IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2607.08920.html

AI Adoption in S&P 500 Firms

Author

Listed:
  • Yang Yu
  • Martin Fleming
  • Lucy Hampton
  • Christophe Combemale
  • Neil Thompson

Abstract

The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) by large enterprises is an important potential source of aggregate productivity improvement and labor market impact. We study AI adoption of S&P 500 firms over the period 2016 to 2025, estimating adoption at the enterprise level. While generative AI tools are useful for personal and professional applications, our focus is on the deep integration of AI in the business processes of large enterprises which are bellwethers for firm adoption more broadly. We develop a novel measure to assess deep AI adoption (and distinguish it from AI hype) that is based on SEC 10-K filings, where laws and regulations ``prohibit companies from making materially false or misleading statements." In 2025, 11% of S&P 500 enterprises had AI deeply integrated into their business processes, and a further 10% were using AI in the production of goods and delivery of services. AI adoption has more than quadrupled from 5% in 2022 with slowly accelerating adoption among non-technology firms but very aggressive adoption in the technology sector which accounts for two-thirds of deeply integrated enterprise adoption. Firm profitability shows a "J-curve" as firms move from no adoption to deep adoption, but we observe no differences in capex or productivity. Among technology firms, but not others, AI adoption is higher for firms with more employees and higher values of Tobin's q.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang Yu & Martin Fleming & Lucy Hampton & Christophe Combemale & Neil Thompson, 2026. "AI Adoption in S&P 500 Firms," Papers 2607.08920, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2607.08920
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.08920
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erik Brynjolfsson & Daniel Rock & Chad Syverson, 2021. "The Productivity J-Curve: How Intangibles Complement General Purpose Technologies," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(1), pages 333-372, January.
    2. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    3. Vasco M. Carvalho, 2014. "From Micro to Macro via Production Networks," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 23-48, Fall.
    4. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen, 2010. "Why Do Management Practices Differ across Firms and Countries?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(1), pages 203-224, Winter.
    5. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    6. Jian Gao & Dashun Wang, 2024. "Quantifying the use and potential benefits of artificial intelligence in scientific research," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(12), pages 2281-2292, December.
    7. Daron Acemoglu & David Autor & Jonathon Hazell & Pascual Restrepo, 2022. "Artificial Intelligence and Jobs: Evidence from Online Vacancies," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(S1), pages 293-340.
    8. Kevin A. Bryan, 2026. "The Economic Impacts of Artificial Intelligence: A Multidisciplinary, Multi-book Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 64(1), pages 281-300, March.
    9. Matthias Mertens & Adam Kuzee & Brittany S. Harris & Harry Lyu & Wensu Li & Jonathan Rosenfeld & Meiri Anto & Martin Fleming & Neil Thompson, 2026. "Crashing Waves vs. Rising Tides: Findings on AI Automation from Thousands of Worker Evaluations of Labor Market Tasks," Papers 2604.01363, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2026.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wadho, Waqar & Chaudhry, Azam, 2020. "Innovation Strategies and Productivity Growth in Developing Countries: Evidence from Pakistan," GLO Discussion Paper Series 466, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    2. Lopamudra D. Satpathy & Bikash Ranjan Mishra, 2019. "Size-Competition-Productivity Nexus: Evidence from Indian Manufacturing Firms," South Asia Economic Journal, Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, vol. 20(2), pages 303-321, September.
    3. Chen, Cheng, 2019. "Trade liberalization, agency problem and aggregate productivity," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 421-442.
    4. Dan Andrews & Chiara Criscuolo, 2013. "Knowledge-Based Capital, Innovation and Resource Allocation," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1046, OECD Publishing.
    5. Benavente, Jose Miguel & Zuniga, Pluvia, 2021. "How does market competition affect firm innovation incentives in emerging countries? Evidence from Latin American firms," MERIT Working Papers 2021-024, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    6. Babina, Tania & Fedyk, Anastassia & He, Alex & Hodson, James, 2024. "Artificial intelligence, firm growth, and product innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    7. Yang, Xiuyun & Li, Min & Liang, Shanshan, 2024. "How consumers’ digital engagement affects regional innovation capacity in China?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    8. Liliana Meza-González & Jaime Marie Sepulveda, 2019. "The impact of competition with China in the US market on innovation in Mexican manufacturing firms," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 28(1), pages 1-21, December.
    9. Patrick Legros & Andrew F. Newman & Eugenio Proto, 2014. "Smithian Growth through Creative Organization," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(5), pages 796-811, December.
    10. Yi-Ling Cheng & Juin-Jen Chang, 2017. "The Quality of Intermediate Goods: Growth and Welfare Implications," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(302), pages 434-447, September.
    11. Christos A Makridis & Andrew A Borkowski & Gil Alterovitz, 2024. "Perspectives on advancing innovation and human flourishing through a network of AI institutes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 557-562.
    12. Kiatipong Ariyapruchya & Cheerapan O-lanthanasate & Chatsurang Karnchanasai, 2006. "Strengthening the Competitiveness of Thai Firms: What Needs to be Done?," Working Papers 2006-03, Monetary Policy Group, Bank of Thailand.
    13. Steven Bond‐Smith, 2022. "Discretely innovating: The effect of limited market contestability on innovation and growth," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 69(3), pages 301-327, July.
    14. Bruno Amable & Jean-Bernard Chatelain & Kirsten Ralf, 2004. ""Deep Pockets": Research and Development Persistence and Economic Growth," Money Macro and Finance (MMF) Research Group Conference 2004 47, Money Macro and Finance Research Group, revised 13 Oct 2004.
    15. Mark Knell & Simone Vannuccini, 2022. "Tools and concepts for understanding disruptive technological change after Schumpeter," Jena Economics Research Papers 2022-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    16. Oriana Bandiera & Renata Lemos & Andrea Prat & Raffaella Sadun, 2018. "Managing the Family Firm: Evidence from CEOs at Work," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 31(5), pages 1605-1653.
    17. T. Gries & R. Grundmann & I. Palnau & M. Redlin, 2017. "Innovations, growth and participation in advanced economies - a review of major concepts and findings," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 293-351, April.
    18. Niklas Elert, 2014. "What determines entry? Evidence from Sweden," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 53(1), pages 55-92, August.
    19. Khine Kyaw & Sirimon Treepongkaruna & Pornsit Jiraporn, 2021. "Stakeholder engagement and firms' innovation: Evidence from LGBT‐supportive policies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1285-1298, July.
    20. Patrik Gustavsson Tingvall & Andreas Poldahl, 2006. "Is there really an inverted U-shaped relation between competition and R&D?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 101-118.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2607.08920. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.