Search results

The dynamics of the competitive performance of the small medium firms is an evolving field of research in the developing countries like India. The influence of the innovation on the competitive performance of the firms is still an evolving area in India. This paper aims to explore the influence of the innovation on the competitive performance. The study is based upon the agro-food processing industry of the Jammu and Kashmir state of India.

The paper is based upon the exploratory design. It uses quantitative as well as qualitative method for the firm level analysis of competitiveness. The aggregate index method has been used to construct the innovation competence and total competitive performance index. The regression analysis is used for describing the model based upon the primary data.

The results of the study provide for a significant relationship between the innovation competence and firm level competitiveness. It describes the position of the agro-food processing firms under study with respect to the innovation competence index score and total competitiveness performance index.

The paper provides for the managerial implications of strategically incubating the innovation-based competence for the firms in specific geographical areas. The policy implications in terms of developing specific clusters and incubators for incremental and radical innovations can be derived, in regional economies.

The paper discusses the issue of interaction of innovation competence and firm level competitiveness of the agro-food processing industry, which is dynamic, specifically in the developing states. The paper discussed unique methodology of using aggregate index method for defining the innovation competence and competitiveness for the firms where the consistency of data is a major issue for such a complex phenomenon.

The purpose of this paper is to advance our understanding of competitiveness. The authors introduce the concept of Competitive Productivity (CP), supplementing shortcomings of traditional understandings of national, organisational and individual productivity which overlook the nature of competitiveness, i.e. outperforming the competition, or at least bettering one’s own performance. The authors offer definitions, components and construct measurements of CP at three levels: macro, meso and micro.

A review of the literature was conducted to evaluate the need for combining productivity and competitiveness into one new construct. There are theories that combine these ideas – e.g., the resource-based theory of the firm – but the authors are presenting these concepts differently, or in a novel way. The authors’ focus on CP makes necessary a new group of construct measures which are different from that of the strategy literature: the authors measure an agent’s tendency “to be better than the competition” along multiple dimensions. Based on the CP construct, the authors present three testable models to uncover determinants of CP at three levels (macro, meso and micro). Finally, the work around “emergent property” can be applied to examine CP itself as being a determinant for other higher-order outcomes such as welfare, profits and life satisfaction. CP forms a platform to explore likely interplay (bottom-up and/or top-down mechanisms) within the micro–meso–macro architecture.

Three CP models were developed and are briefly discussed in this paper: first, a National Competitive Productivity (NCP) model to capture the components/drivers of national CP (macro level). Second, a Firm Competitive Productivity (FCP) model to capture the components/drivers of firm CP within an industry context (meso). And finally, an Individual Competitive Productivity (ICP) model capturing the components/drivers of CP at the individual (micro) level.

The study provides a combined approach to capture productivity and competitiveness within one innovative concept: CP. It can be used by government and policy makers (NCP model), managers and organisations (FCP model), and individuals such as workers and students (ICP model) to evaluate and enhance their performance. A better understanding of the components/drivers of CP at the three levels and the suggested measurement of CP should provide a stronger theory of competitiveness of nations, firms and individuals. Not least should a focus on the three levels (macro, meso and micro) better prepare citizens, firms, workers and students to effectively function and work in the marketplace and in society. The authors’ work should eventually contribute to more effective benchmarking and continuous improvement in the competitiveness domain. Crucially, this conceptual paper forms the foundation for future empirical testing of CP components in the context of the relative values and moderated behaviour as captured by the ReVaMB model.

Competition is of interest to both policy makers and managers. However, existing studies concentrate on the measurement of national competitiveness while neglecting firm competitiveness. The purpose of this paper is to fill this gap by developing a comprehensive and generic measurement model to understand firm competitiveness. The model is used to develop an award system to help companies in the self‐assessment of their competitiveness.

The theoretical base of the measurement of firm level competitiveness is driven from two national competitiveness models, namely World Competitive Yearbook and Global Competitiveness Index, while the assessment structure is based on the well‐known European Foundation for Quality Management Excellence Award. The competitiveness model developed in this paper is put into use in Turkey. The measures of the model are used for assessing the competitiveness of ten firms, in order to choose the most competitive firm of the year. The study in Turkey explains how the measurement model works by illustrating an example.

This paper attempts to develop a generic model in which the competition parameters do not change for individual companies. The model covers a wide variety of parameters that form the base of competition at the firm level. It is demonstrated that the competition model developed in the paper works in practice.

This paper contributes to the national competitiveness by providing deeper understanding of the dynamics of firm‐level competitiveness and provides some implications and suggestions for further studies.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework for positioning the research contributions on the analysis of firm‐level international competitiveness and addressing the key issues on this topic.

Linking the concepts of internationalization, performance, and firm‐level competitiveness, the paper proposes a framework for identifying the different dimensions of international competitiveness. Literature on each dimension is reviewed and the linkages between them are discussed.

The paper unbundles the construct of international competitiveness into three dimensions: “ex ante” competitiveness, relating to firm‐ and location‐specific advantages as drivers of competitiveness; firm internationalization profile, resulting from the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of a firm's presence abroad; “ex post” competitiveness, relating to market, financial and nonfinancial performance of a firm in foreign markets.

Although the analysis of international competitiveness benefits from contributions from different research streams such as international business, marketing, and strategic management, the lack of an organizing framework makes it difficult to “handle” within a potentially huge body of literature. This paper contributes to fill this gap. In addition, it provides the basis for a new research agenda about the analysis of the internationalization‐performance relationship.

This study aims to contrast the disparities in optimal competitiveness configurations across international economies. Additionally, we analyse the competitive efficiency across firms of different performance endowments to identify distinctions and determine whether standardised or customised competitiveness configurations are optimal.

This study uses a multilevel regression model to confirm country-specific effects followed by a non-parametric “Benefit-of-the-Doubt” (BoD) method to conduct an international comparison of the competitive efficiency of top- and poor-performing firms across eight European and Latin American economies.

Not only are national ecosystems significant differentiators of competitive efficiency, but contras firm-level characteristics also explain these differences. It is found that more recent start-ups tend to experience significantly greater competitive efficiency. However, by separating the top-performing firms from the poor performers in each economy, it is found that the configurational outputs that potentially contribute most to competitive efficiency are not necessarily the same; while “technology” is a key factor for driving the competitive efficiency of top-performing firms, “market” drivers are most essential for improving the competitive potential of poor performers.

The configurational outputs that potentially contribute most to competitive efficiency are not necessarily universal.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the firm-level drivers of competitiveness of the Czech small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) using the complex firm-level competitiveness index. The authors explored the relationship between firm competitiveness and firm characteristics such as size, age, industry affiliation and location.

The complex competitiveness index as a proxy for firm competitiveness was calculated from the survey data. In total, 132 complete questionnaires filled in by representatives of randomly selected Czech SMEs were collected in 2018. Additional firm characteristics (size, age, industry affiliation and location) considered as determinants of competitiveness were obtained from the commercial database Albertina and from the Czech Statistical Office. The determinants of competitiveness were tested econometrically by estimation of multivariate regression models.

The authors mainly found a significant relationship between the firm size and competitiveness of the Czech SMEs. The authors have also confirmed that the least competitive enterprises are those operating in the agricultural sector and that regional location plays an important role in the determination of firm competitiveness.

The identification of competitiveness drivers can provide entrepreneurs, managers and policymakers with important implications. It seems beneficial for the Czech SMEs to expand the scope of operations to achieve a larger company size, for example, by focussing on investment activities, direct marketing, improving entrepreneurial skills or by applying an aggressive sales strategy, especially towards markets with lower competition. Politicians may respond to these efforts by setting the appropriate policies that promote SMEs’ competitiveness, for example, through the hard and soft public support for financial and human resources.

Although many studies on competitiveness have been published, there is still a limited number of firm-level studies looking at competitiveness from multiple angles rather than from the study of profitability and productivity. In contrast, the study uses a complex firm-level competitiveness index based on ten competitiveness pillars (technology, human capital, products, domestic market, networks, international markets, online presence, marketing, decision making and strategy) to capture the contribution of different resources and capabilities to firm competitiveness.

The purpose of this paper is to interconnect the firm level competitive performance (competitiveness) to the financial performance of the firms. The goal is to give evidence on how successful small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) use their financial performance to support their competitive performance.

Competitiveness is interpreted and measured through the resource-based view theory on a wide range of competitiveness measurements with a sample size of 639 SMEs. Financial data originate from official, publicly accessible governmental archives. All data are from a mid-size Central European country (Hungary). To interconnect competitiveness and financial performance, this paper recognizes two types of cash flow, namely, cash flow to the “past” (dividend and debt service) and cash flow to the “future” (CAPEX and innovation). This paper used ordinary least squares regression and binomial logistic regression to analyze connections.

Cash flows to the “future” have much stronger effects on competitiveness than cash flows to the “past.” Debt services do not affect competitiveness, whereas dividends, CAPEX and innovation efforts have a significant positive connection to competitiveness, showing that higher cash flow indicates higher competitive performance. If this paper knows how much the firm spends on innovation and dividends, in about the four-fifths of the cases, this paper can predict the level of the competitiveness of the firm without any additional information. The level of these variables gives enough information, the variability of them is not relevant.

The explanatory power of future-oriented cash flow elements is much higher than that of the past-oriented ones, while innovation dominates all models. Firms with higher competitiveness build their returns in their cost structure, and only when the financial position of the firm is stable enough, withdraw the financial resource based on a long-term plan. The results are limited by the fact that using the current sample, detailed and representative (e.g. cross-industrial, spatial, etc.) decomposition is not possible.

Literature is focusing on how SMEs reach success, how SMEs “earn money.” There is no evidence on how SMEs “spend money,” earned during their success.

Competitiveness is often confused with productivity. Productivity refers to the internal capability of an organization, while competitiveness refers to the relative position of an organization against its competitors. These two important concepts are often confused and interchangeably used. For example, in his famous book, The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Porter (1990, p. 6) says that the only meaningful concept of competitiveness at the national level is national productivity. Competitiveness may also have a distinctly different meaning at different levels of analysis — product, firm, industry, and nation. Porter (1990, p. 33) says that the basic unit of analysis for understanding competition is the “industry,” while the title of his book refers to “nations.” He also says that firms, not nations, compete in international markets.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to validate the global competitiveness project (GCP) framework in the Brazilian context; second, to describe the competitiveness levels on a sample of Brazilian firms, searching for heterogeneities of size, age and industry.

The study used the theoretical-empirical GCP framework, comprising the dimensions: human capital, product, domestic market, networks, technology, decision-making, competitive strategy, marketing, internationalization and online presence (Lafuente, Szerb and Rideg, 2016; Lafuente et al., 2019) and applied descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and cluster analysis, on a survey data set of 55 Brazilian firms from different sizes, ages and industries.

The GCP framework was found robust, reliable and useful in emerging economies as the Brazilian. Three clusters of competitiveness were identified. Heterogeneities were detected in knowledge-intensive business services results. This work allows a better understanding of competitiveness through the identification and measurement of dimensions, which can help managers to identify/audit capacities to plan/improve firm performance.

Findings may support managers to identify, estimate and manage their competitiveness pillars, and thus increase their competitiveness levels with a focus on strategic long-term goals.

This paper contributes to knowledge production in two ways: to the validation of the framework in the Brazilian scenario and the understanding of the dynamics of competitiveness of firms.

The purpose of this paper is to identify different types of resource and capability configurations among Hungarian family and nonfamily firms and explore which compositions can be considered competitive. In a rivalrous, dynamic world, understanding which sets of resources and capabilities lead to a higher level of competitiveness is vital.

This paper is based on a quantitative competitiveness survey carried out between November 2018 and July 2019 in Hungary. The authors used the Firm Competitiveness Index (FCI) to measure competitiveness and the resource-based view (RBV) approach to understand which configurations of resources and capabilities are responsible for a higher level of competitiveness based on 32 variables. An exploratory factor and cluster analysis were conducted to analyze the ownership's effect on firm competitiveness. The final sample size contained 111 companies, of which 53 were identified as family and 58 as nonfamily firms.

Factor analysis reveals five factors determining resources and capabilities: “operational,” “leadership,” “knowledge management,” “transformation” and “networking.” Based on these factors, the cluster analysis identified five groups in terms of types of family and nonfamily firms: “Lagging capabilities,” “Knowledge-based leadership,” “Innovativeness and transformation-oriented management,” “Relationship-oriented management” and “Business operation-oriented management.” Results show that nonfamily businesses focus on operational and leadership capabilities, reaching a higher FCI than family businesses, which are likely to invest more in their networking, transformation and knowledge management capabilities.

By defining the different configurations family and nonfamily firms rely on to reach competitiveness, the paper applies an essential element to the Hungarian and Middle Eastern European contexts of family business research. The findings contribute to developing family business literature and point out specific resources and capabilities family firms should focus on to shift toward reaching a higher level of professionalization and competitiveness. The characterization of different types of competitiveness comparing family and nonfamily firms enables the firms to assess customized implications.