Global Financial Crises and Time‐Varying Volatility Comovement in World Equity Markets

This paper studies volatility comovement in world equity markets between 1994 and 2008. Global volatility factors are extracted from a panel of monthly volatility proxies relating to 25 developed and 20 emerging stock markets. A dynamic factor model (FM) is estimated using two‐year rolling‐window regressions. The FM's time‐varying variance shares of global factors map variations in volatility comovement over time and across countries. The results indicate that global volatility linkages are significantly stronger during financial crisis periods in Asia (1997‐1998), Brazil (1999), Russia (1998) and the United States (2000, 2007‐2008). Emerging markets are weakly synchronised with world volatility in comparison with developed markets. In particular, emerging market comovement is significantly lower than developed market comovement during the Asian and US sub‐prime crises. This suggests a degree of decoupling of emerging markets from the global drivers of volatility during these periods.     

Coopetition-based business models: The case of Amazon.com

Coopetition (collaboration between competing firms) is a phenomenon that has recently captured a great deal of attention due to its increasing relevance to business practice. However, current research on coopetition is still short on explaining how the potential advantages of coopetition can be realized over time as part of an individual firm's business model. In order to gain insights into this, we conduct a longitudinal, in-depth case study on the coopetition-based business models of Amazon.com. We find evidence of three distinct coopetition-based business models: (1) Amazon Marketplace, (2) Amazon Services and Web Services, and (3) the collaboration between Apple and Amazon on digital text platforms. We conclude by forwarding several propositions on how value can be created and captured by involving competitors in a firm's business model. As a whole, the results contribute to the current understanding of how firms – as well as their stakeholders – can better benefit from coopetition.     

Targeting Consumers Who Care about Future Generations

Generativity, as an adult's preoccupation with the well‐being of future generations, is a well‐studied concept in the social psychology literature. However, to this day, little is known about this concept within a consumer context. This article presents two studies that aimed to better understand the attitudes and behaviors of generative consumers. A first study was conducted to develop a more appropriate measure of generativity for consumer situations. It produced a two‐factor consumer generativity scale of six items, one factor of which measures the motivation for symbolic immortality (agentic generativity) whereas the other factor measures the motivation to be useful (communal generativity). The second study showed the predictive validity of the new scale. Highly generative consumers have more favorable attitudes toward ads and products that are generatively positioned. Generative consumers intend to buy products positioned as generative. In addition, the second study presents some sociodemographic characteristics of generative consumers. This research presents a valid and parsimonious scale of consumer generativity, and demonstrates the relevance of using a generative positioning strategy when targeting highly generative consumers.     

The Future of Stakeholder Management Theory: A Temporal Perspective

We propose adding a temporal dimension to stakeholder management theory, and assess the implications thereof for firm-level competitive advantage. We argue that a firm’s competitive advantage fundamentally depends on its capacity for stakeholder management related, transformational adaptation over time. Our new temporal stakeholder management approach builds upon insights from both the resource-based view (RBV) in strategic management and institutional theory. Stakeholder agendas and their relative salience to the firm evolve over time, a phenomenon well understood in the literature, and requiring what we call level 1 adaptation. However, the dominant direction of stakeholder pressures can also change, namely, from supporting resource heterogeneity at the firm level to fostering industry homogeneity, and vice versa. When dominant stakeholder pressures shift from supporting heterogeneity towards stimulating homogeneity in industry, the firm must engage in level 2 or transformational adaptation. Stakeholders typically provide valuable resources to the firm in an early stage. Without these resources, which foster heterogeneity (in line with RBV thinking), the firm would not exist. At a later stage, stakeholders also contribute to inter-firm homogeneity via isomorphism pressures (in line with institutional theory thinking). Adding a temporal dimension to stakeholder management theory has far reaching implications for this theory’s practical relevance to senior level management in business.