Purpose: Research on social media frequently analyze social media usage (SMU)'s positive consequences for organizations and individuals; however, recent innovation studies caution that SMU may not always lead to positive new product development (NPD) outcomes. The competing streams of research highlight a fundamental tension that exists in the social media literature exemplified by the question: Is SMU good or bad for NPD? In this manuscript, the authors suggest that a more appropriate question as follows: What are the positive and negative indirect effects of SMU on NPD performance? The purpose of this paper is to discuss the aforementioned points in detail.Design/methodology/approach: A literature review provides the model and hypotheses. Using a sample of 168 Chinese firms, the authors conducted an empirical test following multiple regression analysis.Findings: The results demonstrate that SMU facilitates business analytics (ability) and social legitimacy (opportunity) but impairs entrepreneurial proclivity (motivation). These three constructs in turn mediate the effect of SMU on NPD performance. Moreover, this paper explores how technological turbulence moderates SMU's effects on business analytics, entrepreneurship proclivity and social legitimacy.Research limitations/implications: The results may be affected by both the context (solely in China) and type (cross-sectional) of the data set. Future research might take a decompositional approach to study SMU's effect on innovation in different NPD stages. Furthermore, with widely varying purposes (e.g., marketing, information searching, partner collaboration, new product launch, etc.), there is certainly a need for more clarity and understanding of how firms can leverage each of these different social media activities for successful NPD.Practical implications: First, we suggest that managers in China should be explicitly aware of the double-edged sword effect of SMU on NPD performance. Second, this study encourages managers to use social media carefully when technological turbulence becomes intense.Originality/value: Drawing on the ability–motivation–opportunity framework, this is one of the first studies to simultaneously examines the benefits and costs of SMU for NPD. In addition, this paper bridges the separate literatures on social media, business analytics, entrepreneurial proclivity and social legitimacy and contributes to the NPD research.

Green credit policy (GCP) serves as an important tool for environmental protection and economy development. However, conflicting evidence exists regarding its role in affecting firms’ green innovation. China’s GCP practice provides an opportunity to explore this issue in the context of developing economies. Taking the implementation of the “Green Credit Guidelines” in China in 2012 as an exogenous shock, this paper adopts the difference-in-differences (DIDs) method to separately explore GCP’s effect on green innovation of non-heavily polluting firms (non-HPFs) and heavily polluting firms (HPFs). Based on the microdata of Chinese firms from 2008 to 2020, this study finds that: (1) GCP promotes green innovation of non-HPFs, but inhibits green innovation of HPFs. (2) GCP’s promoting effect on green innovation of non-HPFs is more prominent in large-sized firms, regions with a higher financial development level, and regions with a higher pollution level. (3) GCP’s inhibiting effect on green innovation of HPFs is less prominent in regions with higher financial development level. (4) Environmental information disclosure (EID) strengthens GCP’s promoting effect on green innovation of non-HPFs. Overall, these findings help practitioners to better understand the impact of GCP on firms’ green innovation in developing countries.