Explore the vast range of titles available.

We examine how new biotechnology firms (NBFs) select pharmaceutical firms as R&D allies as a function of value creation and value appropriation considerations. We develop a theoretical framework to understand partnering decisions accounting for both, a potential partner's ability as well as incentives to appropriate and create value within an R&D alliance. Our empirical findings show that NBFs are more likely to ally with pharmaceutical firms with the ability to create value, as long as these firms have the incentives to use their skills to create rather than appropriate value. Our study highlights the double-edged sword nature of value creation skills and provides a deeper understanding into the contextual factors that determine when potential R&D partners will perceive such skills as increasing appropriation risks.

Research Summary In recent years, strategy scholarship expanded its scope beyond the realm of private firms. Despite notable advances, the field still lacks theoretical and empirical frameworks for fully understanding how public and nonprofit organizations interact with private firms to create and appropriate value. By recognizing the inherent complexity of interactions between organizations with different purposes and the existing challenges for designing effective governance arrangements, we assess how recent scholarship addresses some dilemmas related to both private and public value creation. Based on the extant literature and on some novel aspects raised by the articles in this issue, we also propose a framework to advance strategy research in the field. We emphasize the importance of stakeholder management capabilities among public, private, and nonprofit organizations in pursuit of enhanced public value and continuous support from appreciative stakeholders. Managerial Summary Despite abundant examples of governance arrangements involving public, private, and nonprofit organizations (e.g., public‐private partnerships and alliances involving NGOs, firms, multilateral organizations, public contracting, and so on), the strategic management field has only recently given attention to value creation and value appropriation beyond the scope of private organizations. Here we connect strategic management and public management to identify relevant dimensions that shape value‐creating strategies and underpinning outcomes in public‐private‐nonprofit interactions. We highlight that public value arises from private interests and that the dynamic of value creation and value appropriation in activities involving the public interest can be influenced by not only resource endowments and organizational capabilities but also by the way organizations address and manage stakeholder expectations.

Research summary: Cash can create shareholder value when used for adaptation to unfolding contingencies, but can also reduce value when appropriated by other stakeholders. We synthesize arguments from the behavioral theory of the firm, economic perspectives like agency theory, and the value-creation versus value-appropriation literatures to argue that the implications of cash for firm performance are context-specific. Cash is more beneficial for firms operating in highly competitive, research-intensive, or growth-focused industries that are typical of contexts requiring adaptation in the face of uncertainties. Conversely, cash is more detrimental to performance in firms that are poorly governed, diversified, or opaque, as are typical of contexts where stakeholder conflicts, information asymmetries, or power imbalances can encourage value appropriation by other stakeholders. Managerial summary: Cash can create shareholder value when used for adaptation to unfolding contingencies, but can also reduce value when appropriated by other stakeholders. While cash-rich firms have higher performance on average, with those in the 75th percentile having a market-to-book value 15 percent higher than those in the 25th percentile, we find that the performance benefits of cash depend on the context. Cash is more beneficial for firms operating in highly competitive, research-intensive, or growth-focused industries that are typical of contexts requiring adaptation in the face of uncertainties. Conversely, cash is more detrimental to performance in firms that are poorly governed, diversified, or opaque, as are typical of contexts where stakeholder conflicts, information asymmetries, or power imbalances can encourage value appropriation by other stakeholders.

PurposeValue appropriation and value creation are two sides of the same coin. How B2B seller’s value appropriation impacts customer relationship performance still remains an under-researched topic. This paper aims to probe into this question in the context of Chinese B2B markets.Design/methodology/approachThis study identifies two kinds of value appropriation, namely, competitive and non-competitive and then examines their impacts upon customer relationship performance, as well as the moderating roles of distributive fairness and procedural fairness, based on questionnaire survey among 273 Chinese B2B firms.FindingsThe authors find that seller’s competitive value appropriation has negative impact upon customer relationship performance, and this link is positively moderated by customer-perceived distributive fairness. Besides, non-competitive value appropriation by the seller has significant and positive impact upon customer relationship performance, and this link is positively moderated by customer-perceived procedural fairness.Originality/valueThe paper contributes greatly to literature of value management and industrial buyer–seller relationship. Managerial implications are provided for B2B companies operating in Chinese market to tackle with the tradeoff between appropriating sufficient value and retaining harmonious relationship with customers.

There is a renewed interest among strategy scholars in the relationship between stakeholder theory and the dynamics of value creation-appropriation in firms. Further advancements in this field are arguably impeded by an incomplete conceptualization and measurement of value and by scant characterization of the different patterns of stakeholder value appropriation. We develop a conceptual framework—based on an analytical taxonomy of value creation and appropriation—consistent with a more complete notion of value and wherein the trade-offs in stakeholder value appropriation can be included. In essence, our analytical taxonomy contributes to enlarge the spectrum of value creation-appropriation scenarios to be considered by researchers working on the stakeholder view of strategy.

► A retailing business model (RBM) has three interconnected core elements: retailing format, activities, and governance. ► These elements and their interdependencies define how a retailer creates and appropriates value. ► We define and provide multiple examples of RBM innovations, which are changes beyond current practice in one or more elements of an RBM and their interdependencies. ► We propose a classification of RBM innovations along six design themes. ► We discuss drivers and consequences of RBM innovations and factors that warrant changes in RBMs. A retail business model articulates how a retailer creates value for its customers and appropriates value from the markets. Innovations in business models are increasingly critical for building sustainable advantage in a marketplace defined by unrelenting change, escalating customer expectations, and intense competition. Drawing from extant strategy and retailing research, we propose that innovations in retail business models are best viewed as changes in three design components: (1) the way in which the activities are organized, (2) the type of activities that are executed, and (3) the level of participation of the actors engaged in performing those activities. We propose six major ways in which retailers could innovate their business models to enhance value creation and appropriation beyond the levels afforded by traditional approaches to retailing. We also describe the drivers of business model innovations, the potential consequences of such innovations, and numerous examples from retail practice that highlight our concepts and arguments. In doing so, we provide a starting point for academic research in a domain that is deficient in theoretical and empirical research, and offer retailing managers a framework to guide retail business model innovations for sustainable competitive advantage.

Research summary: Using a productivity technique (VCA model), we estimate the economic value created by a firm and appropriated by its stakeholders in two specific empirical contexts. In the first application, we use publicly available data from the U.S. airline industry to illustrate how the VCA model can be used with multiple stakeholder groups. In the second application, we provide estimates for three global automobile companies (GM, Toyota and Nissan), showing how the model can be reformulated using value added. In both industries we find substantial heterogeneity among firms in the creation and distribution of value. We discuss strengths and limitations of the VCA model and implications for strategic management research. Managerial summary: Firms create value not only for shareholders, but also for other stakeholders, including employees, customers and suppliers. This article applies a method to quantify the \"new\" economic value created by a firm over an interval of time; the method also reveals the distribution of that value among the stakeholders. The proposed method gives managers some means to assess changes in the economic value created and distributed. We find that the creation and distribution of value has varied greatly among major U.S. airlines and global automakers in recent decades. Moreover, returns to shareholders typically accounted for only a small proportion of firms ' total value creation and often had little relation to broader changes in the magnitude and distribution of value.

Research summary: Prior scholarship has assumed that firm-specific and general human capital can be analyzed separately. This article argues that, in some settings, this is not the case because prior firm-specific human capital investments can be a market signal of an individual's willingness and ability to make such investments in the future. As such, the willingness and ability to make firm-specific investments is a type of general human capital that links firm-specific and general human capital in important ways. The article develops theory about these investments, market signals, and value appropriation. Then, the article examines implications for human resource management and several important questions in the field of strategic management, including theories of the firm and microfoundations of competitive advantage. Managerial summary: While managers don't often use the terms firm-specific and general skills, they certainly recognize that investments employees make in their skill sets are more or less relevant to a specific firm. For instance, investing in specific relationships within a firm or learning a firm's proprietary software would be considered firm-specific investments. While such skills may seem relevant only to the particular firm in which they were invested, these investments may also send valuable signals to competing firms that such employees are willing and able to make similar investments elsewhere. Hence, managers should be interested in determining if a potential hire has made prior firm-specific investments to help them know whether that person might be likely to make such investments in his or her future place of employment.

This study reveals the multifaceted contribution of alliance portfolios to firms' market performance. Extending prior research that has stressed the value-creation effect of network resources, it uncovers how prominent partners may undermine a firm's capacity to appropriate value from its alliance portfolio. Analysis of a comprehensive panel dataset of 367 software firms and their 20,779 alliances suggests that the contribution of network resources to value creation varies with the complementarity of those resources. Furthermore, the relative bargaining power of partners in the alliance portfolio constrains the firm's appropriation capacity, especially when many of these partners compete in the focal firm's industry. In turn, the firm's market performance improves with the intensity of competition among partners in its alliance portfolio. These findings advance network research by highlighting the trade-offs that alliance portfolios impose on firms that seek to manage and leverage their alliances.

Research Summary Although partnerships have been conceptualized as vehicles for value creation, less is known about which partners appropriate more value out of them, especially among public organizations. We theorize how politics and procedural rationality in decision‐making respectively are associated with value creation and value appropriation from partnerships between public organizations. Analysis of data from the Dutch water authority sector (2008–2014) shows that organizations employing more politics in decision‐making appropriate more value from horizontal partnerships, whereas procedural rationality in decision‐making may enhance combined value creation but limits partner‐level value appropriation. Also as theorized, the collective decision‐making context constrains value appropriation by partners using a discrepant decision‐making approach. We discuss implications for research on public organizations, alliances, and strategic decision‐making. Managerial Summary Although much is known about how partnerships can create value for firms, we know relatively less about which of the partners can appropriate more value from them. In this paper, we theorize and find that (public) organizations that employ more politics in decision‐making can generally appropriate more value from partnerships. Organizations that are more procedurally rational, which entails the extensive collection and analysis of information to make decisions, are able to create more value for the partnership, but generally appropriate less value from the partnership. Moreover, an organization that has a different decision‐making approach than its partners' end up appropriating less value from the partnership. Thus, when forming partnerships, managers should carefully consider the way their potential partners make decisions.