دانلود مقاله عملکرد، مدیریت سرمایه در گردش و مسئولیت کوچکی
چکیده
مقدمه
مبانی نظری و توسعه فرضیه ها
مواد و روش ها
نتایج
بحث
نتیجه
منابع
Abstract
Introduction
Theoretical foundations and hypotheses development
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
چکیده
این مقاله به بررسی رابطه بین مدیریت سرمایه در گردش و عملکرد عملیاتی شرکت می‌پردازد و بر اثر تعدیل‌کننده اندازه تمرکز می‌کند. ما از نمونه بزرگی از 56221 شرکت کوچک، متوسط و بزرگ از فرانسه، آلمان و ایتالیا استفاده می کنیم و نتایج ما نشان می دهد که تأثیر مدیریت سرمایه در گردش بر عملکرد به شدت به اندازه بستگی دارد. ما حساسیت بالاتری از عملکرد نسبت به سرمایه‌گذاری کم در سرمایه در گردش خالص عملیاتی شرکت‌های کوچک را شناسایی می‌کنیم، اما حساسیت بالاتری نسبت به سرمایه‌گذاری بیش از حد نداریم. این یافته‌ها حاکی از آن است که شرکت‌های کوچک زمانی که سرمایه در گردش خالص عملیاتی آنها کم است، هزینه‌های فرصت بالایی را از فروش از دست رفته تجربه می‌کنند. محدودیت‌های مالی و فقدان مدیریت مالی به عنوان توضیحات بالقوه مورد بحث قرار می‌گیرند زیرا هر دو بیانگر مسئولیت کوچکی هستند.
توجه! این متن ترجمه ماشینی بوده و توسط مترجمین ای ترجمه، ترجمه نشده است.
Abstract
This article studies the relationship between working capital management and firm operating performance and focuses on the moderating effect of size. We use a large sample of 56,221 small, medium, and large firms from France, Germany, and Italy, and our results indicate that the impact of working capital management on performance strongly depends on size. We identify a higher sensitivity of performance to underinvestment in net operating working capital for small firms, but no higher sensitivity to overinvestment. These findings suggest that small firms experience high opportunity costs from lost sales when their net operating working capital is low. Financial constraints and lack of financial management are discussed as potential explanations because both are expressions of the liability of smallness.
Introduction
The performance and survival of firms largely depends on the manager’s ability to acquire, create, and manage resources (Penrose, 1959). Among them, financial resources, internal organization, and strong reputation to attract customers are some of the most important ones or, at least, are so perceived by managers (Aldrich & Auster, 1986; Dodge, Fullerton, & Robbins, 1994; Stinchcombe, 1965). The literature commonly refers to the liability of smallness to describe the fact that small firms have only a limited amount of resources and difficult access to new ones. As a result, they face a higher rate of failure or bankruptcy and lower operating performances than larger firms. Working capital management (WCM) is, we suggest, one dimension of this liability.
Conclusion
What explains firm performance? This question is at the core of research on management, strategy, finance, and entrepreneurship. In this article, we make a modest contribution to the literature as we provide empirical evidence on the role of size in the sensitivity of firm performance to investment in NOWC. Using a large sample of international firms, we show that small firms’ performance is more sensitive to underinvestment in NOWC than that of larger firms. Our goal was to demonstrate the role of WCM in our understanding of small firms’ management and performance, and to shed some light on this sometimes neglected aspect of financial management.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): The performance of smaller firms is more sensitive to underinvestment in NOWC than that of larger firms.
Hypothesis 1a (H1a): The performance of small firms is more sensitive to underinvestment in NOWC than that of medium firms.
Hypothesis 1b (H1b): The performance of small firms is more sensitive to underinvestment in NOWC than that of large firms.
Hypothesis 1c (H1c): The performance of medium firms is more sensitive to underinvestment in NOWC than that of large firms.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): The performance of smaller firms is more sensitive to overinvestment in NOWC than that of larger firms.
Hypothesis 2a (H2a): The performance of small firms is more sensitive to overinvestment in NOWC than that of medium firms.
Hypothesis 2b (H2b): The performance of small firms is more sensitive to overinvestment in NOWC than that of large firms.
Hypothesis 2c (H2c): The performance of medium firms is more sensitive to overinvestment in NOWC than that of large firms.