal institutions, while informal institutions refer to the culture and societal norms that rule the operations of businesses (Berman, 2013;Minto-Coy & McNaughton, 2016). A country with weak institutional factors or where the institutional factors put in place are not considered hinders innovation by deteriorating the confidence of the investors, customers, and industries (Jovovic et al, 2017;Szalacha-Jarmużek & Pietrowicz, 2018). Additionally, the political environment of a country determines the efficiency of innovation.…”

The Determinants of Innovation Performance; An Income Based Cross-Country Comparative Analysis Using Global Innovation Index(GII)

“…McNaughton 2016). A country with weak institutional factors or where the institutional factors put in place are not considered hinders innovation by deteriorating the con dence of the investors, customers, and industries(Jovovic et al, 2017;Szalacha- Jarmużek & Pietrowicz, 2018). Additionally, the political environment of a country determines the e ciency of innovation.…”

Innovation’s Performance: A Transnational Analysis Based on the Global Innovation Index

“…Institutions can be formal or informal (Minto-Coy and McNaughton 2016;Okrah and Hajduk-Stelmachowicz 2020;Akhmadi and Tsakalerou 2023;Bate et al 2023); property rights, contracts, policies, regulations, laws, and constitutions are formal institutions, while culture and social norms are informal institutions (Minto-Coy and Mc-Naughton 2016;Bate et al 2023). Low belief in a country's institutions deteriorates the trust of investors, customers, and companies (Jovovic et al 2017;Szalacha-Jarmu żek and Pietrowicz 2018;WIPO 2022;Bate et al 2023;Klett and Cozzi 2023). Trust in political systems encourages innovation, and a solid legal and regulatory framework fosters growth and the ability of companies to innovate (Nyarku and Oduro 2018); the same is true of government support and the protection of intellectual property by legal institutions (C. Wang et al 2020;L.…”