Agglomeration and the choice between acquisitions and alliances: An information economics perspective

Research summary : This research extends agglomeration theory by joining it with information economics research to better understand the determinants of firms' organizational governance choices. We argue that co‐location in a common geographic cluster fosters lower levels of information asymmetry between exchange partners and thus leads firms to employ acquisitions rather than alliances for their external corporate development activities. We further extend agglomeration theory by arguing that the impact of sharing a cluster location on acquisitions versus alliances strengthens with the level and dissimilarity of the exchange partners' knowledge‐based resources as well as with the intra‐cluster geographic proximity of the partners. Evidence from a sample of over 1,100 alliance and acquisition transactions in the U.S. semiconductor industry provides support for our hypotheses. Managerial summary : This paper investigates the role of geographical clustering for firms' external corporate development activities in acquisitions and alliances. We explain how better information is likely to be available among firms co‐located in the same cluster. This suggests that managers should have less need to use alliances over acquisitions as a means of reducing the risk of adverse selection (e.g., overpaying for acquisitions). Our investigation of over 1,100 transactions in the U.S. semiconductor industry shows that common cluster co‐location increases the probability of acquisition relative to alliance. Our arguments and evidence also indicate that the information‐related benefits of cluster co‐location are even more impactful when the parties have more divergent technology bases, possess larger stocks of knowledge‐based resources, or are located in closer geographic proximity. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Who does private equity buy? Evidence on the role of private equity from buyouts of divested businesses

Research Summary: We examine the role of nonventure private equity firms in the market for divested businesses, comparing targets bought by such firms to those bought by corporate acquirers. We argue that a combination of vigilant monitoring, high‐powered incentives, patient capital, and business independence makes private equity firms uniquely suited to correcting underinvestment problems in public corporations, and that they will therefore systematically target divested businesses that are outside their parents’ core area, whose rivals invest more in long‐term strategic assets than their parents, and whose parents have weak managerial incentives both overall and at the divisional level. Results from a sample of 1,711 divestments confirm these predictions. Our study contributes to our understanding of private equity ownership, highlighting its advantage as an alternate governance form. Managerial Summary: Private equity firms are often portrayed as destroyers of corporate value, raiding established companies in pursuit of short‐term gain. In contrast, we argue that private equity investors help to revitalize businesses by enabling investments in long‐term strategic resources and capabilities that they are better able to evaluate, monitor, and support than public market investors. Consistent with these arguments, we find that when acquiring businesses divested by public corporations, private equity firms are more likely to buy units outside the parent's core area, those whose peers invest more in R&D than their parents, and those whose parents have weak managerial incentives, especially at the divisional level. Thus, private equity firms systematically target those businesses that may fail to realize their full potential under public ownership.     

How Central Is Too Central? Organizing Interorganizational Collaboration Networks for Breakthrough Innovation

Firms increasingly look to collaboration with alliance partners in their quest for breakthrough innovation. But how does the position of a firm in its alliance network weighted by the centrality of its partners—a concept which we term “partner‐weighted alliance centrality”—and the heterogeneities in the types of partners that it cooperates with—in terms of its private‐public collaboration—influence this quest? Using longitudinal data from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, we build alliance networks in the period 1985–2001 to investigate these questions. We show that, for breakthrough innovation, collaborating with more partners that are more central in alliance networks the better, but only to a point. Beyond that point, we find that the likelihood of achieving breakthrough innovation drops. Furthermore, and looking at the kinds of knowledge provided by the partners in each firm's alliances, we report that firms with a greater share of private partners, relative to public partners, suffer less from the diminishing benefits of collaboration with central partners when developing breakthrough innovation. Taken together, we make novel contributions about how to organize for breakthrough innovation, and provide actionable managerial advice in terms of selecting collaborative partners in alliance networks.     

Bribery and investment: Firm‐level evidence from Africa and Latin America

Research summary : Using a unique database that measures firm‐level bribery in Africa and Latin America, we corroborate extant results in the literature that paying bribes deters firm investments in fixed assets. Our contribution is to explore four mechanisms. By adopting a reverse causality approach (Gelman and Imbens, 2013), we find evidence consistent with one of them: short‐term oriented firms prefer to bribe rather than invest in fixed assets, while the opposite is true for firms with a long‐term orientation. We rule out that bribe payments drain financial resources for investment, that firms that invest do not bribe because fixed assets make them less flexible and more vulnerable to future bribes, and that less efficient firms bribe rather than invest. Managerial summary : We ask whether, along with ethical issues, bribing affects the behavior and performance of firms in Africa and Latin America. Our statistical analysis shows that bribe payments do not reduce the short‐term performance of firms, but frustrate investments in fixed assets, which is the foundation of firms' long‐term growth. It is like seeking a job via nepotism or education. Nepotism makes it likely to find a job in the short term. However, the solid skills generated by education raise the odds of finding better jobs in the future. We rule out some common explanations for the trade‐off between bribing and investment (e.g., bribes drain resources to invest or that less efficient firms bribe and do not invest). Our analysis suggests that firms with short‐term orientations are more likely to bribe and firms with long‐term orientation are more likely to invest. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When is more better? The impact of business scale and scope on long‐term business survival,while controlling for profitability

Empirical research shows that larger businesses tend to survive longer than smaller companies. Little research, though, shows whether size confers survival advantages in addition to the survival benefits of baseline profitability. Moreover, no prior research attempts to disentangle the benefits of organizational capital that accrue from greater scale from those that arise from greater business scope. Thus, we lack a conceptual understanding of the underlying benefits of business size for long‐term survival. We expect business scale and business scope to reflect organizational capital that offers survival benefits, where we conceptualize scale in terms of annual sales revenue and scope in terms of product line breadth and sub‐sector participation within a related business context. We first argue that greater business scale and business scope each enhance long‐term survival, independent of baseline profitability, owing to greater availability of financial resources, organizational routines, and external ties. We then argue that the benefits of scale are greatest for multi‐product businesses, stemming from positive interactive effects of breadth and depth. We find support for these hypotheses with data from 618 firms that operated in the U.S. medical sector between 1978 and 1995. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Does engagement in corporate social responsibility provide strategic insurance‐like effects?

Research summary : This study examines whether the stock and bond prices of firms engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR) can benefit from insurance‐like effects during occurrences of negative events. Our results suggest that in the face of negative events, engagement in CSR on a continuous, long‐term basis provides insurance‐like effects on both the stock and bond prices of firms. Nevertheless, the effects are found to quickly disappear following the occurrence of a second, or subsequent, negative event. Although our results clearly indicate that firms need to allocate some of their available resources to long‐term strategic CSR activities, managers must also realize that in a crisis communication, they will probably be able to use their CSR claims on one occasion only. Managerial summary : The purpose of this article is to examine whether firms engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR) can benefit from insurance‐like effects during occurrences of negative events. We find that on the occurrence of a negative event, long‐term CSR engagement does have insurance‐like effects. We also find that these insurance‐like effects may quickly disappear following the occurrence of a second negative event. Managers of firms with a long history of CSR activities need to realize that in a crisis communication, they can probably use their claims of adherence to CSR only once. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The long‐term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices

Research summary : Prior work on the benefits of business sustainability often applies short‐term causal logic and data analysis. In this article, we argue that the social and the environmental practices (SEPs) associated with business sustainability not only contribute to short‐term outcomes, but also to organizational resilience, which we define as the firm's ability to sense and correct maladaptive tendencies and cope positively with unexpected situations. Because organizational resilience is a latent, path‐dependent construct, we assess it through the long‐term outcomes, including improved financial volatility, sales growth, and survival rates. We tested these hypotheses with data from 121 U.S.‐based matched‐pairs (242 individual firms) over a 15‐year period. We also tested, but did not find support for, the relationship between SEPs and short‐term financial performance. Managerial summary : Most managers look for short‐term financial benefits to justify socially responsible or sustainable practices. In this article, we argue that such practices also help firms become more resilient, which helps them avoid crises and bounce back from shocks. However, it is difficult to measure the avoidance of shocks, so we analyzed long‐term outcomes. We show that firms that adopt responsible social and environmental practices, relative to a carefully matched control group, have lower financial volatility, higher sales growth, and higher chances of survival over a 15‐year period; yet, we were unable to find any differences in short‐term profits. We hope this research provides good reasons for firms to practice sustainability beyond the pursuit of short‐term profits. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The nature of partnering experience and the gains from alliances

We examine the conditions under which the prior partnering experience of firms contributes to value creation in their new alliances. We propose that prior experience with the same partners, that is, ‘partner‐specific experience,’ provides greater benefits than ‘general partnering experience’ that encompasses all prior alliances with any partner. We further explore some of the boundary conditions for the effects of partner‐specific experience. We suggest that the effect of partner‐specific experience on value creation in alliances is moderated by the extent to which the assets of the new partner differ from those of the firm's prior partners. We also propose that the firm's own technological and financial resources increase the benefits of partner‐specific experience. Finally, we predict that the value of partner‐specific experience will increase under high levels of firm‐specific uncertainty. We test these hypotheses with comprehensive longitudinal multi‐industry data on joint ventures formed among Fortune 300 firms between 1987 and 1996. Based on stock market returns to joint venture announcements, the results provide support for the contingent value of partnering experience. The implications for managing alliances and advancing organizational learning are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: a study of growth and innovation rates in a high‐technology industry

This paper investigates the relationship between intercorporate technology alliances and firm performance. It argues that alliances are access relationships, and therefore that the advantages which a focal firm derives from a portfolio of strategic coalitions depend upon the resource profiles of its alliance partners. In particular, large firms and those that possess leading‐edge technological resources are posited to be the most valuable associates. The paper also argues that alliances are both pathways for the exchange of resources and signals that convey social status and recognition. Particularly when one of the firms in an alliance is a young or small organization or, more generally, an organization of equivocal quality, alliances can act as endorsements: they build public confidence in the value of an organization's products and services and thereby facilitate the firm's efforts to attract customers and other corporate partners. The findings from models of sales growth and innovation rates in a large sample of semiconductor producers confirm that organizations with large and innovative alliance partners perform better than otherwise comparable firms that lack such partners. Consistent with the status‐transfer arguments, the findings also demonstrate that young and small firms benefit more from large and innovative strategic alliance partners than do old and large organizations. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Collusion Under Imperfect Monitoring with Asymmetric Firms

We explore the effects of asymmetries in capacity constraints on collusion where market demand is uncertain and where firms’ sales and prices are private information. We show that all firms can infer when at least one firm's sales are below some firm‐specific ‘trigger level.’ When firms use this public information to monitor the collusive agreement, price wars may occur on the equilibrium path. Symmetry facilitates collusion but, if price wars are sufficiently long, then the optimal collusive prices of symmetric capacity distributions are lower on average than the competitive prices of asymmetric capacity distributions. We draw conclusions for merger policy.     

Structural homophily or social asymmetry? The formation of alliances by poorly embedded firms

Recent research shows that preexisting network structure constrains the formation of new interorganizational alliances. Firms that are poorly embedded in a network structure are less likely than richly embedded firms to form alliances, because they lack informational and reputational benefits. This study examines the types of ties that poorly embedded firms can form to overcome the constraints that their structural positions impose, in turn helping to explain how firms' actions can transform existing network structures. We argue that poorly embedded firms are more likely to participate in ties characterized by social asymmetry than in ties characterized by structural homophily. We analyze the terms of trade that socially asymmetric partners negotiate for alliance governance and discuss how such alliances influence network dynamics. To test our arguments, we use longitudinal data on the alliance activities of 97 global chemical firms from 1979 to 1991. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Partner technological heterogeneity and innovation performance of R&D alliances

This study investigates the impacts of partner technology heterogeneity on innovation performance of alliance firms both in terms of R&D output and the enhancement of partners’ innovation capability. We apply a generalized semi-parametric model on a questionnaire survey result of 413 High and New Technology Enterprises in China. In order to ensure the robustness and practicability of our result, PCA is applied to extract comprehensive information and SiZer analysis is employed to test the linearity and significance of the nonparametric functions in the model. Our results indicate that collaborations between partners with different industry technologies exert inversed U-shaped R&D output pattern and affect very little the innovation ability of focal firms. The impact of industry domain divergence is no longer significant when partner technology heterogeneity is added in the model of analysis. Partner technology heterogeneity leads to an ascending S-shaped R&D output pattern and contributes positively to innovation capabilities. One of the implications of our findings is that when choosing R&D alliance partners, firms are better off avoiding candidates from a different industry domain but opt for potential collaborators who are in the same industry but in the different technical domain, which may facilitate more effective organizational learning. Further, we argue that the reasons behind the S-shaped R&D output pattern led by technology heterogeneity being the co-existence of competition and cooperation between partners where firms collaborate in value-creation by combining diverse resources and compete for acquiring partner’s distinct technology and resources. Therefore, we suggest that, for the sustainability of collaborative innovation outcome, both cooperation and competition amongst alliance partners should be encouraged and well balanced at different stages of joint R&D projects.     

Vertical ally-or-acquire choice and technological performance: a resource dependence perspective

In order to advance our understanding of technological firms’ vertical ally-or-acquire choices, this study applies resource dependence theory to explore how mutual dependence and dependence asymmetry between partners’ technologies affect governance choice. The collective effect of mutual dependence, dependence asymmetry and governance choice on technological performance of the transaction is also examined. Heckman's two-stage analyses of 135 technology alliances and 91 technology acquisitions suggest that mutually dependent firms tend to adopt acquisitions, whereas asymmetrically dependent firms tend to adopt alliances. The fits between dependence asymmetry and alliances, and between mutual dependence and acquisitions consequently enhance technological performance.     

With greater power comes greater responsibility? takeover protection and corporate attention to stakeholders

Using takeover protection as an indicator of corporate governance, this study examines how an exogenous shift in power from shareholders to managers affects corporate attention to non‐shareholding stakeholders. Two competing hypotheses are entertained. The shareholder view predicts that stronger takeover protection will lead to a decrease in corporate attention to shareholders and non‐shareholding stakeholders alike, as managers divert resources from shareholders to the pursuit of their private interests. The stakeholder view, in contrast, predicts that stronger takeover protection will increase corporate attention to non‐shareholding stakeholders. Because catering to non‐shareholding stakeholders contributes to the long‐term value of the firm, managers will be more likely to attend to those stakeholders when relieved from short‐termism triggered by the threat of hostile takeovers. Using a sample of 878 U.S. firms from 1991 to 2002, the study finds that an exogenous increase in takeover protection leads to higher corporate attention to community and the natural environment, but has no impact on corporate attention to employees, minorities, and customers. Additional analyses show that firms that increase their attention to stakeholders experience an increase in long‐term shareholder value. These findings provide additional evidence that relief from short‐termism is a likely source of the increase in corporate attention to non‐shareholding stakeholders following the increase in takeover protection. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Extending private‐collective innovation: a case study

The private‐collective innovation model proposes incentives for individuals and firms to privately invest resources to create public goods innovations. Such innovations are characterized by non‐rivalry and non‐exclusivity in consumption. Examples include open source software, user‐generated media products, drug formulas, and sport equipment designs. There is still limited empirical research on private‐collective innovation. We present a case study to (1) provide empirical evidence of a case of private‐collective innovation, showing specific benefits, and (2) to extend the private‐collective innovation model by analyzing the hidden costs for the company involved. We examine the development of the Nokia Internet Tablet, which builds on both proprietary and open source software development, and that involves both Nokia developers and volunteers who are not employed by the company. Seven benefits for Nokia are identified, as are five hidden costs: difficulty to differentiate, guarding business secrets, reducing community entry barriers, giving up control, and organizational inertia. We examine the actions taken by the management to mitigate these costs throughout the development period.     

Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation

This paper presents a dynamic, firm‐level study of the role of network resources in determining alliance formation. Such resources inhere not so much within the firm but reside in the interfirm networks in which firms are placed. Data from extensive fieldwork show that by influencing the extent to which firms have access to information about potential partners, such resources are an important catalyst for new alliances, especially because alliances entail considerable hazards. This study also assesses the importance of firms’ capabilities with alliance formation and material resources as determinants of their alliance decisions. I test this dynamic framework and its hypotheses about the role of time‐varying network resources and firm capabilities with comprehensive longitudinal multi‐industry data on the formation of strategic alliances by a panel of firms between 1970 and 1989. The results confirm field observations that accumulated network resources arising from firm participation in the network of accumulated prior alliances are influential in firms’ decisions to enter into new alliances. This study highlights the importance of network resources that firms derive from their embeddedness in networks for explaining their strategic behavior. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Licensing Foreign Technology and the Moderating Role of Local R&D Collaboration: Extending the Relational View

The relational resource‐based view posits that performance differences among firms can be explained not only by the possession of internal resources but also by maintaining and developing relationships with external partners. However, studies in the extant literature usually address the separated roles of various external relationships of focal firms, but the literature has not addressed how relationships with different sets of knowledge partners are related to each other and influence focal firms' performance. Therefore, to fill this research gap, this study focuses on how technological resources acquired from one set of partners (licensing foreign technologies) may generate subsequent internal and relational rents in terms of technological innovation in the context of collaboration with an entirely different set of knowledge partners (local R&D partners). Specifically, we propose that local R&D collaborations need to be large in scale and broad in scope. The empirics are based on the analysis of a sample of 160 high‐tech Chinese firms observed from 2000 to 2011. Consistent with our predictions, our findings contribute to extending the relational view by addressing the relations among the relationships of focal firms.     

Learning to collaborate through collaboration: How allying with expert firms influences collaborative innovation within novice firms

Research summary : Strategic alliances have been recognized as a means for firms to learn their partners' proprietary knowledge; such alliances are also valuable opportunities for partner firms to learn tacit organizational routines from their counterparts. We consider how relatively novice technology firms can learn intraorganizational collaborative routines from more experienced alliance partners and then deploy them independently for their own innovative pursuits. We examine the alliance relationships between Eli Lilly & Co. (Lilly), a recognized expert in collaborative innovation, and 55 small biotech partner firms. Using three levels of analysis (firm, patent, and inventor dyad), we find that greater social interaction between the partner firm and Lilly subsequently increases internal collaboration among the partner firm's inventors. Managerial summary : Can collaborating externally advance internal collaboration? Yes. Our research found that collaboration among scientists at small, early‐stage biotechnology firms significantly increased after these firms formed highly interactive R&D alliances with a large pharmaceutical company known for its expertise in such collaboration. It is well known that alliances help new firms learn specific new technologies and commercialize innovations. Our study broadens the scope of potential benefits of alliances. New firms can also learn collaboration techniques, deploying them internally to enhance their own abilities in collaborative innovation. Managers should take this additional benefit into consideration in developing their alliance strategies. Pursuing alliance partners with expertise in collaboration and keeping a high level of mutual interactions with partner firm personnel should be important considerations to extract this value. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The impact of R&D‐specific factors on the attractiveness of small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises as partners vis‐à‐vis alliance formation in large emerging economies

This study examines the impact of research and development (R&D)‐specific factors in determining the likelihood of small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) from developed countries to be attractive partners vis‐à‐vis forming alliances with SMEs from large emerging economies (LEEs). This study is founded on the knowledge‐accessing theory of alliance formation, which emphasises the higher efficiency gains of knowledge application as opposed to knowledge generation. We extend this theory to SMEs on the basis that smaller firms, because of their resources constraints and drive to survive, are likely to use alliances to access external knowledge bases leading to new product development (NPD) opportunities because of the low feasibility of acquiring knowledge. As a mix of complex knowledge is necessary to develop most modern products and services, SMEs are also likely to adopt a more flexible operational approach and to accept compromises to forge knowledge‐accessing alliances. We illustrate this theoretical development using primary data collected from British and German biotechnology SMEs, declaring the intention prospectively to form alliances with their counterparts in Brazil. Binary logistic regression was used to identify the factors influencing the likelihood of a firm as an attractive alliance partner. Our results indicate that R&D‐specific factors influence the likelihood of firms to be attractive alliance partners. In particular, firms showing an in‐house innovation history focused on one or few products are more likely to be attractive alliance partners with LEE firms than those that do not. Another R&D‐specific predictor that enhances the chances of alliance partner attractiveness with LEE firms is the firm's focused searching and identifying capability relative to technology or equipment that demonstrates good prospects to improve the firm's line of products. A third predictor refers to the firm's awareness regarding non‐cost obstacles for its own technological development. Implications for policy makers and practitioners are also discussed.     

Strategic interaction in alliances

Research summary: This article studies strategic interactions between firms that form alliances to exploit synergistic benefits. Firms cooperate to create value, but they can also compete to capture value. Fundamental questions rarely addressed by strategy scholars relate to how the configuration of control over resources influences firms' strategies, the potential for termination, and the emergence of cooperation and trust. The formal results reveal crucial aspects of the interorganizational rent‐generating process and yield testable implications. With greater synergistic benefits, firms invest more, but they also compete more intensively to capture more value. With symmetric control, more value gets created, which limits the potential for termination, but also exacerbates the competition for value; from a relational perspective, this form of control augments the calculative rationale of cooperation and trust . Managerial summary: When forming an alliance to exploit synergies, firms engage in a complicated strategic interaction that is part cooperation and part competition. What happens when partner firms cooperate and invest to create value while competing and using costly adversarial tactics to capture value? The analysis reveals that with greater synergistic benefits, firms invest more in value creation, but the fear of opportunism pushes them to waste more resources on value capture tactics. The balance between value creation and value capture, and the possibility that the alliance is terminated depend on the configuration of control over resources. The analysis further reveals under what conditions there can be trust between the partners, such that they focus on value creation and avoid wasting resources in the competition for value . Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.