Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeThe authors aim to develop and test a theory of dual responsibility to explain the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm performance. The authors empirically examine whether firms that meet their economic and social responsibilities simultaneously perform better than firms that fail to do so. In doing so, the authors theoretically extend and empirically test Barney's (2018) call to incorporate the stakeholder perspective with resource-based view (RBV). The authors also examine the moderating effects of firm status on this relationship.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use a longitudinal panel sample of 137 S&P 500 firms and data for the years between 2004 and 2013 collected from multiple data sources. The authors use stochastic frontiers analysis to measure firm capabilities in the areas of R&D, operations and marketing. These capability measures are then used along with CSR measures and a measure of firm status to test the hypotheses of this study. The authors also conducted several robustness checks and various supplementary analyses using different econometrics techniques and different operationalizations of the key variables of interests.FindingsThe results show that firm CSR is positively related to firm performance and that the effect of CSR on performance is stronger for firms with higher levels of R&D capability and operational capability. The authors also find support for the three-way interaction between CSR, economic responsibility and firm status, suggesting that firms high in both social and economic responsibilities and status will enjoy the highest levels of performance.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings of this study are based on large, publicly listed firms in North America. Therefore, their generalizability to other contexts and other types of firms require additional research. The reliance on KLD measures is also a limitation, especially because they have not reported CSR ratings after 2013.Practical implicationsFor practicing managers, the main implication of this study is that an optimal balance between market and nonmarket strategies is key for superior performance.Social implicationsThe continued debate regarding the firm's purpose can be understood by focusing equally on the two main responsibilities of firms: nonsocial responsibility and social responsibility toward all stakeholders.Originality/valueThe study answers the call to incorporate stakeholder theory into the RBV of the firm by highlighting the critical role of firm capabilities in the relationship between CSR and performance. The study also highlights the role that firm status plays in the relationship between market and nonmarket strategies and firm performance.

Research Summary The acquisition literature has highlighted that both firm‐level and manager‐level factors shape acquisition outcomes, yet little is known about their relative contribution. We conduct a variance decomposition analysis to explore the contribution of CEO‐level versus firm‐level factors to acquisition behavior and performance. We also extend the methodology of variance decomposition in strategic management research by employing Poisson multi‐level models, and deriving the percentage of variance attributable to each level in a four‐level model. Although CEO and firm effects both explain a substantial share of the variance in acquisition behavior, the CEO‐effect is notably larger. CEO‐level factors also drive a large portion of the variance in acquisition performance. Overall, our study contributes to the literatures on acquisitions and variance decomposition, and has implications for dynamic capabilities. Managerial Summary How much do firm‐level factors and CEO‐level factors matter for explaining acquisition behavior and acquisition performance? This question is not only relevant for researchers but also for practitioners who seek to better understand what drives acquisitions and their outcomes. To help answer this question, our study conducts a variance decomposition analysis of acquisition behavior and acquisition performance. We find that both CEO‐level factors and firm‐level factors explain a substantial portion of the variance in acquisition behavior, but that CEO‐level factors matter relatively more. We also find that CEO‐level factors also explain a substantial portion of the variance in acquisition performance.

Marketers are adopting increasingly sophisticated ways to engage with customers throughout their journeys. We extend prior perspectives on the customer journey by introducing the role of digital signals that consumers emit throughout their activities. We argue that the ability to detect and act on consumer digital signals is a source of competitive advantage for firms. Technology enables firms to collect, interpret, and act on these signals to better manage the customer journey. While some consumers’ desire for privacy can restrict the opportunities technology provides marketers, other consumers’ desire for personalization can encourage the use of technology to inform marketing efforts. We posit that this difference in consumers’ willingness to emit observable signals may hinge on the strength of their relationship with the firm. We next discuss factors that may shift consumer preferences and consequently affect the technology-enabled opportunities available to firms. We conclude with a research agenda that focuses on consumers, firms, and regulators.

Emerging economies present attractive opportunities to foreign firms. However, internationalization risk faced by foreign firms can have significant implications for their performance relative to local firms. Information Technology (IT) and IT-enabled capabilities help firms overcome internationalization risk and compete globally. Marketing Capability and Relational Capability also mitigate this risk through access to information related to markets and the business environment. We examine how foreign firms and local firms compare in leveraging synergies between such IT and firm capabilities. We focus on two kinds of IT-enabled capabilities: IT-enabled Flexibility in Customer Services, and IT-enabled Flexibility in Partner Services, and develop hypotheses for their complementary effects with Marketing Capability and Relational Capability respectively, to positively influence firm performance. We then draw on the firm-specific advantages framework to argue that foreign firms face a comparative disadvantage relative to local firms in leveraging the synergy between IT-enabled Flexibility in Customer Services and Marketing Capability. In contrast, foreign firms enjoy a comparative advantage relative to local firms in leveraging the synergy between IT-enabled Flexibility in Partner Services and Relational Capability. Empirical analysis using matched-pair survey and secondary data of 182 foreign and local firms in India supports our hypotheses. Our findings highlight important differences in how foreign and local firms benefit from IT, thus contributing towards a better understanding of how context and contingencies influence IT implications in emerging economies.

Extant research on inward foreign direct investment (FDI) suggests that foreign entrants bring superior technology with them to host countries, thereby providing local firms the opportunity to learn and upgrade their technologies. However, foreign entrants also increase competition in the local market, potentially harming domestic firms. In this study, we extend existing work on inward FDI by investigating the moderating role of technological capabilities on the relationship between inward FDI and local firm innovation. Building upon firm capabilities arguments, we expect that domestic firms with existing technological capabilities are better positioned to stave off foreign competition and better able to learn from foreign entrants. However, we find, somewhat surprisingly, that local technological leaders apply for fewer patents and introduce fewer new products than do local technological laggards subsequent to foreign entry. These results imply that technological capabilities do not buffer domestic firms from the deleterious competition consequences associated with inward FDI.

Despite a growing interest in the phenomenon of open innovation (OI), empirical evidence documenting the link between new product development capabilities, OI practices, and new product innovativeness is scarce. Eminent scholars have called for large-scale studies that systematically investigate the OI paradigm. Drawing on the knowledge-based view of the firm, new product development, and NPD capabilities literature streams, we conceptualize a framework in which OI practices are disentangled according to the stage of the new product development process in which they occur (development stage or commercialization stage). We identify two major types of OI practices: development-centric OI (which occurs in the development stage) and commercialization-centric OI (which occurs in the commercialization stage). Specific types of NPD capabilities—R&D, market information management, and launch—are expected to both influence the extent to which each OI practice is implemented and moderate the effect of each OI practice on product portfolio innovativeness and firm performance. The empirical analysis combines primary data from a survey of 239 firms with secondary data on innovation and financial outcomes. Our results support our hypotheses and indicate a need to differentiate among the different kinds of OI practices while elaborating on the complex role played by NPD capabilities in influencing OI practices.

Cloud-based information management is one of the leading competitive differentiation strategies for firms. With the increasing criticality of information management in value creation and process support, establishing an integrated capability with cloud computing is vital for organizational success in the changing landscape of business competition. These issues have received scant attention, however. We draw on the resource-based view, dynamic capability hierarchy concepts, and the perspective of operand and operant resources to suggest a cloud value appropriation model for firms. We argue that, to appropriate business value from cloud computing, the firm needs to effectively deploy cloud computing and leverage cloud operant resources as firm capabilities in a hierarchical fashion toward the development of cloud computing-based service models in order to reliably achieve the desired business outcomes. We propose a model encompassing the principles of infrastructure and cloud platform deployment, integration and service orientation, and alignment with business processes that explain the linkage from cloud computing to firm performance. We test this approach to value creation with a cloud computing implementation assessment model using a sample of 147 firms that have implemented cloud computing in India. Our analysis uncovers a strategic value appropriation path from cloud technological capability to firm performance via cloud integration capability, cloud service portfolio capability, and business flexibility. This research offers new insights regarding the underlying mechanisms for how cloud computing affects firm performance via cloud-enabled capabilities and the business functions that are supported by cloud capabilities.

The resource-based view on firm diversification, subsequent to Penrose (1959), has focused primarily on the fungibility of resources across domains. We make a clear analytical distinction between scale free capabilities and those that are subject to opportunity costs and must be allocated to one use or another, thereby shifting the discourse back to Penrose's (1959) original argument regarding the stock of organizational capabilities. The existence of resources and capabilities that must be allocated across alternative uses implies that profit-maximizing diversification decisions should be based upon the opportunity cost of their use in one domain or another. This opportunity cost logic provides a rational explanation for the divergence between total profits and profit margins. Firms make profit-maximizing decisions to increase total profit via diversification when the industries in which they are currently competing become relatively mature. Due to the spreading of these capabilities across more segments, we may observe that firms' profit-maximizing diversification actions lead to total profit growth but lower average returns. The model provides an alternative explanation for empirical observations regarding the diversification discount. The self-selection effect noted in recent work in corporate finance may not be indicative of inferior capabilities of diversifying firms but of the limited opportunity contexts in which these firms are operating.

PurposeAs various different and even contradictory concepts are proposed to depict a firm's capabilities related to big data, and extant relevant research is fragmented and scattered in several disciplines, there is currently a lack of holistic and comprehensive understanding of how big data alters value creation by facilitating firm capabilities. To narrow this gap, this study aims to synthesize current knowledge on the firm capabilities and transformation of value creation facilitated by big data.Design/methodology/approachThe authors adopt an inductive and rigorous approach to conduct a systematic review of 185 works, following the “Grounded Theory Literature-Review Method”.FindingsThe authors introduce and develop the concept of big data competency, present an inductive framework to open the black box of big data competency following the logic of virtual value chain, provide a structure of big data competency that consists of two dimensions, namely, big data capitalization and big data exploitation, and further explain the evolution of value creation structure from value chain to value network by connecting the attributes of big data competency (i.e. connectivity and complementarity) with the transformation of value creation (i.e. optimizing and pioneering).Originality/valueThe big data competency, an inclusive concept of firm capabilities to deal with big data, is proposed. Based on this concept, the authors highlight the significant contributions that extant research has made toward our understanding of how big data alters value creation by facilitating firm capabilities. Besides, the authors provide a future research agenda that academics can rely on to study the strategic management of big data.

This paper examines the portability of star security analysts' performance. Star analysts who switched employers experienced an immediate decline in performance that persisted for at least five years. This decline was most pronounced among star analysts who moved to firms with lesser capabilities and those who moved solo, without other team members. Star analysts who moved between two firms with equivalent capabilities also exhibited a drop in performance, but only for two years. Those who switched to firms with better capabilities and those who moved with other team members exhibited no significant decline in short-term or long-term performance. These findings suggest that firm-specific skills and firms' capabilities both play important roles in star analysts' performance. In addition, we find that firms that hire star analysts from competitors with better capabilities suffered more extreme negative stock-market reactions than those that hire from comparable or lesser firms. These findings suggest that hiring stars may be perceived as value destroying and may not improve a firm's competitive advantage.