Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify the sources of variation in firm performance. This is one of the cornerstones of strategy research, i.e. the relative importance of industry and firm-level effects on firm performance. Multilevel analysis is well suited to analyze variance in performance when the data are hierarchically structured (industry segments consist of firms, firms operate within the context of industry segments). The Belgian industry studied is a service industry that consists of about 25 electrical wholesalers. Data were collected from 20 firms during the period 1998–2003 from responses to a questionnaire sent to all the firms in the market. The sample in the data set covers more than 95 percent of the market (in sales), as the missing firms were just fringe competitors. The results show that firm effects explain most of the variance in four performance variables. That bears out the importance of each firm having its own specific, idiosyncratic resources and competences. The explanatory power of firm effects varies by about 30–40 percent while the intra-industry effect explains around 10 percent of the variance. Even though firm effects are dominant, intra-industry effects explain a significant portion of the variance in firm-level performance. The firm effect is smaller than in previous studies. The firm effect varies across the performance measures: firm effects are higher for returns on assets than for profit margins. The industry segment effect (or intra-industry effect) is more independent of the dependent variable. The industry segment effect is in line with previous studies on the strategic group effect. Top managers should carefully choose and monitor the intra-industry domain they are in.

The purpose of this paper is to present a review of variance decomposition studies of firm performance and the theoretical foundations that served as the antecedents and promptings for this stream of research. Known collectively as “variance decomposition literature,” these studies use variance decomposition techniques to partition firm performance into various classes of effects in a bid to unveil the relative importance of factors responsible for firm performance variance.

A review of papers published in SCOPUS and institute for scientific information indexed journals was conducted.

The study found that firm, industry, corporate, business group and country effects are the major effects included in most extant studies. However, of all effects, firm effects remain the dominant and most important impact on firm performance. The effects that affect firm performance are also interdependent.

Consequently, the decisions of managers in firms are still the most important element in helping the firm to navigate industry and contextual factors, especially during periods of recession.

From the review, research gaps were identified and suggestions for future research provided. There is still much to learn from variance decomposition literature in an age of new business models, unprecedented start-up firms and from developing and emerging market countries.

The importance of regional strategy as a separate paradigm in the international business literature has grown in recent years, and the initial connections between regionalization and firm performance appear promising. What is lacking, however, is an empirical analysis quantifying the impact of regional effects on firm profitability. This topic is an important one for the field of international business, as drivers of firm profitability are some of the key motivators of research in international strategy. The aim of this paper is to empirically quantify the role of regional effects on the performance of service firms in a manner such that regional effects can be directly compared with country and firm effects on firm profitability.

Using a hierarchical linear model (HLM) with four levels, the proportion of variation driven by regional effects is estimated. These estimates are obtained from a data panel of 48,083 units from 7,129 service firms across the three triad regions (North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific) over a ten-year time-frame (1999-2008).

It was found that regional effects, in terms of relative importance, explain approximately 9 percent of the variance in firm performance. This pattern of results is consistent when the analysis was conducted during periods of increasing or decreasing profits, firm type, and ownership structure.

Within the context of international business, work on regional strategy/regionalization has emerged as a separate stream of literature. This study is one of the first to quantify the influence of regional effects on performance using a 4-level HLM model. Additionally, this paper demonstrates the application of a 4-level model, potentially increasing awareness of this technique and usage in other multilevel topics in the IB literature, which offers several avenues for future research.

Literature, spanning industrial organization and strategic management disciplines, uses variance decomposition to understand the relative importance of firm, industry and business group effects in shaping profitability variations. Some literature analyzes firm profitability under transition to liberalization. Previous research has taken a static before-and-after view on institutional change. This paper aims to focus on the dynamic process of liberalization in India, analyzing how different institutional regime changes alter firm behavior leading to changes in profitability patterns.

Based on a panel data set of several thousand Indian firms, spanning the 26-year period between 1980-1981 and 2005-2006, the authors determine the relative importance of firm, industry and business group effects in explaining manufacturing firms’ profitability variances across different institutional phases. The authors evaluate three propositions that help assess transition dynamics between phases. They determine the quantum of catch-up or falling behind by firms.

Different industries emerge as profitability leaders, as the economy progresses through different liberalization phases. Business groups that have been more effective in resource appropriation, rent-seeking, politician management and non-market activities in a controlled regime are replaced as profit leaders by those that, in a free-market economy, can be capable of intra-business resource allocation tasks and leveraging corporate capabilities.

The approach demonstrates how to analyze the underlying detailed structure of firm-level data, and performance outcomes, to derive nuanced interpretation of factors giving rise to the effects that explain profitability variances, and how to assess the way these effects behave over time. The dynamic evidence-based approach highlights what factors matter, where, when and why, in influencing profitability variances, which are a key dimension of industrial and economic performance.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the magnitude of country, industry and firm‐specific effects for firms competing in emerging economies and also explore differences between high and low performers.

The authors use ANOVA methodologies on samples from firms competing in Latin America between 1990‐2006.

It was found that the firm‐specific effect is the most important one, and relatively equivalent in magnitude to the firm‐specific effects found in developed countries. Country and industry effects are less important than the firm‐specific effect. Contrary to previous studies that indicate that the country effect is relatively more important in emerging economies, the authors found that it is even less important than the industry effect, a result that has important implications for strategic management and international business theory. The source behind the strong firm‐specific effects might stem from their resources and capabilities to manage and take advantage of the institutional and macroeconomic environments. Further analysis indicates that the firm‐specific effect is relatively more important for firms showing high performance than for those firms showing low performance.

Through these findings the authors feel that further research is needed so as to arm future managers with a more clear and comprehensive strategy when doing business in a Latin American country. The paper's findings are specific for large public corporations in Latin America.

The paper allows managers to think about sources of competitive advantages in emerging economies.

The paper shows that, despite weak institutional contexts and highly volatile macroeconomic environments, managers in the region should be able to obtain substantial differences in economic performances within the region. Activities needed for such differentiation might differ from those carried out in developed countries, with more emphasis on managing institutional voids and periods of economic and political cycles but the result should be the same.

The use of digital technology in firms has drawn attention of innovation management scholars and policy-makers, especially the imitation of digital technology and competition among peer firms. Drawing on dynamic competition theory, this paper examines how firms react to their peers' digital innovation behavior and the effect of external environment mechanisms on the magnitude of peer effects.

This paper utilizes a text mining method to construct a baseline model with a Tobit estimator using data obtained for Chinese listed firms.

The findings suggest that peer effects on digital innovation behavior are robust and significant positive in China. Moreover, peer effects on digital innovation participation are positively magnified by firms' strong social network and high Fintech development. However, peer effects are relatively higher in non-state-owned enterprises (non-SOEs), low-profitability and high R&D firms.

The authors' findings contribute to the digital management literature by showing that firms need digital technological imitation and diffusion of innovations in the digital era.

Managers should provide insights into firms' imitation of their peers' acts to preserve competitive parity. Besides, firms should integrate employees within the organization and communicate digital innovation concepts and behaviors to external peer firms.

First, this paper contributes to explaining how firms change their digital innovation strategy through the influence of peers' digital innovation behavior. Second, this paper fills the literature gaps related to the moderating effects of external environment factors in peer effects of digital innovation behavior.

This paper aims to analyse the change in performance of parent Indian firms (home effects) who have invested in overseas locations in recent times.

Difference-in-difference (DiD) estimate of home effects using farm level data.

Home effects of Indian outward foreign direct investment (OFDI), in general, are insignificant. However, in the case of OFDI directed only to non-offshore financial centre (OFC), some firms did enjoy beneficial home effects with respect to turnover, current ratio and leverage ratio. In the case of OFDI directed purely to OFC locations, some of the parameters exhibited negative home effects. In the subsample of Indian OFDI directed to combination of OFC and non-OFC locations, the results show positive home effects with respect to export, operating profit margin and forex earnings; however, impact on turnover seems to be negative for all the quartiles.

Estimation of home effects using data over longer horizon may yield robust outcome.

These results make a strong case to draw a distinction among OFDIs to OFC, non-OFC and combination of OFC and non-OFC locations in studying the beneficial home effects of OFDI.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper which estimates home effects of different groups of Indian firms (based on their investment locations and size class) using difference-in-difference estimate.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse to what extent industry, year and firm effects influence the profitability of the firms operating in the Czech food processing industry. The authors’ interest is also to investigate whether the profitability of a few firms (regarded as outliers) is able to influence the relative importance of year, firm and industry effects and to find out the relative importance of these effects for the majority of the firms.

The effects are tested using the fixed effects regression models on the unbalanced panel dataset which consists of 10,509 observations for 1,804 enterprises across the ten food sectors over the period 2003-2014. To ensure the consistency of the results, the authors use the three different measures of profitability: return on assets, return on equity and price-cost margin.

The results suggest that, on average, industry and year effects have little impact on firm profitability variance, and firm-specific effects dominate when seeking to explain firm profitability variance. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the obtained results are supported by most of the previously published studies.

Based on the findings, the authors encourage future researchers to add, as explanatory factors, governmental policies and to test their impact on firm profitability.

The study helps to fill in the research gap in the field of agribusiness, as, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no study has been conducted yet in the Czech agribusiness environment. Considering the approach distinguishing the “average” and dominant firms in the sectors, they aim at a methodological contribution to this field of research dealing with firm profitability variation.

Organizations desire more accurate cost systems as competition increases, and consequently increase cost system complexity, as cost systems with greater complexity are potentially more accurate than simpler systems. However, even complex systems are prone to impactful inaccuracies, for example, due to design or calculation issues, that can adversely affect decision-making and firm performance. The authors investigate whether and the extent to which cost system complexity and competition decrease managers’ attribution of cost-system-driven adverse firm effects to the cost system. The authors find greater cost system complexity (by inspiring greater confidence in the cost system) and higher competition (by providing a plausible external cause) decrease managers’ attribution of cost-system-driven adverse firm effects to the cost system. With both greater cost system complexity and higher competition, managers observing signals of material cost inaccuracies are potentially the least likely to attribute cost-system-driven adverse firm effects to the cost system.