Search results

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework which sheds new light on how sustainability control systems (SCS) can be used in proactive strategic responses to corporate sustainability pressures.

Design/Methodology/Approach – Corporate sustainability pressures are identified using insights from institutional theory and the resource-based view of the firm.

Findings – The paper presents an integrated framework showing the corporate sustainability pressures, proactive strategic responses to these pressures, and how organizations might use SCS in their responses to the corporate sustainability pressures they face.

Practical Implications – The proposed framework shows how organizations can use SCS in proactive strategic responses to corporate sustainability pressures.

Originality/Value – The paper suggests that instead of using traditional financial-oriented management control systems, organizations need more focus on emerging SCS as a means of achieving sustainability objectives. In particular, the paper proposes different SCS tools that can be used in proactive strategic responses to sustainability pressures in terms of (i) specifying and communicating sustainability objectives, (ii) monitoring sustainability performance, and (iii) providing motivation by linking sustainability rewards to performance.

The aim of the paper is to demonstrate how business process‐based approach (PROPHESY) facilitates integration of resource‐based and market‐based approaches to strategy management. The paper begins by presenting resource‐based and market‐based strategy management approaches generally. It extends earlier research by examining the linkages between markets and resources as practised by three case study companies representing a cross‐section of the manufacturing industry. It continues with a discussion on the reasons behind the choice of the criteria used for cross case analysis. Although the results are exploratory, they provide a comparative analysis of how market‐based strategies could relate and integrate with resource‐based strategies through business processes.

Argues that operations strategy research should integrate recent theories from the resource‐based view of strategic management. Going beyond the model of Hayes and Wheelwright, this would call for the end of the market‐based view, where operations strategy merely follows the directions set by the marketing function. It would emphasize the dynamic development and leveraging of competencies and capabilities in order to set new business diversification strategies. A new paradigm of operations strategy could emerge, where “management fundamentals” such as learning and culture would be actively integrated within operations, in order to become key sources of competitive advantage. Accordingly, the operations function could progressively: take the leadership of strategy formulation; create “portfolios” of optional capabilities for strategies of organizational agility; and implement world‐class practices more effectively through evolutionary strategic frameworks.

The purpose of this paper is to construct a strategy model based on Intellectual Capital (IC) theory and to demonstrate that it is not purely resource‐based (RBV), but includes many elements that are rooted in the market based view (MBV). The authors' analysis indicates that only strategies which lead to both tangible and intangible revenues are sustainable in a knowledge‐based economy.

The paper takes the form of an extensive review of IC and strategy literature, and in‐depth comparative analysis of IC concept and the strategy management frameworks, particularly Porter's framework.

It is found that the IC‐based view (ICBV) is much closer to the MBV than what one would expect and the ICBV is more appropriate for a knowledge‐based economy than both the MBV and the RBV in general.

It is widely assumed that IC theory is strongly related to resource‐based strategy. The authors question this simple view and maintain that the IC‐based view relates to both MBV and RBV.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a new and systematic approach towards strategic foresight by combining traditional external scenarios (market‐based approach) with internal scenarios (resource‐based approach) into a future scorecard, which can be used to describe alternative internal development paths for an organization.

The paper builds on the existing literature as well as on multiple case examples to illustrate the application of the future scorecard.

The findings of this paper are that it is possible to combine the external (market‐based) and internal (resource‐based) view to create a strategic early warning system.

The implications for practitioners are twofold, first, the paper outlines the importance of integrating a future perspective into performance measurement systems, second, it demonstrates the applicability of scenario thinking for the internal resource‐based view of the firm.

The paper combines thinking of the market‐based and the resource‐based view of the firm in order to provide a new tool to supplement most static measurement approaches with a tool that monitors the future developments – externally and internally. Scenarios are traditionally used to describe possible alternative future developments in the external environment, which then inform current strategy assessment and future strategy development. However, with a shift in focus away from the market‐based paradigm and towards a resource‐based view of strategy, scenarios can also be used to describe alternative internal development paths for an organization. These two types of scenarios can then be systematically developed and combined to form a significant element of a strategic early warning system – the future scorecard.

While strategy scholars once thought that the resource-based view could not be tested directly by observing resources, recent work has dispelled this notion. While resources are difficult to measure, many clever scholars have been able to measure resource heterogeneity and performance.

The purpose of this paper is to contrast traditional transaction‐based supply chain strategies with emerging relationship‐based strategies in human resource and organizational areas.

A theoretical framework is proposed based on the relationship of human resource variables (staffing, training, evaluation, and compensation) and organization variables (structure, culture, and empowerment strategies) with supply chain integration and performance.

A model is presented of the relationship of human resource and organization variables with supply chain integration and performance. Propositions are posited and conclusions are noted with suggestions for further research.

The paper is clearly only theoretical. Much empirical testing is yet to be done.

The paper is among the first to focus the relationships of human resource strategies and organization variables with supply chain integration and performance. While the structuring and measurement of integrated global supply chain flows, particularly of the “hard” products, services, and information, are well established, much less is understood concerning the contribution of such “soft” areas as human resource management activities and organization variables.

This paper, anchored in the resource‐based view of the firm, attempts to develop linkages between firm‐level resources, Porter's competitive strategy space and firm performance and explores them in the context of a new industry – the marketing technology industry.

In the marketing technology industry the authors classify resource configurations (generalists, specialists, innovators) which group firms with distinctive competences on similar resource dimensions. They then map these firm‐level resource configurations onto their respective optimal strategies in the industry's competitive strategy space.

The major findings are: some firms that are close together in strategy space vary in performance; some firms that are close together in strategy space belong to quite different resource configurations; firms that belong to the same resource configuration (i.e. are close together in resource space and distant from others) vary in performance; given the origin (i.e. resource configuration) of a new entrant there exists an optimal strategy that can be theoretically defined; and corresponding to each resource configuration there seems to exist a unique optimal region in strategy space.

It is one of few attempts to empirically explore the parallels between firm level resource‐based and industry level competitive strategies.