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     

Is performance driven by industry‐or firm‐specific factors? A new look at the evidence

In this study we revisit the question of whether firms' performance is driven primarily by industry or firm factors, extending past studies in two major ways. Firstly, in a departure from past research, we use value‐based measures of performance (economic profit or residual income and market‐to‐book value) instead of accounting ratios (such as return on assets). We also use a new data set and a different statistical approach for testing the significance of the independent effects. Secondly, we examine whether the findings of past research can be generalized across all firms in an industry or whether they apply to a particular class of firms within the same industry. We find that a significant proportion of the absolute estimates of the variance of firm factors is due to the presence of a few exceptional firms in any given industry. In other words, only for a few dominant value creators (leaders) and destroyers (losers) do firm‐specific assets seem to matter significantly more than industry factors. For most other firms, i.e., for those that are not notable leaders or losers in their industry, however, the industry effect turns out to be more important for performance than firm‐specific factors. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How Much Does Ownership Form Matter?

Research summary : Previous studies have emphasized firm and industry effects on variation in firm performance, but the relationship between forms of ownership and firm performance has been the focus of limited research. This article examines the extent to which ownership form (i.e., public or private ownership) and ownership structure (including diffused ownership and blockholding) affect firm performance. The results of an analysis of 30,525 European Union (EU) firms indicate that form of ownership is an important explanatory factor in the difference in performance among firms. These results underscore the need to study firms characterized by different ownership arrangements and to provide empirical evidence for the study of firm ownership in strategic management. Managerial summary : Motivated by growing evidence on the involvement of different types of owners in the strategies of firms, we studied the extent to which a firm's ownership form (type of legal incorporation, such as public and private ownership forms) and ownership structure (diffused ownership and blockholding) affect its performance. Our study of more than 30,000 firms from the European Union shows that ownership form differences explain some of the performance differences between firms. Our results also indicate that firms with different ownership forms are differently affected by their competitive environment. Overall, the study suggests that choosing the right ownership form can have important strategic consequences. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Is performance driven by industry‐ or firm‐specific factors? A response to Hawawini,Subramanian, and Verdin

Hawawini, Subramanian, and Verdin (2003) examined the relative impact of industry‐ vs. firm‐level factors shaping firm performance. They demonstrated that variance in firm performance attributable to industry‐level factors increases, while variance attributable t to firm‐level factors decreases when ‘exceptionally’ higher‐ and lower‐performing ‘outlier’ firms in each industry are excluded. They concluded that previous research underestimated the relative impact of industry‐level factors for ‘average’ firms that make up the bulk of an industry. We take issue with their methods used to identify and exclude outliers as well as their conclusions drawn from such analyses. Rather than excluding true ‘outlier’ firms, we argue that they incorporated an artificial restriction of within‐industry sample variance that almost deterministically led to lower firm and higher industry variance component estimates. We demonstrate this point with a comparable sample of data to which we apply progressively greater restrictions on within‐industry sample variance leading to similar results. Finally, we show that exclusion of firms from a data sample based on commonly understood standards of outlier identification leads to little change in industry and firm variance component estimates compared to full‐sample estimates. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Firm,strategic group,and industry influences on performance

A long‐standing debate has focused on the extent to which different levels of analysis shape firm performance. The strategic group level has been largely excluded from this inquiry, despite evidence that group membership matters. In this study, we use hierarchical linear modeling to simultaneously estimate firm‐, strategic group‐, and industry‐level influences on short‐term and long‐term measures of performance. We assess the three levels' explanatory power using a sample of 1,165 firms in 12 industries with data from a 7‐year period. To enhance comparability to previous research, we also estimate the effects using the variance components and ANOVA methods relied on in past studies. To assess the robustness of strategic group effects, we examine both deductively and inductively defined groups. We found that all three levels are significantly associated with performance. The firm effect is the strongest, while the strategic group effect rivals and for some measures outweighs the industry effect. We also found that the levels have varying effects in relation to different performance measures, suggesting more complex relationships than depicted in previous studies. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Big losses in ecosystem niches: how core firm decisions drive complementary product shakeouts

This study examines shakeouts in the context of business ecosystems. Market turbulence generated by core firm decisions in competing differentiated ecosystems can generate financial losses and exit for complementary niche market firms. I develop hypotheses predicting which niche markets will suffer larger losses and be more susceptible to shakeouts, and how core firm decisions will drive complementor performance and survival. I then apply these hypotheses to brand‐based differentiated ecosystems in the automotive industry, where networks of suppliers, customers, and complementors surround car manufacturers. More specifically, I study the complementary niche market of automotive leasing, where manufacturers sway leasing markets through product change, entry, and subsidization. To test the hypotheses, I use a proprietary dataset of 200,000 individual car leases between 1997–2002 to identify how manufacturer product design and niche market entry drive complementor losses and exit. These data allow a unique opportunity to understand how the strategic choices of core firms can have substantial and often devastating effects on niche markets in their ecosystem. Further, the results suggest how the dynamic capabilities to adapt to core firm behavior might improve performance for certain niche market complementors. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Is performance driven by industry‐ or firm‐specific factors? A reply to McNamara,Aime, and Vaaler

We revisit the questions of identification of outlying firms within industries and their impact on the relative importance of firm‐ and industry‐specific factors for firm performance. In response to McNamara, Aime and Valler (2005), we argue that the key results in Hawawini, Subramnian and Verdin (2003) are insensitive to the varying methods used to identify firm outliers. Further, we argue that conducting tests on industry outliers are inconsistent to what is indicated by theory and past empirical results on the relative importance of firm and industry effects to firm performance. Firm effects may matter most for outperforming and underpeforming firms, while industry effects may be at least as important to firms ‘stuck in the middle’. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Measuring the Economic Rate of Return on Assets

This paper (1) describes a procedure for correctingthe deficiencies associated with the accounting rateof return, and for capitalizing the intangible assetscreated by the firm's R & D expenditures; and (2)demonstrates the superiority of the derived measure ofrate of return in a fixed effects model testing therelative influence of firm and industry effects onreturns. Both of these influences are shown to bemuch stronger than in previous empirical work.     

Strategy and industry effects on profitability: evidence from Greece

The present study examines the impact of firm and industry‐specific factors on profitability, using census data on Greek manufacturing. At the firm level, particular attention is given to strategy effects. Based on a modification of Porter's typology, these effects are captured through different forms of both ‘pure’ and ‘hybrid’ strategies. Industry effects are represented using industry concentration, entry barriers, and growth. Hypotheses are developed taking into account both previous research and the particular idiosyncrasies of the national context. The results obtained provide important insights on specific determinants of firm profitability. With respect to strategy, results confirm the hypothesis that hybrid strategies are clearly preferable compared to pure ones. In addition, it was found that the more generic strategy dimensions are included in the strategy mix, the more profitable the strategy is, provided that one of the key ingredients is low cost. Industry‐level effects, although weaker, show strong impact of industry entry barriers. Moreover, the findings suggest that while both sets of factors significantly contribute to firm profitability, firm‐specific factors explain more than twice as much profit variability as industry factors. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: contrasting Porter's competitive strategy framework and the resource‐based perspective

In this study we revisit some fundamental questions that are increasingly at the heart of current strategic management discourse regarding the relative impact of industry and firm‐specific factors on sustainable competitive advantage. We explore this issue by referring to respective assertions of two major perspectives that dominate the literature over the last two decades: the Porter framework of competitive strategy and the more recent resource‐based view of the firm. A composite model is proposed which elaborates upon both perspectives' divergent causal logic with respect to the conditions relevant for firm success. Empirical findings suggest that industry and firm specific effects are both important but explain different dimensions of performance. Where industry forces influence market performance and profitability, firm assets act upon accomplishments in the market arena (i.e., market performance), and via the latter, to profitability. The paper concludes with directions for future research that will seek to integrate both content and process aspects of firm behavior. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The impact of alternative operationalizations of industry structural elements on measures of performance for entrepreneurial manufacturing ventures

Using a sample of 115 manufacturing ventures, this study examined elements of industry structure which prior theory and research in the fields of industrial organization economics, strategic management, and entrepreneurship suggest are the most important structural characteristics of industries. Future researchers should carefully select the particular operationalization of industry structure as our research demonstrates that the influence of industry structural elements on measures of firm performance is strongly dependent upon the particular operationalization utilized. In addition, measures of industry structure were found to have a differential impact on alternative measures of firm performance, suggesting that different performance measures are not interchangeable proxies for one another. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Revisiting the firm,industry, and country effects on profitability under recessionary and expansion periods: A multilevel analysis

Research summary: Despite voluminous past research, the relevance of firm, industry, and country effects on profitability, particularly under adverse contexts, is still unclear. We reconcile institutional theory with the resource‐based view and industrial organization economics to investigate the effects of economic adversity, such as the 2008 global economic crisis. Using a three‐level random coefficient model, we examine 15,008 firms across 10 emerging and 10 developed countries for the 2005–2011 period. We find that firm effects become stronger under adversity, whereas industry effects become weaker, as well as country main and interaction effects, particularly among the emerging economies. These findings confirm our assumptions that the firm's own fate is, to a great extent, self‐determined; a reality that is even more pronounced during periods of extreme economic hardship. Managerial summary: In this research, we examine how generalized economic adversity affects the balance across the firm‐, industry‐, and country‐specific factors determining firm profitability. We specifically examine 15,008 firms from 10 emerging and 10 developed countries during the 2005–2011 period to investigate the effects of the 2008 global economic crisis on firm performance. We find that in such adverse conditions, the role of the industry and the country are reduced and the firm's own resources and capabilities become more pertinent for firm performance. This phenomenon is more pronounced across emerging markets. We conclude that the firm's own fate is, to a great extent, self‐determined, a reality that is markedly more evident during periods of extreme economic hardship. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Intra‐industry diversification and firm performance

We study how intra‐industry product diversity affects firm performance by analyzing the implications of expanding a firm's product line within its core business. We conjecture that increases in product diversity initially undermine performance because of negative transfer effects but then improve it due to economies of scope. We further theorize that this U‐shaped effect of product diversity becomes more pronounced as the firm increases the intensity of its technology investment, yet is likely to be attenuated by the firm's accumulated experience with intra‐industry diversification. Data on 156 U.S.‐based software firms operating from 1990 to 2001 furnish support for these conjectures. Our study advances emerging research on intra‐industry diversification by underscoring some of its contingent performance effects. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Clusters,networks, and firm innovativeness

This paper extends current knowledge of industry clusters by disentangling the effects of networks from cluster (i.e., distinctly geographic) mechanisms on firm performance as well as by studying the influence of these different mechanisms on firms located inside and outside the industry cluster. It also highlights the importance of simultaneously modeling multiple networks which may differentially influence important firm outcomes. In the paper, I model the innovativeness of Canadian mutual fund companies as a function of their geographic location—inside or outside the industry cluster of Toronto—and of their centrality in networks of managerial and institutional ties. I find that locating in the industry cluster as well as centrality in the managerial tie network enhances firm innovation, while centrality in the institutional tie network does not. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

谁从谁获益:中国制造业中的外商直接投资

本文利用中国制造业1995年和2003年的行业数据，实证研究了不同国别外资企业与不同所有制内资企业组合产生的溢出效应模式。结果发现．外资存在与内资企业绩效间的关系并不是普遍而一致的．而是与外资企业的国别和内资企业的所有制类型密切相关。我们研究的主要结果表明，西方国家的投资较港、澳、台和海外华人投资对内资企业的影响相对更大。进一步发现西方企业对国有企业具有正向的溢出效应。而港、澳、台和海外华人企业则改进了内资非国有企业而不是国有企业的绩效。本文所发现的外资在中国制造业中溢出效应的有趣模式建议外资政策设计应着力促进不同类型外资与内资企业之间的特定组合，特别是西方跨国公司与本土国有企业及港、澳、台和海外华人企业与本土非国有企业之间的合作和良性互动．从而最大化外资溢出带来的溢出好处。     

Formation of R&D consortia: industry and company effects

This study investigates economic and strategic inducements of R&D cooperation. We focus on industry and company factors that affect a firm's rate of participation in R&D consortia. These factors are analyzed in a dynamic context using a sample of 312 Japanese firms in 74 industries between 1969 and 1992. We find a firm in an industry with weak competition and appropriability conditions has a higher rate of consortia participation. A firm's R&D capabilities, network formation through past consortia, encounter with other firms in product markets, age, and past participation in large‐scale consortia also positively affect its tendency of consortia formation. Copyright © 2002 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.     

The effect of CEOs on firm performance

The extent to which CEOs influence firm performance is fundamental to scholarly understanding of how organizations work; yet, this linkage is poorly understood. Previous empirical efforts to examine the link between CEOs and firm performance using variance decomposition, while provocative, nevertheless suffer from methodological problems that systematically understate the relative impact of CEOs on firm performance compared to industry and firm effects. This study addresses these methodological problems and reexamines the percentage of the variance in firm performance explained by heterogeneity in CEOs. The results of this study suggest that in certain settings the ‘CEO effect’ on corporate‐parent performance is substantially more important than that of industry and firm effects, but only moderately more important than industry and firm effects on business‐segment performance. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.