Search results

Strategic alliances between academic and corporate partners can provide exceptional benefits and reveal new opportunities for shared value. Benefits and opportunities include alternative sources of funding to support academic programs, more effective and efficient matching of students with prospective employers, applied research for faculty, innovative and mutual learning environments, and improved business practices. The focus of this paper will describe how three corporate‐alliance relationships with Northern Illinois University’s College of Business were initiated and developed. Other schools and companies looking to develop similar relationships may hopefully benefit from the College of Business’s experience. Moreover, corporate and academic alliances provide a potentially rich area of research.

Eli Lilly's director of alliance management tells how the company has learned to make a success of its partnership strategy.

The author describes best practices and key principles.

The Lilly process has proven successful – of the last six products the firm has launched, four are promoted with a partner.

Lilly has developed a “three‐dimensional fit” analysis that helps the firm identify elements of strategic fit, cultural fit and operational fit between Lilly and a partner company.

Lilly describes how the elements of their alliance program increase the likelihood of success for individual partnerships and how a continuous learning process contributes to the success of future alliances.

The paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoints practical implications from cutting‐edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

Eli Lilly and Company is a global pharmaceutical company and one of the world's largest corporations. Following a major strategic review during the 1990s, Eli senior executives chose to focus on developing strong organic growth rather than expanding through mergers and acquisitions.

The paper provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world's leading organizations.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy‐to‐digest format.

The purpose of this paper is to untangle the impacts of a firm’s corporate reputation and its alliance partners’ social capital on its financial performance, drawing on the relational and the network points of view.

This paper explored the moderating effect of corporate reputation on the relationship between partners’ social capital (e.g. resource heterogeneity, structural relations and partners’ social ties) and a focal firm’s performance. An OLS three-step regression model (controls, main effects and interaction effects) was used to test the proposed hypotheses based on 265 US joint ventures.

The influence of partners’ social capital on a focal firm’s performance is negatively moderated by the focal firm’s reputation at the firm and network levels; larger and more prestigious firms listed in Fortune database tend to choose partners with a higher level of resource heterogeneity, whereas smaller firms tend to choose partners in similar industries to increase economies of scale. The social capital factors of the partners will have different effects on the focal firm performance.

The value of this paper is in providing insight into the importance and nuances of corporate reputation in offsetting the advantages of inter-firm alliances and their impact on firm performance. In particular, the performance benefits of inter-firm alliance partners’ social ties and heterogeneous resources are negatively affected by the corporate reputation of a firm.

The number of strategic alliances has almost doubled in the past ten years and is expected to increase even more in the future. More than 20,000 corporate alliances have been formed world‐wide over the past two years, and the number of alliances in the USA has grown by 25 percent each year since 1987. Outsourcing is a form of strategic alliance which is attractive for many organizations, but it is not simple or easy to create, develop, and support. There are many implementation problems and the failure rate is projected to be as high as 70 percent. In this paper a case study methodology is employed and the chosen case is outsourcing. Our case study shows that the development of a long‐term strategic outsourcing relationship requires moral, ethical standards, trust and a willingness not to try to exploit the new relationship at the expense of long‐term cooperation. The paper concludes that a strategic outsourcing relationship needs a specific management strategy and that companies should also pay more attention to the burdens embedded within it.

This article rests on a comparative study between Turkish firms that form international corporate alliances and domestic firms in the same industry. The findings indicate that firms with foreign partners are not significantly different from domestic firms with respect to the degree of competition and turbulence in the environment, type of technology used, diversification policy, risk taking propensity and goals of top management. Resting on this finding, which allows for the control of several variables affecting the financing decision, the impact of international diversification on capital structure is investigated. The results indicate that firms which join in foreign alliances are similar to domestic firms with respect to capital structure. The research reveals that firms with foreign partners have lower performance and are younger than domestic firms. This finding is supported with the evidence for the negative relation between performance and tendency to perceive international diversification as a new source of finance. Consequently, foreign alliances seem to constitute a means for capital provision and rapid growth for the recently established and low performing firms which have limited access to external sources of financing.

While non-profit organization (NPO)-corporate alliances have proliferated in recent years, study has yet to examine on the perception of corporations toward NPOs. The purpose of this paper is to explore the factors that shape corporate perceptions of NPOs. What does the corporation consider when evaluating the activities of an NPO? Which factors are accorded the most importance when the corporate sector observes the NPO sector?

Corporate respondents generally held negative attitudes toward NPOs in terms of general activism functions. In contrast, they held neutral perceptions on trustworthiness. In factor analysis, the four factors that directed how corporate executives perceived activist groups were “positive functions of activists,” “negative aspects of organizational culture,” “trustworthy characteristics,” and “expected ethical management practices.”

While the participating corporate executives expressed positive attitudes toward activists and the role that they play in society, they showed negative attitudes toward their management style and their organizational culture. In particular, they expressed negative perceptions of the activists’ perceived elitism in their management style and internally oriented approach to the decision-making process.

Empirical evidence gathered in this study could shed light on how public relations professionals at NPOs build and maintain relationships with corporate sector, which has resources to support organization financially as well as emotionally.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss corporate co‐branding value and create the model of evaluating co‐branding value. The connotation of the model is to consider the compatibility of strategic partners such as strategic alliance compatibility and brand alliance compatibility; in addition, this research can estimate the corporate co‐branding value through this model to evaluate and discuss the effect of co‐branding effect for the future.

In the past, few researchers investigated the measurement of corporate co‐branding value in the marketing sector. The measurement of intangible assets, on the other hand, is well established in accounting finance. However, the concepts and methods of accounting finance cannot easily be applied to other areas. This paper provides a straightforward concept that uses a heuristic model to combine the notion of co‐branding synergy. According to the literature, the combination of strategic and brand alliances can affect the concept of co‐branding value. This research revises the concept of compatibility from Park and Lawson by replacing the concept of product attribute similarity with the ratio of sales growth, and the brand concept consistency with the ratio of market share after brand alliance.

This study verifies the proposed model synthetically with a real case (Sony‐Ericsson). Conversely, this research anticipates analyzing the model in different perspectives and observing the variation of different combinations to obtain potential managerial implications for corporate managers. This research concludes: brand alliance compatibility has limited effect on corporate co‐branding value; strategic alliance compatibility is the major power to drive the direction of corporate co‐branding value; and the trend of co‐branding value is the important indicator for business managers.

Insufficient information may generate incorrect or unclear trends if the year of co‐branding is too short. This is also a major limitation of the authors' research. Thus, more real‐world cases can be conducted (such as Miller and Coors) in the future to elaborate upon the model.

The proposed model helps enterprises estimate their current co‐branding value using existing financial statements and market share data and identify the degree of alliance influence to their revise brand strategies. The estimated co‐branding values in this study can help managers identify their market position and execute existing co‐brand strategies. Managers can utilize this information to revise their management direction or strategies. Based on these arguments, this research enhances existing co‐branding knowledge and offers significant contributions by presenting more real cases (e.g. Miller and Coors) in the future. In other words, this work is both an avenue and a blueprint for future co‐branding research.

The paper devises a novel concept for estimating corporate co‐branding value based on the synergies between strategic and brand alliances. To illustrate the proposed model, this study analyzes the Sony Ericsson example since it has survived for several years. Analytical results reveal that strategic alliance and brand alliance variations have significant influences on co‐branding value changes. Results also reveal that strategic alliances have a greater effect on co‐branding value than brand alliances, which indicates that a good alliance strategy may generate a superior co‐branding effect.

While research has shown that corporate social responsibility (CSR) can enhance a company's reputation, less is known about the effects of CSR communication on nonprofits. Hence, the current study seeks to understand how corporate reputation, message credibility and message source may impact consumers' attitudinal and behavioral intentions toward nonprofits.

A 2 (corporate reputation: low vs high) × 2 (CSR communication source: newspaper blog vs nonprofit blog) between-subjects online experiment was conducted. Real-world corporations (Toyota and Volkswagen) and a nonprofit (World Wildlife Fund) were chosen based on a pretest.

Nonprofit reputation increased after reading a CSR message, especially when it involved a partnership with a low-reputation corporation. Nevertheless, CSR partnerships with high-reputation corporations evoked higher volunteer intentions. Message credibility mediated the relationship between corporate reputation and nonprofit reputation. When the communication source was the nonprofit and the partnership involved a high-reputation corporation, positive evaluations of nonprofit likeability and competence resulted.

Nonprofit communication managers should understand the merit of communicating CSR partnerships with their constituents, regardless of medium. Additionally, the choice of a corporate partner is important for certain nonprofit outcomes. Lastly, message credibility is another important factor that should be considered.

The study bridges literature in communications that typically examines CSR by focusing on its effects on corporate outcomes with literature in nonprofit management that looks at nonprofit outcome measures. This study demonstrated that nonprofit–corporate alliances can also influence nonprofit reputation and donation/volunteer intentions based on the reputation of the corporate partner.