Search results

Executives are often faced with the challenge of making sound decisions regarding the product and geographic markets into which the company should diversify. This situation is even more glaring with respect to construction companies, owing to the volatile nature of the construction market. The purpose of this paper is to present empirical results on the impact of geographic diversification on the performance and risk profiles of construction firms in the UK.

Published financial data of construction firms covering the period 1995‐2004 are employed in the paper. From this data, extent of geographic diversification, performance, and risk are computed. Firms are grouped based on the extent of diversification into undiversified, moderately diversified, and highly diversified. Performance of these groups is then compared using the t‐statistic based on return on equity (ROE), return on total asset (ROTA), return on capital employed (ROCE), and profit margin (PM).

The results show that firms that remain focused within the UK market outperform those that expand into international markets on PM only. There is no significant difference in performance based on ROE, ROTA, and ROCE. However, as expected, highly diversified firms are found to exhibit the best risk profile.

These results are invaluable to managers in strategic decision making. They also provide a first step to understanding the nature of the relationship between geographic spread and performance of UK construction firms.

In this paper, we argue that the effect of diversification on performance is not homogeneous across industries, as previously assumed in the literature on diversification in strategy and finance. We provide empirical evidence that some industries are more friendly environments for diversified firms than for specialists, and vice versa. The implications of this qualification for the diversification‐performance relationship are investigated in this study. The results show that the number of specialists in an industry is an important moderator of the diversification‐performance relationship, and it determines the existence of a positive, negative, or curvilinear relationship. Diversification has a more negative impact on performance as the number of specialized firms in the industries in the sample increases. Although we find clear evidence of the curvilinear relationship between diversification and performance frequently found in strategy research, the relationship seems to be the result of not accounting for the relative dominance of diversifiers versus specialists in the industries in the sample.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the previous mixed findings in the relationship between diversification and firm performance. Using international and industrial conglomerates, the paper introduces productivity as a moderating variable to ascertain whether the mixed views in the diversification-performance nexus is due to variations in productivity. The findings in both proxies of performance (q and return on asset (ROA)) show that productivity is not a significant moderator in the diversification-performance link, except that under industrial conglomerates productivity enhances ROAs significantly. Meanwhile, the results show that diversification either has no significant value on firm performance or relates negatively with performance – a contrasting result to the hypothesis of this study.

This study adopts diversification measurement, categorisation approach and the methodology used in the work of Fauver et al. (2004) and the subsequent modification by Lee et al. (2012). This study, however, investigates the moderating effect of productivity on diversified firms and not ownership as shown in the previous studies. Performance is measured by two proxies to show robustness of the study. ROA is an accounting tool and Tobin’s q reflects a market-based performance of the firm.

The results show that productivity has no moderating impact on a market-based performance of a diversified firm. Regarding ROA, results show a split in finding by showing that productivity has no significant impact on international diversification; however, for industrial diversification, results show significant impact.

The paper adds to knowledge of finance by ruling out the view that the inconsistencies in the diversification and performance nexus in emerging economies could be due to vagaries in productivity. It is confirmed that productivity technically does not strengthen the link between diversification and performance: suggesting that factors other than productivity could establish a maximal impact on that link to minimise the inconsistencies in the findings on diversification-performance link.

The purpose of this study was to explore the motives (especially the agency motives) for corporate diversification from the perspective of corporate executives who make such strategic decisions and manage the diversified firms daily.

A qualitative research approach was adopted, and 12 chief executive officers (CEOs) of diversified firms in Nigeria were interviewed for their perspectives on the motives for corporate diversification.

Stewardship motives – diversification to use excess capacities in assets and resources to exploit opportunities in the market and defend against adverse environmental developments – were the most cited reasons for diversification. The relevant agency problem related to corporate diversification motive in Nigeria is the principal–principal (majority shareholder-minority shareholder) one. CEOs with substantial holdings in their firms indicated that they use diversification to reduce their investment risk and retain control of their portfolio.

The findings suggest that in corporate environments such as Nigeria that feature blockholding prominently, the corporate strategy-related agency problem that policymakers should pay greater attention to is the principal–principal conflict rather than the traditional agent–principal problem that has influenced corporate governance over the years. There is also a need to revise the dominant view that diversification is a value-destroying strategy motivated by the self-seeking behavior of managers who have little or no shares in the companies they manage.

The few studies on motives for corporate diversification that incorporated the perspectives of corporate executives did not address the agency motives of diversification. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that has done so.

Built upon theories from outside the construction management literature, this study assesses the impact of product diversification on the performance of construction firms in the UK. Performance was measured based on financial ratios of management performance while diversification was measured by the specialisation ratio. The research involved the use of financial data of construction firms covering the period 1995‐2004. The choice of the period is informed by the economic stability during the period and also, by the fact that diversification is a long‐term strategy. The findings indicate that focused firms outperform both moderately and highly diversified firms based on return on total assets (ROTA) and profit margin (PM). However, no performance difference was found between the moderately diversified and highly diversified firms.

The gap between management theory and practice has been much criticized. To help bridge the divide, a synthesis of empirical, theoretical and practice literature is offered, along with an application of the widely used VRIO framework, to contend that developing a focused corporate parenting approach as a core competence serves as a source of competitive advantage for diversified companies.

A synthesis of empirical, theoretical and practice literature is presented, beginning with a discussion of why and how firms diversify; the relative performance of firms that pursue related and unrelated diversification; an application of the resource-based view, core competencies and the VRIO framework; a description of focused corporate parenting as a core competency; a prescription for how diversified firms can implement a focused corporate parenting approach; and implications for research.

Developing a focused corporate parenting approach as a core competence serves as a source of competitive advantage for diversified companies.

The synthesis of empirical, theoretical and practice literature presented provides a foundation for future research into the impact of focused corporate parenting on diversified firm performance.

The paper includes a prescription for how diversified firms can implement a focused corporate parenting approach.

The application of the resource-based view and core competency theories to corporate parenting provides managers with the rationale for and methodology to focus their corporate parenting activities.

The purpose of this study is to gain new insight into the true nature of the relationship between product diversification and performance, as well as to explore the roles the home country environment and time can play on this relationship.

The study reviews a large part of the research that has addressed the relationship between product diversification and performance over the last four decades.

This study identifies the main views (models) that can help scholars to adequately understand, both theoretically and empirically, the potential effect of product diversification on performance: the premium diversification model; the discount diversification model; and the U‐inverted model. The study confirms a wide diversity of results. Drawing from the institutional‐based view, it is argued that a significant part of this heterogeneity stems from the effect of two factors that have often been ignored: the home country environment and time period. The review of recent empirical research seems to provide some support for the central argument that the value firms achieve through product diversification may be contingent both on the specific home country environment (environmental dependency) and time period (time dependency) under study.

This study yields an alternative explanation to the inconsistency in findings that goes beyond strictly theoretical and methodological reasons. It shows that the arguments related to different views (or models) need to be considered “environment‐dependent” and “time‐dependent”. It concludes by proposing a framework to guide future research.

The performance effects of product‐market and international diversification were examined in a sample of 156 U.S. corporations. Three sets of performance measures were used: (1) profitability, (2) risk‐adjusted returns, and (3) growth. Results suggest independent effects on profitability, and interactive effects on risk‐adjusted returns and growth. Results also clarify seemingly conflicting findings on product‐market and international diversification effects on performance.

This paper aims to examine empirically the relationships among industry environment, diversification motivations and corporate performance for a sample of Taiwanese automobile enterprises.

A 55‐item survey questionnaire was developed to obtain the responses from companies in the automobile industry in Taiwan. Independent sample t‐test and χ² tests were employed to confirm the homogeneity between the respondents and non‐respondents by firm's characteristics, including by industry, number of employees, and capital.

The results suggest that industry environment has positive and significant impact on diversification motivations, and has positive but not significant impact on corporate performance. Diversification motivations has positive and significant impact on corporate performance. The results also indicate that firms of higher capital amounts have greater influence on diversification motivations and corporate performance, firms of publicly listed have greater influence on industry environment, diversification motivations and corporate performance and firms of higher degree of diversification have greater influence on diversification motivations only.

Several limitations exist in this study. This study adopts the cross‐sectional research design and examines firms at one point time and because of the constraints of time and data availability, longitudinal research was not viable in this study. Also the amount of variation for some regression models is low.

The paper's results not only provide researchers with a theoretical basis for further research, but also provide top management teams with important data when engaging in diversification.

The purpose of this study is to provide an integrated framework that conceptualizes multifaceted antecedents pertaining to international expansion of emerging market businesses in relation to firm performance. This paper develops multiple-item measures of multiple dimensions to clarify ownership structure and three diversification strategy relationships to performance. We test how ownership structure and diversification strategy affect emerging market multinational enterprises’ financial performance. The result shows that the relationship between ownership structure and firm performance is a nonlinear relationship (S shape). We also found that excessive international diversification, product diversification, and geographic scope of the expansion process negatively moderate the impact of Asia Pacific multinational enterprises’ performance.