Search results

Although there are many variations in the definition of diversification, it would be only appropriate to provide some form of definition for the reader. Corporate diversification in its broadest sense can be defined simply as the entering into a new business activity by an existing business entity. This definition is expounded upon by many of the leading corporate diversification researchers to include references to the method of entering the new business (whether it be through acquisition, internal development, etc.), the driving forces behind the diversification (i.e., synergy, resource sharing, risk reduction), and the levels of relatedness between the company's present product line and market to that of the new businesses' products and markets.

Corporate diversification is a strategy that enables corporations to expand their core business into other businesses. In Malaysia, corporate diversification continues to represent a fundamental organizational structure. Some two-thirds of Malaysian firms are diversified. However, when compared to developed countries such as the US and the UK, we find that firms are moving toward non-diversification. The study is based on the population framework consisting of all of the public limited companies (PLCs) listed on the Bursa Malaysia stock exchange from 2007 to 2012. A dynamic panel model system generalized method of moments (GMM) was used to analyze the diversification and firm’s performance theories.

The empirical findings demonstrated that diversification is better than non-diversification firms for the curvilinear relationship between diversification and firm’s performance (ROA and Tobin-Q) when using the entropy index and relatedness is taken into consideration. The research further concluded that related and unrelated diversification also has a positive relationship with performance, but diversification must be the dominant (focused) and cannot be too broad in nature. Diversification that is too broad may cause a positive relationship to turn in to a negative relationship toward performance in both related and unrelated instances of diversification.

Professional football clubs have increasingly initiated two corporate diversification strategies to enfold growth opportunities besides traditional income sources: business diversification and international diversification. Empirical findings from management and sport management literature provide inconclusive evidence on these strategies' financial performance effects, necessitating further research. The purpose of this article is therefore to investigate how both corporate diversification strategies affect the financial performance of professional football clubs.

A 15-year panel data set of English Premier League (EPL) clubs is examined, many of which have employed corporate diversification strategies. Measures for related business diversification (RBD) and unrelated business diversification (UBD) as well as international diversification are established from management literature. Based on fixed effects regression models, their effects on clubs' revenues and profitability are then examined.

U-shaped effects from RBD on revenues and profitability are found, but no effects from UBD. These findings empirically support the theoretically appealing superiority of RBD over UBD and, with increasing levels of RBD, over a focused strategy in management literature. With international diversification, an inverted U-shaped effect on revenues is identified.

Despite focusing only on the EPL, these findings provide new evidence of non-linear financial performance effects from corporate diversification strategies adding to (sport) management literature and setting the stage for future research on these strategies in professional football.

These findings have significant implications for club managers' strategic growth opportunities such as new business models or geographic markets.

This is the first study to empirically examine the financial effects of corporate diversification strategies in the football market context.

The purpose of this study is to analyze product diversification, business structure and insurer performance with a comprehensive look at the property-liability (P/L) insurance operations.

Using a panel data, this study employs an ordinary least squares regression model, fixed effects model and random effects model to examine the impact of product diversification and business structure on the performance of P/L insurers. The study assesses insurer performance using both risk-adjusted return on assets and risk-adjusted return on equity.

The study finds that product diversification is significantly negatively related to the performance of P/L insurers. The results are consistent with the diversification discount theory. The empirical results reveal that business lines have significant impacts on firm performance, particularly on the lines of fire and marine insurances. Furthermore, the interaction between product diversification and firm size implies that product diversification significantly increases the performance of large-sized insurance firms.

The study provides some valuable insights into the effects of diversification and business structure on the performance of P/L insurers in a developing country. The study’s findings suggest that management of P/L insurers should clarify their objectives and carefully assess the company’s resources when dealing with product diversification and business structure. The results have practical implications for the financial services industry in Taiwan.

Diversified business groups have become active players in Chinese economy in the recent years. While several studies have been conducted to examine the role of external factors such as market imperfection on firms' decisions to diversify, relatively few efforts have been made to investigate the impact of internal factors such as ownership structures on such decision. Building on agency theory, this paper attempts to examine the impacts of ownership type and ownership concentration on Chinese business groups' diversification strategies.

Year 2000 annual reports of publicly traded companies on Shenzhen Stock Exchange were used to identify business groups and collect data. Multiple regression analysis was used to conduct the data analysis.

The results indicate that compared to other ownership structures, government‐owned business groups tend to be more diversified, while ownership concentration seems to be related to lower levels of diversification. Industry membership also plays a significant role, but previous performance is not significantly related to diversification levels. Implications and future study directions are also discussed.

This study contributes to the understanding of the impact of ownership structure on companies' diversification strategies in a transitional economy such as China.

This study investigates how investors perceive the impact of U.S.‐based MNCs geographic and business segment diversification upon their earnings performance. Pooled cross‐sectional annual earnings response regressions for the years 1993 through 1997 are used for this investigation. Our results show that geographic segment diversification is valued by investors more than the business segment diversification especially in two cases: 1) when the business segmentation is low; and 2) when geographic segmentation is high. These results imply that business segment diversification is only valued when it takes place in international markets where it is relatively more difficult for individual investors to replicate industry diversified portfolio for themselves. Our research illuminates the contextual aspects of investors' perceptions of geographic and business segment diversification for multinational corporations by explicitly controlling for one dimension of corporate diversification while examining the earning‐returns impact of the other type of corporate diversification.

This article investigates the issue of diversification around the core business, namely concentric diversification. There have been many diversification failures reported over the last few decades. Little guidance has been available to firms who plan to diversify in order to grow. The literature relating to competitive advantage, sustainable competitive advantage, and concentric diversification is reviewed. A process is then presented to help managers make sound strategic diversification decisions, thus reducing the risk of failure.

Axis, HMS and Sectra are three Swedish companies whose managers argue that you should never be radical on two fronts: creating new products for new markets at the same time. This paper aims to show however that while Axis’ managers claim not to be radical on two fronts, they still perform horizontal diversification, but they do so by disguising it as product development. Just like certain animals disguise themselves for protection, Axis’ managers disguise diversification as a defense mechanism, to protect themselves. In so doing, they have learned to manage the dynamics of innovation, by shifting between periods of focus and diversification.

This study was based on an inductive research approach influenced by grounded theory. In total, 32 interviews were performed with top and middle-line managers from three Swedish companies: Axis, Sectra and HMS. A total of 91 A4 transcript pages, 66 A4 e-mail pages, 52 annual reports (from 1999 to 2017) and 256 company presentations and newspaper articles (from 1988 to 2015) were collected and analyzed. Open and selective coding yielded 105 sub-categories, which were grouped into four main categories and presented as detailed descriptions. The results were based on the interpretation of those descriptions and related to disguise as a defense mechanism in psychology.

Innovation is a difficult process often met with hostility. Axis’ managers however have found a way to go beyond their existing business domain, while still protecting themselves from internal and external opposing forces that would go against such a risky strategy. To do so, they first expand their existing business domain. Then they perform horizontal diversification and disguise it as product development, as a defense mechanism to protect their desire to create innovation from managers who would oppose their risky strategy. In so doing, they convince other stakeholders that innovation through diversification is the best strategy for their company.

This study was only performed at three Swedish technological companies. For future research, other Swedish companies could be included, and not only technological companies either, to explore whether diversification is considered a strategy that needs to be disguised in other businesses as well, and how managers from those businesses deal with internal and external forces.

Managers from Axis, Sectra and HMS are fully aware that innovation as well as diversification is difficult. Ideas that seem interesting and full of potential for some people may seem too risky and dangerous for others. To protect diversification as a strategy for innovation, Axis’ managers have found a way to disguise diversification, and make it seem less dangerous. In so doing, they are able to diversify and create innovation. A strategy for disguising diversification therefore has practical managerial implications of how managers can deal with internal and external forces that would go against such a strategy.

This study connects defense mechanisms in psychology with innovations strategy and innovation management and solves a practical dilemma that managers often struggle with: how to create innovation despite barriers that exists and oppose such a strategy. Managers will most likely always face different barriers to innovation, and perhaps solving them is not possible. This study shows how Axis’ managers have found a way to go around this problem, when solving it is not possible. This strategy thus shows originality and value for both theory and practice related to innovations strategy and innovation management.

Prior research on international diversification has focused primarily on multinational enterprises (MNEs) from developed economies, such as the U.S. and other developed nations. As an increasing number of MNEs are now located in emerging economies, new theoretical frameworks are needed to better understand the motivations of these MNEs to diversify internationally. This paper contributes to the theory development of MNEs by examining the characteristics of international diversification by business groups from emerging economies. Using the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm and organizational learning theory, we suggest that the international diversification motives of business groups from emerging economies vary by host country context. Business groups from emerging economies are more likely to enter developed economies (rather than other emerging economies) when their primary aim is exploring new resources and capabilities, and more likely to enter other emerging economies (rather than developed economies) when their primary aim is to exploit existing group resources and capabilities. We also suggest that these motives influence business-group performance. We identify two important moderators of these relationships: product diversification and social capital. Because of the importance of the business-group organizational form in emerging economies, understanding business-group international diversification may lead to improved MNE theory.

This paper aims to explore the roles different ownership structures, the joint effect of related and unrelated diversification strategies, and previous performance levels have on the restructuring strategies of such firms.

Annual reports of publicly traded firms in the two Chinese stock exchanges are used to collect data. Multiple regression and ANOVA analysis are used to examine the impact of ownership structure types, match between diversification strategies, and previous performance on the change of business scopes of the sample business groups.

Compared to other ownership types, government owned business groups tend to increase their business scope during asset restructuring, while private business groups tend to decrease their scopes through divestitures and spinoffs. Poor previous performance is also found to be negatively related to change in business scopes. The “match” between related and unrelated diversification strategies of the business groups leads to increase in business scopes, while “mismatch” between these two strategies tends to lead to decrease in business scopes.

This study provides some recommendations to managers and public policy makers in emerging economies. There is a need to monitor the changing institutional environment a firm operates in. It is up to the managers of business groups to determine the degree of market imperfections they are facing and the need to compensate with internal market mechanism and social exchange mechanism within the group structure. As China opens its door further to private ownership and foreign ownership, the pressure to increase efficiency and effectiveness along with the continuous improvement of the institutional environment will require that managers adopt strategies that can enhance the competitiveness of the firms, whether it is through further diversification or scope reduction.

This research deepens our understanding of restructuring strategies of Chinese business groups, by linking factors such as ownership structure, diversification strategies, and past performance to scope changes in these groups. It can broaden our understanding of corporate restructuring in transitional economies, such as China and India.