Corporate Digital Transformation and Debt Financing Costs: An Empirical Study Based on Intangible Assets Measurement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/gxftwq12Keywords:
Digital Transformation, Debt Financing.Abstract
In today’s digital economy, digital transformation has become a crucial strategy for businesses, with its effects at the corporate level attracting considerable interest from both scholars and industry professionals. This study uses a classification of intangible assets to develop a new measure of corporate digital transformation, based on annual report data from China’s A-share listed companies between 2011 and 2023. It then empirically investigates how digital transformation influences corporate debt financing costs. The results show a significant negative relationship between digital transformation—measured by the share of digital intangible assets—and debt financing costs. In other words, greater investment in digital transformation corresponds to lower costs of debt financing. These findings offer important guidance for companies aiming to reduce expenses and provide a theoretical basis for corporate transformation and development.
Downloads
References
[1] Sun X Q, Gao X Y, Wang Y M. Research on key elements, mechanism analysis, and evaluation indicators of intelligent-digital integrated transformation development in manufacturing. Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2024, 39 (2): 323–332.
[2] Müller J, et al. Digital transformation and innovation performance in small- and medium-sized enterprises: A systems perspective. Systems, 2025, 13 (1): 43.
[3] Che D X, Dai M Y, Wu F. Impact and mechanism of corporate digital transformation on financing costs. Financial Regulation Research, 2021, 12: 56–74.
[4] Chen J, et al. Enterprise digital transformation and debt financing cost in China's A-share listed companies. Oeconomia Copernicana, 2022, 13 (3): 783–829.
[5] Nan X L, Tong A N. Digital empowerment and corporate mergers and acquisitions: A dual perspective of technology- and market-driven motives. Science of Science and Management of S.& T., 2025, 46 (3): 140–155.
[6] Nambisan S, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A, Song M. Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 2017, 41 (1): 223–238.
[7] Westerman G, Bonnet D, McAfee A. The nine elements of digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2014, 55 (3): 1–6.
[8] Mithas S, Tafti A, Mitchell W. How a firm's competitive environment and digital strategic posture influence digital business strategy. MIS Quarterly, 2013, 37 (2): 511–536.
[9] Li X S, Dang L, Zhao C Y. Digital transformation, integration into global innovation networks, and innovation performance. China Industrial Economics, 2022, 10: 43–61.
[10] He F, Liu H X. Evaluation of the performance improvement effect of digital transformation in enterprises from the perspective of digital economy. Reform, 2019, 4: 137–148.
[11] Mahmood M A, Hajli N, Julian C. Information technology (IT) productivity paradox in the 21st century. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 2015, 64 (4): 457–478.
[12] Caputo, A, Fostering digital literacy among small and micro‐enterprises: digital transformation as an open and guided innovation process. R&D Management, 2023, 54 (1), 118-136
[13] Zhang W H, Mao X S, Liu K X. Does interest rate liberalization reduce the debt financing costs of listed companies? Journal of Financial Research, 2018, 460 (10): 106–122.
[14] Bernanke B, Gertler M, Gilchrist S. The financial accelerator and the flight to quality. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1996, 78 (1): 1–15.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
