Host: 上海立信会计金融学院

  • ISSN 2096-9554
  • CN 31-2074/F
Volume 39 Issue 3
Jun.  2025
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Article Navigation >  Accounting and Economic Research  > 2025  >  39(3): 97-114
Zhang Huili, Jiang Zeru, Yang Lijun. 2025. Employee Stock Ownership Plans and Corporate Performance：A Firm Life Cycle Perspective. Accounting and Economic Research, 39(3): 97-114.
Citation: Zhang Huili, Jiang Zeru, Yang Lijun. 2025. Employee Stock Ownership Plans and Corporate Performance：A Firm Life Cycle Perspective. Accounting and Economic Research, 39(3): 97-114.
shu

Employee Stock Ownership Plans and Corporate Performance：A Firm Life Cycle Perspective

  • 1.

    Business School of Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China

  • 2.

    Finance Department of Shanghai Yazheng Medical Consulting Services Co., Ltd.,Shanghai 200030, China

  • 3.

    Treasury Division of Beijing Municipal Finance Bureau, Beijing 101160, China

  • Received Date: 2023-01-11
  • Publish Date: 2025-06-20
    Abstract
  • This paper investigates the impact of Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) on corporate performance from the perspective of the firm life cycle, utilizing a sample of Chinese A-share listed companies from 2014 to 2019. Empirical results reveal that the implementation of ESOPs significantly enhances corporate performance in firms in the growth stage and maturity stage, while no statistically significant improvement is observed for firms in the decline stage. Mechanism tests indicate that the implementation of ESOPs significantly promotes total factor productivity for firms in the growth stage and maturity stage, but exhibits no significant effect for firms in the decline stage. Further analysis demonstrates that, for firms in the growth stage and maturity stage, the performance-enhancing effect of ESOPs is significant only among non-state-owned enterprises, high-tech firms, firms with high human capital intensity, and firms characterized by low ownership concentration.

     

    • FullText(HTML)
  • loading
    • References(47)
  • [1]
    曹春方, 蔡贵龙. 2023. 知识经济时代员工持股与企业价值——员工持股试点政策的准自然实验证据. 管理科学学报 (9): 41−62.
    [2]
    曹裕, 陈晓红, 李喜华. 2010. 企业不同生命周期阶段智力资本价值贡献分析. 管理科学学报 (5): 21−32.
    [3]
    曹越, 辛红霞, 孙丽. 2022. 国有企业实施员工持股计划能否提升内部控制质量? ——基于“国企混改”背景. 会计研究 (11): 118−138.
    [4]
    陈运佳, 吕长江, 黄海杰, 丁慧. 2020. 上市公司为什么选择员工持股计划? ——基于市值管理的证据. 会计研究 (5): 91−103.
    [5]
    高洪利, 李莉, 陈靖涵, 解立. 2017. 政府研发支持行为影响高科技企业外部融资吗——基于组织合法性理论的解释. 南开管理评论 (6): 178−189.
    [6]
    郭范勇, 彭嘉欣. 2024. 员工持股计划的微观经济效应——来自中国上市公司的新证据. 经济管理 (8): 123−139.
    [7]
    郝永亮, 金昕, 张永冀. 2019. “减持迷雾”下的员工持股计划——基于股权激励的对比分析. 管理评论 (10): 164−177.
    [8]
    侯巧铭, 宋力, 蒋亚朋. 2017. 管理者行为、企业生命周期与非效率投资. 会计研究 (3): 61−67.
    [9]
    胡景涛, 宿涵宁, 王秀玲. 2020. 员工股权激励对企业经营业绩会产生补充的提升效应吗? 会计研究(4): 119−129.
    [10]
    黄宏斌, 翟淑萍, 陈静楠. 2016. 企业生命周期、融资方式与融资约束——基于投资者情绪调节效应的研究. 金融研究 (7): 96−112.
    [11]
    金艾裙, 程幼明. 2012. 企业生命周期: 员工心理契约特点及改善策略. 安徽师范大学学报(人文社会科学版) (3): 353−358.
    [12]
    李爱华, 卢转玲. 2017. 我国推行员工持股计划的现状与建议——以华为技术有限公司成功实施员工持股计划为例. 经营与管理 (7): 12−15.
    [13]
    李逸飞, 李茂林, 李静. 2022. 银行金融科技、信贷配置与企业短债长用. 中国工业经济 (10): 137−154.
    [14]
    李云鹤, 李湛, 唐松莲. 2011. 企业生命周期、公司治理与公司资本配置效率. 南开管理评论 (3): 110−121.
    [15]
    梁上坤, 张宇, 王彦超. 2019. 内部薪酬差距与公司价值——基于生命周期理论的新探索. 金融研究 (4): 188−206.
    [16]
    刘诗源, 林志帆, 冷志鹏. 2020. 税收激励提高企业创新水平了吗? ——基于企业生命周期理论的检验. 经济研究 (6): 105−121.
    [17]
    马奔, 仇勇. 2024. 上市公司员工持股计划的“双刃剑”效应研究: 基于公司不当行为的视角. 中国软科学 (6): 190−201.
    [18]
    沈红波, 华凌昊, 许基集. 2018. 国有企业实施员工持股计划的经营绩效: 激励相容还是激励不足. 管理世界 (11): 121−133.
    [19]
    宋芳秀, 柳林. 2018. 上市公司员工持股计划: 实施动机、方案设计及其影响因素. 改革 (11): 88−98.
    [20]
    孙伟增, 何磊磊. 2022. 职住分离、时间挤出与企业生产效率. 经济学(季刊) (4): 1147−1168.
    [21]
    王晋斌, 李振仲. 1998. 内部职工持股计划与企业绩效——对西方和我国企业案例的考察. 经济研究 (5): 66−73.
    [22]
    王砾, 代昀昊, 孔东民. 2017. 激励相容: 上市公司员工持股计划的公告效应. 经济学动态 (2): 37−50.
    [23]
    王烨, 孙慧倩, 吴婷, 王宁宁. 2018. 人力资本禀赋、市场化程度与员工持股计划选择. 华东经济管理 (12): 133−142.
    [24]
    肖淑芳, 胥春悦, 刘珊珊. 2018. 员工持股计划公告的市场反应——基于中国上市公司的经验数据. 北京理工大学学报(社会科学版) (4): 72−80.
    [25]
    张小宁. 2002. 经营者报酬、员工持股与上市公司绩效分析. 世界经济 (10): 57−64.
    [26]
    赵健宇, 陆正飞. 2018. 养老保险缴费比例会影响企业生产效率吗? 经济研究(10): 97−112.
    [27]
    赵曙明, 吴慈生, 徐军. 2002. 企业集团成长与人力资源管理的关系研究. 中国软科学 (9): 47−51.
    [28]
    郑志刚, 雍红艳, 张浩, 黄继承. 2023. 员工股东表决权归属与企业创新——基于ESOP管理模式的经验证据. 会计研究 (4): 144−157.
    [29]
    Adizes, I. 1989. Corporate lifecycles: How and why corporations grow and die and what to do about it. New York: Prentice Hall.
    [30]
    Aldatmaz, S., P. Ouimet, and E. D. Van Wesep. 2018. The option to quit: The effect of employee stock options on turnover. Journal of Financial Economics 127(1): 136−151. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.10.007
    [31]
    Anthony, J. H., and K. Ramesh. 1992. Association between accounting performance measures and stock prices: A test of the life cycle hypothesis. Journal of Accounting and Economics 15(2-3): 203−227.
    [32]
    Beatty, A. 1995. The cash flow and informational effects of employee stock ownership plans. Journal of Financial Economics 38(2): 211−240. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(94)00812-F
    [33]
    Bloom, S. 1986. Employee ownership and firm performance. Harvard University.
    [34]
    Chang, S., and D. Mayers. 1992. Managerial vote ownership and shareholder wealth: Evidence from employee stock ownership plans. Journal of Financial Economics 32(1): 103−131. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(92)90027-U
    [35]
    Chang, X., K. Fu, A. Low, and W. Zhang. 2015. Non-executive employee stock options and corporate innovation. Journal of Financial Economics 115(1): 168−188. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.09.002
    [36]
    Cinelli, C., J. Ferwerda, and C. Hazlett. 2024. Sensemakr: Sensitivity analysis tools for OLS in R and stata. Observational Studies 10(2): 93−127.
    [37]
    Dickinson, V. 2011. Cash flow patterns as a proxy for firm life cycle. The Accounting Review 86(6): 1969−1994. doi: 10.2308/accr-10130
    [38]
    Haire, M. 1959. Biological models and empirical histories of the growth of organizations. Modern Organization Theory. New York: Wiley.
    [39]
    Hochberg, Y. V., A. Ljungqvist, and Y. Lu. 2010. Networking as a barrier to entry and the competitive supply of venture capital. The Journal of Finance 65(3): 829−859. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01554.x
    [40]
    Jones, D. C., and T. Kato. 1995. The productivity effects of employee stock-ownership plans and bonuses: Evidence from Japanese panel data. The American Economic Review 85(3): 391−414.
    [41]
    Kelso, L. O., and M. J. Adler. 1958. The capitalist manifesto. New York: Random House.
    [42]
    Kim, E. H., and P. Ouimet. 2014. Broad-based employee stock ownership: Motives and outcomes. The Journal of Finance 69(3): 1273−1319. doi: 10.1111/jofi.12150
    [43]
    Lian, Y., Z. Su, and Y. Gu. 2011. Evaluating the effects of equity incentives using PSM: Evidence from China. Frontiers of Business Research in China 5(2): 266−290. doi: 10.1007/s11782-011-0131-6
    [44]
    Park, S., and M. H. Song. 1995. Employee stock ownership plans, firm performance, and monitoring by outside blockholders. Financial Management 24(4): 52−65. doi: 10.2307/3665950
    [45]
    Trébucq, S. 2004. The effects of ESOPs on performance and risk: Evidence from France. Corporate Ownership and Control 1(4): 81−93.
    [46]
    Weitzman M., and D. Kruse. 1990. Profit sharing and productivity. Paying for Productivity (1): 95−141.
    [47]
    Zhang, H., J. He, J. Zhu, and K. C. Chan. 2025. Taken as an exploiting tool: When ESOPs meet controlling shareholders’ share pledging in an emerging market. European Financial Management. Forthcoming.
    • Relative Articles
    • Supplements(0)
    • Cited By

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Tables(16)

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML
    Article views (23) PDF downloads(1) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related
    Link 

    Copyright © 会计与经济研究备案序号: 沪ICP备09005481号-4

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return