Negative (adversity): product quality failure (product recall), bankruptcy, data breach, consumer complaint, environmental footprint, geopolitical risk, political risk
Positive (steady state): new product, new package, news, user-generated social media content, trade credit, gender and cultural diversity on corporate boards, sustainability, advertising, R&D, chatbot, AI, machine learning
Theoretical
Organizational theories: Failure, knowledge, and learning; signaling; interfirm relationships; media and regulatory scrutiny; impression management; hypocrisy; corporate political action; strategic emphasis
Product recall, Innovation, Customer Complaints, Customer Experience, Chatbot, Digital Marketing, Social Media, Data Breach, Firm Bankruptcy, Geopolitical Risk, Political Risk, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning
Academic Degrees
Ph.D. in Business, Ivey Business School, U of Western Ontario, Canada, 2014-2018
M.S. in Business, Wisconsin School of Business, U of Wisconsin-Madison, 2012-2014
MBA, Indian Institute of Management-Lucknow, India, 2009-2012
Bachelor of Technology (Computer Engg.), Aligarh Muslim U, India, 1996-2000
Professional Experience
Assistant Professor of Marketing, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, 2018-present
Adjunct Research Professor, Ivey International Centre for Health Innovation, Ivey Business School, University of Western Ontario, Canada, 2018-present
Visiting Scholar, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, January 2018-March 2018
Selected Publications
Astvansh, V., and Jindal, N. (2022). Differential Effects of Received Trade Credit and Provided Trade Credit on Firm Value. Production and Operations Management, 31(2), 781–798. View Full Text
Abstract
With over half a trillion dollars in trade credit flowing between firms in the U.S., it is critically important for managers to understand how the trade credit that their firm receives and provides affect its value. Trade credit is a strategic investment in supply chain relationships that allows the recipient to make payment later rather than at the time of the sale. A firm provides trade credit to its downstream business customers and also receives trade credit from its upstream suppliers. Although research has shown that provided trade credit builds a firm’s shareholder value, it has not examined what effect, if any, received trade credit has on the firm’s value. As a result, one might assume that received trade credit affects firm value in the same manner as provided trade credit. We argue otherwise and show that received trade credit and provided trade credit have differential effects on firm value. Received trade credit has a negative direct effect and a positive indirect effect (through profit), whereas provided trade credit has a positive direct effect and a negative indirect effect. The difference in direct effects hinges on the disparate nature of dependence in the supply chain. Provided trade credit increases customers’ dependence on the firm, building the firm’s value. In contrast, received trade credit increases the firm’s dependence on its suppliers, destroying the firm’s value. Empirical results using a sample of 2,804 firms from 1986 to 2017 provide robust support for the hypotheses. They show that managers risk over-estimating the value of a 1 SD increase in received (provided) trade credit by $284.74 ($74.95) million, on average, if they do not consider both the direct and indirect effects it has on their firm’s value.
Problem Definition. There is a concerted effort across multiple academic disciplines to understand the recall decision-making process. Specifically, what steps does a manufacturer take following a product defect discovery and resulting in the product recall decision? This effort has often been limited to case studies within a particular manufacturer largely due to the absence of consistent and comparable data across firms.
Methodology/Results. This data paper provides a foundation for future research on recall decisions by processing and coding textual disclosures on 2,120 recalls initiated in the United States by 27 automobile manufacturers from 2009-2018. For each recall, the data set provides the time the firm took to make the recall decision by comparing the defect awareness date to the recall decision date, whether the recall is associated with a supplier, the number of events in the recall decision-making process, and the date and description of each event.
Managerial Implications. Not only can this data enhance product recall research by providing key recall decision-making variables unavailable in related research, an additional indication of the value of our data set also comes from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the automobile regulator in the United States. We held discussions with a senior leader at the NHTSA’s Recall Management Division related to this data set. This discussion revealed that the NHTSA does not have these data in an analyzable form and that they would be interested in using our data set for its reports, such as the NHTSA’s biennial reports to the U.S. Congress. This signal suggests that regulators, as well as researchers, practitioners, and other safety advocates may find our data set useful.
Astvansh, V., Habib, A., and Deng, W. (2022). Research: When Geopolitical Risk Rises, Innovation Stalls. Harvard Business Review, March. View Full Text
Abstract
The impact of geopolitical conflict on global trade and security is clear. But how do rising geopolitical risk levels affect corporate innovation? The authors cross-referenced data from 4,625 U.S. companies over 32 years with a global index of geopolitical risk to quantify the link between geopolitics and innovation. At a high level, their analysis suggests that geopolitical risk has a substantial stifling effect on private sector innovation, in particular for companies with substantial exposure to foreign markets, and that that negative impact can persist for three to five years after the initial conflict. In light of these findings, the authors offer strategies to help companies minimize the impact of geopolitical risk on their own innovation, but argue that ultimately, the only way to address the underlying issue is for political and business leaders (alongside other key players, such as lawmakers and media platforms) to work together to reduce global tensions and build a more peaceful — and innovative — future.
You are now leaving the Kelley School of Business' official website; the views and opinions expressed in the linked website are those of the author and do not reflect the views, opinions, or official policy or position of Indiana University or the Kelley School of Business.
You are leaving the official Kelley website.
You are now leaving the Kelley School of Business' official website; the views and opinions expressed in the linked website are those of the author and do not reflect the views, opinions, or official policy or position of Indiana University or the Kelley School of Business.
You are leaving the official Kelley website.
You are now leaving the Kelley School of Business' official website; the views and opinions expressed in the linked website are those of the author and do not reflect the views, opinions, or official policy or position of Indiana University or the Kelley School of Business.
You are leaving the official Kelley website.
You are now leaving the Kelley School of Business' official website; the views and opinions expressed in the linked website are those of the author and do not reflect the views, opinions, or official policy or position of Indiana University or the Kelley School of Business.