Corporate and industry effects on business unit competitive position

We partition the variances of market shares, which we use as surrogates for competitive position, of the business units of all public manufacturing companies available in the Trinet data base into industry factors, corporate parent‐specific factors, and business unit‐specific factors. Our results differ somewhat from Rumelt's (1991) , which decomposed variances in profitability. We find that corporate parent effects on market share are considerably greater than zero when lines of business are defined more narrowly, when small business units are included, and when firms are medium‐sized. Our results suggest that the relative importance of corporate, industry, and business unit effects depends on the types of criteria, such as the level of industry aggregation, whether small business units are included, and firm size, that are used to construct samples. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Extending the firm vs. industry debate: Does industry life cycle stage matter?

A series of Strategic Management Journal studies have debated the extent to which business‐unit, corporate parent, and industry effects explain variance in firm performance. Despite evidence that the industry life cycle impacts competition and performance, the life cycle concept has yet to be incorporated into the firm vs. industry debate. Building on ideas from systems theory, we use longitudinal data from 1,957 firms in 49 industries to examine the relative importance of business‐unit, corporate parent, and industry effects during the growth, maturity, and decline stages of the industry life cycle. We find that corporate parent and industry effects increase as industries move through the life cycle while business‐unit effects decrease between maturity and decline. Thus, the life cycle concept should be incorporated within the firm vs. industry debate. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

What does a small corporate effect mean? A variance components simulation of corporate and business effects

In a widely cited paper, Rumelt (1991) presents estimates of the relative influence of corporate, business unit, and other influences on business unit profitability and finds the corporation explains almost none of the variability in business unit profitability. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, we examine the relation of variance component magnitudes to other indicators of the importance of a particular effect. Our results demonstrate that variance components can be an extremely nonlinear indicator of importance. We also question whether Rumelt's corporate effect represents the possible contributions of corporate strategy to business unit performance. This addresses a puzzle raised by Rumelt (1991) concerning the small effect of corporations in explaining performance, and suggests that Rumelt's findings should not be seen as demonstrating the insignificance of corporate strategy. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Does corporate strategy matter?

A revisionist view that corporate strategy does not matter has gained considerable influence in recent years. This view largely stems from empirical results of early variance decomposition studies that found negligible corporate effects associated with profitability differences between businesses. Our analysis of the variance decomposition literature shows this view to be incorrect. Not only do the studies as a group show that factors at the corporate level of organizations contribute to profitability differences, but also evidence suggests that factors specifically associated with corporate strategy contribute to corporate effects. Corporate strategy in fact does matter. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How much does the business group matter in Korea?

We partition the variances of profits of the companies associated with Korean business groups into business group‐specific effects, industry effects, and affiliate company‐specific effects, which roughly match corporate‐parent effects, industry effects and business unit effects, respectively, in the extant literature. We find substantial corporate‐parent effects (here, business group effects) along with industry effects and business unit effects (here, affiliate company‐specific effects). This finding may indicate that business groups play an important role in developing countries by circumventing market inefficiencies. Our results also suggest that these effects tend to be smaller in large business groups and to decrease over time. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

MARKETS VS. MANAGEMENT: WHAT ‘DRIVES’ PROFITABILITY?

This study addresses the issue of the relative degree of variance in ROA accounted for by industry, corporate, and SBU effects while controlling for the business cycle and the interaction between the business cycle and industry. Two key articles, Schmalensee (1985) and Rumelt (1991), are discussed in detail. Research results on a recent data base (COMPUSTAT), using variance components analysis (VARCOMP) are presented that not only confirm most of the Rumelt (1991) findings, but also suggest the existence of a corporate effect, heretofore undetected.     

Does it pay to be really good? addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance

Building on the theoretical argument that a firm's ability to profit from social responsibility depends upon its stakeholder influence capacity (SIC), we bring together contrasting literatures on the relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP) to hypothesize that the CSP‐CFP relationship is U‐shaped. Our results support this hypothesis. We find that firms with low CSP have higher CFP than firms with moderate CSP, but firms with high CSP have the highest CFP. This supports the theoretical argument that SIC underlies the ability to transform social responsibility into profit. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

HOW MUCH DOES INDUSTRY MATTER,REALLY?

In this paper, we examine the importance of year, industry, corporate-parent, and business-specific effects on the profitability of U.S. public corporations within specific 4-digit SIC categories. Our results indicate that year, industry, corporate-parent, and business-specific effects account for 2 percent, 19 percent, 4 percent, and 32 percent, respectively, of the aggregate variance in profitability. We also find that the importance of the effects differs substantially across broad economic sectors. Industry effects account for a smaller portion of profit variance in manufacturing but a larger portion in lodging/entertainment, services, wholesale/retail trade, and transportation. Across all sectors we find a negative covariance between corporate-parent and industry effects. A detailed analysis suggests that industry, corporate-parent, and business-specific effects are related in complex ways. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.