fondements et déterminants de l'avantage …...fondements et déterminants de l'avantage...
TRANSCRIPT
Fondements et déterminants de l'avantage concurrentiel durable de l’entreprise
Thèse
Jean-Samuel Cloutier
Doctorat en sciences de l’administration Philosophiæ doctor (Ph.D.)
Québec, Canada
© Jean-Samuel Cloutier, 2016
Fondements et déterminants de l'avantage concurrentiel durable de l’entreprise
Thèse
Jean-Samuel Cloutier
Sous la direction de :
Réjean Landry, directeur de recherche Nabil Amara, codirecteur de recherche
iii
Résumé
Dans la littérature en gestion stratégique, l'avantage concurrentiel durable (ACD) est vu
comme une finalité désirable des entreprises, car il représente les facteurs qui expliquent la
probabilité qu'une entreprise obtienne une performance supérieure à celle de ses
concurrents (Porter, 1985). Bien que l'ACD ait été amplement étudié, les limites de la
littérature soulignent la nécessité de conduire des recherches plus intégratives. À titre
d’exemple, il est nécessaire de développer de meilleurs instruments afin de capter l'ACD
comme variable dépendante. Cela permettrait d’obtenir une compréhension plus globale de
la complexité des déterminants des multiples formes de l'avantage concurrentiel et leurs
interactions. Cette thèse aborde trois objectifs de recherche qui découlent de ces limites :
1) La réalisation d'une synthèse de littérature intégrative des différentes formes d'avantage
concurrentiel en entreprise et leurs déterminants ;
2) La validation d'un nouveau construit de l'ACD, celui-ci comprenant trois dimensions,
soit la persistance de l'avantage concurrentiel économique, social et environnemental, en
utilisant la modélisation par équation structurelle ;
3) L'identification des complémentarités entre ces trois types d'avantage concurrentiel
persistant et l’identification des facteurs explicatifs de ces avantages.
La revue systématique de la littérature a mis en lumière une grande part de cette complexité
ignorée jusqu'à ce jour, lorsqu'il est question du construit de l'ACD en entreprise et de ses
déterminants. Le nouveau construit de l'ACD validé dans l'article 2 constitue une première
tentative afin de modéliser l’ACD comme étant la capacité d'une firme à développer
simultanément un avantage concurrentiel persistant économique, social et environnemental.
Les résultats de la modélisation d'équations simultanées dans l'article 3 soutiennent
l'hypothèse de complémentarité qui suggère que les ressources consacrées à l'amélioration
de l'avantage concurrentiel social et environnemental prédisent également l'avantage
concurrentiel économique et vice-versa.
iv
Abstract
An extensive literature stream in strategic management portrays sustainable competitive
advantage (SCA) as a desirable outcome because it focuses on the factors explaining a
firm’s probability of sustaining a performance superior to that of competitors (Porter,
1985). The limits of the SCA literature highlight the need for more integrative SCA
research to improve the construct and capture SCA both as an output and to provide a more
comprehensive understanding of the complexity of the determinants of the multiple forms
of competitive advantage and their interactions. This thesis:
1) Presents a systematic review of the different forms of a firm’s competitive advantage and
its determinants;
2) Uses structural equation modeling to validate a new construct of SCA as a three-
dimensional construct of persistent economic, social, and environmental competitive
advantage;
3) Uses simultaneous regression estimations to identify the complementarities among these
three types of competitive advantage, as well as the industry-, resource-, dynamic
capabilities- and governance-based determinants of these competitive advantages.
The systematic review uncovered a great deal of previously ignored complexities behind
the SCA construct, its measurement, and the importance of the industry-, resource-, and
institution-based determinants of competitive advantage. To our knowledge, the proposed
SCA construct, validated in the second paper, serves as a first step in introducing a new
conceptualization on the operationalization of SCA as abilities of firms to simultaneously
develop an economic, social, and environmental persistent competitive advantage. The
results of the simultaneous equation modeling support the complementarity hypothesis that
suggests that a firm’s economic, social and environmental persistent competitive
advantages reinforce each other.
v
Table des matières
Résumé .................................................................................................................................. iii Abstract .................................................................................................................................. iv Table des matières .................................................................................................................. v Liste des tableaux ................................................................................................................ viii Liste des figures ..................................................................................................................... ix Liste des abréviations ............................................................................................................. x Dédicaces ............................................................................................................................... xi Remerciements ..................................................................................................................... xii Avant-propos ....................................................................................................................... xiii Chapitre 1 : Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Contexte ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1. L’avantage concurrentiel durable, une source de richesse collective ................... 2 1.1.2. Les investisseurs, leur performance et leur impact sur la richesse collective ....... 5
1.2. Problématique .............................................................................................................. 7 1.3. Sujet, structure et contributions de la thèse ................................................................. 8
Chapitre 2 : Cadre théorique ................................................................................................. 11 2.1. L'avantage concurrentiel durable comme un construit de la performance de la firme .......................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2. Les déterminants de l'avantage concurrentiel durable ............................................... 15
2.2.1. Les déterminants industriels de la performance de la firme................................ 16 2.2.2. Les déterminants basés sur les ressources ........................................................... 17 2.2.3. Les déterminants institutionnels de l'avantage concurrentiel .............................. 18
2.3. Le développement de l'avantage concurrentiel en entreprise (problématique de complémentarité et de substitution) .................................................................................. 19
Chapitre 3 : Objectifs de recherche et évolution de la thèse ................................................ 21 3.1. Objectifs ..................................................................................................................... 21
3.1.1. Revue systématique de la littérature.................................................................... 21 3.1.2. Validation de construit ........................................................................................ 22 3.1.3. Étudier les déterminants et le développement de l’ACD en entreprise............... 22
3.2 Évolution de la thèse et dimensions mobilisées .......................................................... 23 Chapitre 4 : Sustainable competitive advantage: a systematic review of the literature from 2007 to 2013 ......................................................................................................................... 26
Résumé .............................................................................................................................. 27 Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 28 4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 29 4.2. Materials and methods ............................................................................................... 30
4.2.1. Objective and scope of our study ........................................................................ 30 4.2.2. Literature search .................................................................................................. 31 4.2.3. Data extraction and analysis ................................................................................ 33
4.3. Results ........................................................................................................................ 38 4.3.1. Some general characteristics of the included studies .......................................... 38 4.3.2. SCA as a dependent variable ............................................................................... 40 4.3.3. SCA predictors .................................................................................................... 42
4.3.3.1. Industry-based variables .............................................................................. 42
vi
4.3.3.1.1. Industry structure .................................................................................. 42 4.3.3.1.2. Firm-level strategies ............................................................................. 44
4.3.3.2. Resource-based variables and dynamic capabilities .................................... 45 4.3.3.2.1. Tangible resources ................................................................................ 46 4.3.3.2.2. Firm intangibles and dynamic capabilities ........................................... 47
4.3.3.3. Country-level institutions, governance, and networks ................................ 50 4.3.3.3.1. Macroeconomics, regulation, and tax ................................................... 50 4.3.3.3.2. Firm governance structures and mechanisms ....................................... 51 4.3.3.3.3. Networks ............................................................................................... 53
4.4. Discussion and conclusions ....................................................................................... 54 4.5. References .................................................................................................................. 58
Chapitre 5 : Conceptualizing and operationalizing sustainable competitive advantage as persistent superior economic, social, and environmental performance ................................ 69
Résumé .............................................................................................................................. 70 Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 71 5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 72
5.1.1. From absolute performance to persistent competitive advantage ....................... 73 5.1.2. From persistent to sustainable competitive advantage: two competing models . 75
5.2. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 76 5.2.1. Data and measures ............................................................................................... 76 5.2.2. Exploratory analysis ............................................................................................ 78 5.2.3. Confirmatory analysis ......................................................................................... 79
5.3. Results ........................................................................................................................ 80 5.4. Discussion .................................................................................................................. 83 5.5. References .................................................................................................................. 86
Chapitre 6 : The virtuous cycle of economic, social, and environmental persistent competitive advantage .......................................................................................................... 92
Résumé .............................................................................................................................. 93 Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 94 6.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 95 6.2. Literature review ........................................................................................................ 96
6.2.1. An extended vision of competitive advantage .................................................... 96 6.2.2. Interaction patterns among economic, social, and environmental PCA ............. 97
6.3. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 99 6.3.1. Data and measures ............................................................................................... 99 6.3.2. Measures of PCA and their determinants .......................................................... 100 6.3.4. Analytical plan .................................................................................................. 101
6.4. Results ...................................................................................................................... 102 6.4.1. Sample characteristics ....................................................................................... 102 6.4.2. Regression results .............................................................................................. 102 6.4.3. Determinants of economic, social, and environmental PCA ............................ 104
6.5. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 107 6.6. References ................................................................................................................ 109
Chapitre 7 : Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 113 7.1. Synthèse ................................................................................................................... 113 7.2. Implications.............................................................................................................. 115 7.3. Principales contributions de l'étude ......................................................................... 117
vii
7.3.1. Contributions théoriques ................................................................................... 117 7.3.2. Contributions empiriques .................................................................................. 118
7.4. Limites et pistes de recherche .................................................................................. 119 8. Références ...................................................................................................................... 121
viii
Liste des tableaux
Tableau 1.1. Actifs gérés par les investisseurs institutionnels autour du monde ................... 6 Table 4.1. Research statement used in this study. ................................................................ 31 Table 4.2. List of electronic databases used in this study and initial citation search results. .............................................................................................................................................. 32 Table 4.3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria. .......................................................................... 33 Table 4.4. SCA dependent variables and their operational definitions. ............................... 35 Table 4.5. SCA independent variables and their operational definitions ............................. 37 Table 4.6. Review study and firm sample characteristics. ................................................... 39 Table 4.7. Econometric models and causality characteristics reviewed. .............................. 40 Table 4.8. Determinants of firm SCA and their effects. ....................................................... 43 Table 5.1. Exploratory analysis of the SCA dimensions. ..................................................... 79 Table 5.2. Goodness of fit indices for alternative models. ................................................... 83 Table 6.1. Operational definitions of independent variables. ............................................. 100 Table 6.2. Percent of variance accounted for by different models. .................................... 102 Table 6.3. Initial correlation estimates among dependent variables / estimated error-term covariance for the final model. ........................................................................................... 103 Table 6.4. Estimated effects of industry-, resource- and institution-based variables on economic, social, and environmental PCA. ........................................................................ 105
ix
Liste des figures
Figure 1.1. Investissement en recherche et développement autour du monde ....................... 3 Figure 1.2. Support gouvernemental à la recherche et développement autour du monde : OCDE 2014. ........................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1.3. Évolution de la proportion des entreprises du SP 500 radicalement innovantes versus traditionnelles. ............................................................................................................ 4 Figure 1.4. Investissement en responsabilité sociale des entreprises américaines US SIF Foundation. ............................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 1.5. Répartition des investissements des fonds de pension autour du globe selon différentes classes d'actifs. ...................................................................................................... 6 Figure 1.6. Retour moyen des investissements privés. ........................................................... 7 Figure 2.1. Représentation des quatre formes d'avantage concurrentiel de l'entreprise (potentiel, réalisé, persistant et durable). .............................................................................. 14 Figure 2.2. Cadre théorique général de la thèse. .................................................................. 16 Figure 3.1. Évolution des articles selon le cadre théorique principal de la thèse. ................ 24 Figure 3.2. Dimensions mobilisées et évolution de la thèse. ................................................ 25 Figure 4.1. Study selection process. ..................................................................................... 33 Figure 4.2. SCA framework. ................................................................................................ 34 Figure 4.3. Representation of the four streams of literature given the three fundamental dyadic properties of SCA (in the x, y, and z axes). .............................................................. 41 Figure 5.1. From potential competitive advantage to persistent competitive advantage. .... 74 Figure 5.2. Two competing models of SCA suggested by : a) corporate social responsibility studies, and b) the triple bottom line. ................................................................................... 76 Figure 5.3. Alternative models for the SCA construct of PCA. ........................................... 82 Figure 6.1. SCA as the persistence of economic, social, and environmental performance and its determinants. .................................................................................................................... 97
x
Liste des abréviations
ACD : avantage concurrentiel durable RBV : vision de l'entreprise basée sur les ressources
xi
Dédicaces
À la persévérance de tous ceux qui ont traversé ou qui sont en train de traverser des étapes difficiles dans leur vie, il n'y a rien de
plus grand que soi qui se manifeste sans efforts et sans volonté.
À la sagesse de tous ceux qui savent soutenir leur entourage avec douceur, délicatesse et discrétion, et ce, malgré leurs moments de
faiblesse et leurs maladresses.
À la liberté et à tous ceux qui ont su me faire sentir accepté comme je suis, libre de mes
choix et de mes priorités, et qui m'ont toujours accueilli.
Ils se reconnaîtront.
xii
Remerciements
Premièrement, je tiens à remercier mon père et ma mère qui m'ont toujours encouragé et
n'ont jamais douté de mes capacités.
Deuxièmement, j'aimerais aussi remercier mon directeur et mon codirecteur de recherche,
soit les Professeurs Réjean Landry et Nabil Amara, pour m'avoir impliqué dans plusieurs
projets de recherche des plus stimulants et aussi pour m'avoir orienté tout au long de mon
cheminement doctoral. De plus, cette thèse a été rendue possible grâce au mode de
réflexion et aux méthodes perfectionnés par les Professeurs Landry et Amara, notamment
en ce qui a trait à la méthode de la revue systématique de la littérature en gestion et aux
analyses factorielles exploratoires et confirmatoires, et aux analyses de complémentarité et
de substitution. Je me sens privilégié de leur confiance et de la liberté académique dont j'ai
pu jouir pendant ces nombreuses années.
Finalement, j'exprime toute ma gratitude d'avoir fait partie d'une équipe aussi dynamique et
sympathique que celle de la Chaire sur l'innovation et le transfert de connaissances. Jalila,
Catherine, Jolyanne, Othman, Norrin, Saliha, Hager et j'en passe. Hormis vos contributions
à mon avancement professionnel, vous avez apporté un côté humain et amical à mon
cheminement qui a transformé mon expérience doctorale d'une façon très positive.
xiii
Avant-propos
Cette thèse contribue à l’avancement des connaissances dans le domaine de la gestion
stratégique des entreprises en ce qui a trait aux fondements et aux déterminants de
l'avantage concurrentiel durable. Cette thèse comporte trois articles de recherche originaux
dont le contenu est soumis en vue d’être publié dans des revues avec un comité de lecture
reconnues par la Faculté des sciences de l'administration. Ces trois articles ont été écrits en
collaboration avec les professeurs Réjean Landry et Nabil Amara.
L’article 1 effectue une revue de la littérature systématique sur les fondements et
déterminants de l'avantage concurrentiel. Il est soumis en vue d’être publié dans «
International Journal of Management Reviews ». L’article 2 présente la validation d'un
construit théorique de l'avantage concurrentiel durable à titre de variable dépendante. Il est
soumis en vue d’être publié dans « Measuring Business Excellence ». L'article 3 expose
une analyse de complémentarité entre la persistance de l'avantage concurrentiel
économique, social et environnemental de la firme. Il est soumis en vue d’être publié dans
« Journal of Strategy and Management ».
Les références de ces articles sont :
Jean-Samuel Cloutier, Nabil Amara, et Réjean Landry. SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE FROM 2007 TO
2013. Soumis à International Journal of Management Reviews.
Jean-Samuel Cloutier, Nabil Amara, et Réjean Landry. CONCEPTUALIZING AND
OPERATIONALIZING SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE AS
PERSISTENT SUPERIOR ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE. Soumis à Measuring Business Excellence.
Jean-Samuel Cloutier, Nabil Amara, Michael Bourdeau-Brien et Réjean Landry. THE
VIRTUOUS CYCLE OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PERSISTENT COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. Soumis à Journal of Strategy and
Management.
xiv
Affiliation des coauteurs :
Réjean Landry est mon directeur de recherche et il est professeur émérite au Département
de management à la Faculté des sciences de l'administration à l’Université Laval (Québec,
Canada).
Nabil Amara est mon codirecteur de recherche et il est professeur titulaire au Département
de management à la Faculté des sciences de l'administration à l’Université Laval (Québec,
Canada).
Michael Bourdeau-Brien est professeur assistant au Département de finance à la Faculté des
sciences de l'administration à l’Université Laval (Québec, Canada).
Rôle de l’auteur principal :
En tant que premier auteur, j’ai rédigé les trois articles en accomplissant, pour chacun
d’eux, la revue de la littérature, la formulation de la question de la recherche, le cadre
conceptuel, la collecte et l'analyse des données, ainsi que l'interprétation des résultats et la
discussion. Mes coauteurs ont contribué à mon avancement par la formation qu’ils m’ont
donnée, leurs questions et approches méthodologiques exemplaires, leurs commentaires et
suggestions, et de cette façon, ils ont rendu possible la finalisation de ces trois articles.
1
Chapitre 1 : Introduction
La mondialisation est une réalité actuelle pour les entreprises qui génère des opportunités et
des menaces. Une menace majeure est l’augmentation de la concurrence. Vu
l’accroissement de la concurrence depuis les années 1990, les questions liées au
développement et au maintien de l’avantage concurrentiel pour les entreprises gagnent en
importance (D'Aveni, 2010).
Même si la littérature scientifique sur l'avantage concurrentiel durable (ACD) considère
exclusivement l'avantage de l'entreprise pour ses actionnaires (Newbert, 2014), l'avantage
concurrentiel est un enjeu concernant toutes les parties prenantes de la firme. Autrement
dit, les entreprises sont en concurrence sur plusieurs marchés. Elles sont en concurrence
pour des investisseurs, des employés, des clients, etc.
Dans un marché concurrentiel, si l'entreprise n'offre pas une profitabilité supérieure, ses
investisseurs se retireront pour aller investir leur patrimoine dans les entreprises
concurrentes. Si l'entreprise n'offre pas des conditions d'emploi supérieures, les employés
quitteront avec leur savoir, souvent critique au fonctionnement et à l'avantage concurrentiel
de l'entreprise, et iront travailler pour la concurrence. Enfin, si l'entreprise n'offre pas des
produits se démarquant suffisamment, c'est la concurrence qui se saisira des parts de
marché.
1.1. Contexte
Le contexte économique actuel, soit celui d'un marché majoritairement ouvert, caractérisé
par une forte concurrence basée de plus en plus sur la connaissance, l'innovation et les
réseaux (Becheikh et coll., 2006), rend particulièrement intéressante l'étude de l'ACD, ses
déterminants et son développement dans les entreprises. De meilleures connaissances en la
matière mèneraient à de meilleurs outils, grandement bénéfiques aux investisseurs, aux
gestionnaires et aux décideurs politiques.
Au point de vue de la discipline du management stratégique, celle-ci est rendue à un stade
de son développement où l'utilisation d'une diversité d'approches intégrées est préférable
(Hafsi et Thomas, 2005). Sur le plan méthodologique, l’ère du numérique et l'émergence du
2
« big data » rendent disponibles une quantité sans précédent de données secondaires
longitudinales sur un très grand nombre d'entreprises (principalement cotées en Bourse). De
plus, la modélisation de phénomènes plus complexes est aussi facilitée par le
développement d’outils permettant l’utilisation de méthodes toujours plus perfectionnées.
La thèse porte sur les fondements de l’ACD, ses déterminants et son développement dans
les entreprises. La thèse s’appuie sur une revue systématique de la littérature, une validation
de construits et l’utilisation de données secondaires afin d’étudier les différences de
performance, les déterminants de leur persistance et les relations de complémentarité entre
les différents avantages concurrentiels persistants de la firme. Même si les données
secondaires comportent des limites importantes et qu'elles sont souvent moins riches que
les données primaires, il faut comprendre que c'est sur la base de la collecte, de l'analyse et
de l'interprétation de ces données que des trillions (milliers de milliards) de dollars sont
investis chaque année par les investisseurs institutionnels qui gèrent la quasi-totalité de
notre richesse collective. Ces décisions d'investissements ont de très grandes conséquences
sur notre épargne collective et sur les marchés en général. Une faible amélioration des
décisions de ces investisseurs institutionnels se traduirait par un impact économique
majeur.
1.1.1. L’avantage concurrentiel durable, une source de richesse collective
L’avantage concurrentiel est une conséquence des efforts novateurs des entreprises se
traduisant par des différences plus ou moins persistantes de performance entre les firmes et
leurs concurrents. Ces firmes qui possèdent des ACD (qui persistent dans le temps) sont à
l’origine d’une activité économique ayant un multiplicateur très important pour la
collectivité et sont une importante source de richesse collective.
Afin de demeurer concurrentielles, beaucoup d'entreprises voient l'innovation comme une
activité incontournable face à l'intensification et l'évolution de la concurrence. Tel
qu'illustré à la figure 1.1, depuis les années 90, les entreprises ont multiplié les
investissements en recherche et développement. Dans le même sens, les gouvernements des
pays de l’OCDE ont investi des sommes considérables (principalement sous forme de
crédits d'impôt et de subventions) dans le soutien à la recherche et au développement afin
3
de permettre aux entreprises de développer et de maintenir leur avantage concurrentiel
(figure 1.2).
Figure 1.1. Investissement en recherche et développement autour du monde (source : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/02/06/its_official_china_is_becoming_a_new_innovation_powerhouse). PVD : pays en voie de développement.
Figure 1.2. Support gouvernemental à la recherche et développement autour du monde : OCDE 2014 (Source : http://www.finfacts.ie/Irish_finance_news/articleDetail.php?Canada-and-Ireland-face-similar-innovation-policy-challenges-254).
4
Les préférences des investisseurs ont également évolué en ce sens. Tel que montré à la
figure 1.3, la proportion d'entreprises radicalement innovantes au rang des plus grandes
entreprises américaines est en forte croissance.
Figure 1.3. Évolution de la proportion des entreprises du SP 500 radicalement innovantes versus traditionnelles (Source : ARK internal research, http://ark-invest.com/whatwedo).
Tel que mentionné précédemment, les entreprises sont en concurrence sur plusieurs
marchés, pour les investisseurs, pour les meilleurs employés et pour les parts de marché.
Ainsi, dans un marché concurrentiel, les entreprises accordent de plus en plus d’importance
à la façon dont elles partagent leurs profits avec leurs parties prenantes. Cette tendance,
visible à la figure 1.4, s'illustre par l'investissement grandissant des entreprises dans des
activités qui visent à améliorer leur performance sociale (pour leurs employés, leurs clients
et l'environnement). L’adoption des pratiques qui profitent à d’autres parties prenantes que
les actionnaires représente un dilemme important pour les gestionnaires.
5
Figure 1.4. Investissement en responsabilité sociale des entreprises américaines US SIF Foundation (Source : http://www.dedoracapital.com/blog/ongoing-evolution-socially-responsible-investing).
1.1.2. Les investisseurs, leur performance et leur impact sur la richesse collective
L'impact potentiel de la performance des décisions des investisseurs institutionnels sur la
richesse collective nous apparaît colossal. En fait, les sommes investies par ces derniers
dans les entreprises et dans les autres classes d’actifs sont tellement volumineuses qu’elles
représentent une proportion importante du produit national brut des pays concernés (figure
1.3). De fait, une proportion majoritaire des sommes gérées par ces investisseurs (tableau
1.1) est investie sur les marchés boursiers (i.e. dans les entreprises publiques) (mis à part au
Japon et aux Pays-Bas; figure 1.5). Étant donné l’importance de ces sommes investies dans
les entreprises, comprendre et soutenir le développement et le maintien de l’avantage
concurrentiel des entreprises est un enjeu central tant pour les gestionnaires en entreprises,
pour les investisseurs, pour les décideurs politiques, que pour la société dans son ensemble.
6
Tableau 1.1. Actifs gérés par les investisseurs institutionnels autour du monde
Actifs totaux
2013
% du PNB
Australie 1 565 105%Brésil 284 13%Canada 1 451 80%France 169 6%Allemagne 509 14%Hong Kong 114 41%Irlande 130 59%Japon 3 236 65%Pays-Bas 1 359 170%Afrique du Sud 236 67%Suisse 786 122%Grande-Bretagne 3 263 131%États -Unis 18 878 113%Total 31 980 83%
Source : http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/IC-Types/Survey-Research-Results/2014/02/Global-Pensions-Asset-Study-2014
Figure 1.5. Répartition des investissements des fonds de pension autour du globe selon différentes classes d'actifs (Source : A Towers Watson Global Pension study; http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/IC-Types/Survey-Research-Results/2014/02/Global-Pensions-Asset-Study-2014).
7
Tel qu'illustré à la figure 1.6, la profitabilité agrégée des entreprises publiques est très
sensible aux fluctuations économiques. On y voit que le rendement agrégé des investisseurs
souffre de fortes variations. Lors des crises financières, comme au début et milieu des
années 2000, la mauvaise performance de plusieurs fonds a mis à risque et à perte l'épargne
et la richesse des ménages canadiens.
Figure 1.6. Retour moyen des investissements privés (Source : Bloomberg).
1.2. Problématique
Il est bien connu que certaines entreprises arrivent à maintenir des rendements supérieurs à
la moyenne de leur industrie même lorsque les temps sont difficiles (Wiggins et Ruefli,
2002; Wiggins et Ruefli, 2005; Choi et Wang, 2009; Powell et Reinhardt, 2010). La faible
performance de plusieurs investisseurs, en phase avec les conditions économiques,
témoigne d'une certaine incapacité à reconnaître les entreprises qui ont un avantage et qui le
maintiennent d’année en année, même lorsque l’économie ralentit. La société dans son
ensemble, les entreprises et les investisseurs ont tout à gagner à mieux comprendre les
fondements et déterminants de l’ACD de l’entreprise.
La poursuite de l'ACD, ou d'une performance supérieure aux concurrents persistant dans le
temps, est un élément crucial de la stratégie concurrentielle des entreprises et un pilier sur
lequel s'appuient les politiques d'investissement institutionnel dans la plupart des pays
industrialisés. Depuis le début des années 90, le concept d'ACD a fait l'objet de nombreux
questionnements et a été enrichi par un nombre important de recherches.
‐0,6
‐0,4
‐0,2
0
0,2
0,4
1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
Rendement investissement boursier indice Russell 3000 (source:Bloomberg)
8
Provenant de tous les horizons (sciences économique, managériale et politique), une
littérature riche et vaste sur le sujet s'est développée, mais pas forcément d'une façon
intégrée (Armstrong et coll., 2009). En effet, la revue systématique de la littérature que
nous avons réalisée dans le cadre de cette thèse montre qu’il n’existe pas de consensus sur
la définition même de l’ACD. Qui plus est, peu d’études empiriques s'intéressent à l’ACD
comme variable dépendante (beaucoup plus sur les déterminants). Cela représente une
limite majeure de la littérature en management stratégique, science dont les résultats se
veulent utiles pour les entreprises.
Le concept d'avantage concurrentiel puise ses racines dans les trois principales approches
en management stratégique : les visions basées sur l'industrie, les ressources et les
institutions (Peng et coll., 2009). Les trois approches ont contribué de façon importante à
l’avancement des connaissances sur l'ACD, utilisant des points de vue très différents, mais
complémentaires. Ces trois approches mettent en lumière des éléments d'intérêt autant en ce
qui a trait aux déterminants qu’à l'ACD comme variable dépendante.
Plus particulièrement, la revue de la littérature systématique a montré que peu de travaux se
sont intéressés à l'opérationnalisation de l'ACD comme variable dépendante et à son
développement en entreprise. La quasi-totalité des études sur le sujet se limitent à la
performance absolue de la firme pour ses actionnaires (Newbert, 2014). C'est en bénéficiant
de la complémentarité entre les différentes approches du management stratégique que la
thèse souhaite avancer les connaissances sur l'avantage concurrentiel comme variable
dépendante, ses déterminants et son développement dans l'entreprise.
1.3. Sujet, structure et contributions de la thèse
L’ACD représente les moyens qu'une entreprise doit mettre en œuvre pour obtenir une
performance supérieure à celle de ses concurrents (Porter, 1985). L'ACD et ses
déterminants constituent un sujet de recherche très riche en gestion stratégique. L'objectif
général de la thèse est de contribuer à l’avancement des connaissances sur l’ACD, ses
déterminants et son développement dans les entreprises. L'ACD comme variable
dépendante est présenté comme un construit de la performance économique, sociale et
environnementale de la firme. Les antécédents de ce processus sont conceptualisés comme
9
appartenant à l'un ou à l'autre des trois piliers de la gestion stratégique (Peng et coll., 2009)
: les visions basées sur l’industrie, sur les ressources et sur les institutions.
La thèse présente trois articles de recherche originaux. Le premier article correspond à une
revue systématique de la littérature empirique sur l'ACD qui a permis de documenter
différentes formes d'avantages concurrentiels en entreprise et les déterminants de la
performance de la firme pour ses actionnaires, ses clients, ses employés, la communauté et
l'environnement. Les différentes formes d'avantages concurrentiels recensées peuvent être
différenciées selon trois propriétés dyadiques fondamentales : absolue vs relative,
ponctuelle vs persistante, et unipartie vs multipartie. De plus, les déterminants identifiés et
leur influence tendent à confirmer le rôle des trois piliers de la gestion stratégique. Le
deuxième article valide un nouveau construit de l'ACD, celui-ci comprenant trois
dimensions, soit la persistance des avantages concurrentiels économique, social et
environnemental. Contrairement aux études précédentes (Newbert, 2014), cet article
présente une conceptualisation et une mesure de l'ACD qui tiennent compte de sa nature
relative, persistante et multipartie. Le troisième et dernier article de la thèse s'intéresse au
développement de l'ACD et suggère que les avantages concurrentiels économique, social et
environnemental persistants de la firme se renforcent mutuellement. Il montre également
que les caractéristiques de l'industrie, les ressources, les capacités dynamiques et les
mécanismes de gouvernance de la firme sont des déterminants importants de ces trois
avantages concurrentiels persistants.
La thèse apporte des contributions méthodologiques, théoriques et pratiques importantes.
D'une part, le deuxième article présente une première tentative empirique visant à
développer et à valider un instrument de mesure modélisant l'ACD comme étant la capacité
d'une firme à développer à la fois des avantages concurrentiels économique, social et
environnemental persistants. Le troisième article est également le premier à étudier
simultanément les déterminants et les relations de complémentarité entre ces trois
avantages concurrentiels persistants. D'autre part, le cadre conceptuel utilisé combine, d'une
façon originale, les trois piliers de la gestion stratégique suggérés par Peng et coll. (2009).
Contrairement à ce dernier qui applique les trois visions exclusivement à l’étude des
déterminants de la performance, la thèse les applique à la définition de l’ACD comme
10
variable dépendante. Contrairement à Peng et coll. (2009) qui limitent leur analyse à
l’influence des institutions nationales, la thèse étend sa conceptualisation à l'influence des
institutions internes à la firme, notamment ses mécanismes de gouvernance.
11
Chapitre 2 : Cadre théorique
La gestion stratégique en tant que discipline est organisée autour de quatre questions
fondamentales (Rumelt et coll., 1994, Peng et coll., 2009) : 1) qu’est-ce qui différencie les
entreprises?; 2) comment se comportent-elles?; 3) qu’est-ce qui détermine leurs frontières?;
et 4) qu’est-ce qui détermine leur succès ou les échecs autour du monde? En fin de compte,
la gestion stratégique vise à aider les entreprises et les industries à comprendre leur
avantage concurrentiel et à reproduire leur succès de façon durable. En effet, le nombre de
documents sur l'ACD en entreprise a augmenté de façon constante au cours de la dernière
décennie (comme le montre la revue de la littérature systématique présentée au chapitre 4).
Étudier et expliquer les différences de performance économique entre les entreprises sont
deux des missions fondamentales de la recherche en gestion stratégique (Rumelt et coll.,
1994; Armstrong et Shimizu, 2007; Newbert, 2007; Armstrong et coll., 2009; Newbert,
2014). L'explication de cette hétérogénéité de performance se base généralement sur le
concept d'avantage concurrentiel (Powell, 2001). S'il est possible pour une entreprise
d'obtenir un avantage sur ses concurrents, des différences de performances interentreprises
plus ou moins persistantes devraient être observées (Wiggins et Ruefli, 2002).
Globalement, la gestion stratégique s'intéresse à la relation entre l'environnement de la
firme (les menaces et les opportunités), les stratégies (par exemple : innovation,
internationalisation et réseautage) et la performance. Comprendre et expliquer en termes de
causalité l'ACD est un défi qui nécessite une approche multidisciplinaire (Schendel, 1994;
Wiggins et Ruefli, 2002; Hambrick et Chen, 2008; Peng et coll., 2009). Même si le
management stratégique est une discipline qui se veut intégratrice de différentes disciplines,
le domaine d'étude de l'ACD est caractérisé par un grand nombre de débats isolés les uns
des autres (Armstrong et coll., 2009). Il semble qu'une approche intégratrice serait
enrichissante (Hafsi et Thomas, 2005; Enders et coll., 2009).
Afin d'emprunter une telle approche, la discipline du management stratégique peut être vue
comme reposant sur trois piliers influencés respectivement par l'économie industrielle, la
vision de la firme basée sur les ressources (RBV) et la théorie institutionnelle (Peng et coll.,
2009). En gardant ces trois piliers du management stratégique transversal, l’analyse réalisée
12
dans cette thèse est organisée en trois volets: 1- l'avantage concurrentiel comme variable
dépendante (comme un construit de la performance de la firme); 2- les déterminants de
l'avantage concurrentiel; et 3- le développement de l'avantage concurrentiel durable en
entreprise.
2.1. L'avantage concurrentiel durable comme un construit de la performance de la firme
Le courant dominant en management stratégique sur l'ACD de la firme emprunte la RBV
(Newbert, 2007, 2014; Armstrong et coll., 2009). Si cette littérature s'est intéressée à une
grande diversité de déterminants et de stratégies, en théorie, à l'origine de l'avantage
concurrentiel de la firme, beaucoup moins d'études se sont intéressées à l'avantage
concurrentiel de la firme comme un construit de la performance de la firme. Les différences
interfirmes de performance constituent en quelque sorte la manifestation ultime de l'ACD
en entreprise (Powell, 2001).
La littérature considérant l'ACD à juste titre comme un construit de la performance de la
firme est plus rare. Newbert (2014) montre aussi que cette littérature est dominée par des
études sur les déterminants de la performance absolue de l'entreprise pour ses actionnaires,
sans tenir compte de la relativité de l'avantage concurrentiel de l’entreprise (par rapport à
ses compétiteurs). Notre lecture montre aussi que la littérature ne tient pas plus compte de
la persistance temporelle de ces avantages ou de leur durabilité (en considération de
multiples parties prenantes).
Considérant la diversité d'approches pouvant être empruntées afin de traiter de l'avantage
concurrentiel de la firme, une conception fidèle du phénomène ne doit pas être limitée de la
sorte. Afin de pallier à cette lacune de la littérature, l'approche empruntée dans la thèse est
plus intégratrice. Tel que mentionné plus tôt, elle utilise les trois approches : la vision de la
firme basée sur l’industrie, les ressources et les institutions.
Premièrement, c'est en économique industrielle que le concept d'ACD prend racine (comme
étant la persistance de différence de profits entre les firmes et les industries) (Mueller,
1986; Porter, 1979; Wiggins et Ruefli, 2002). À la lecture des travaux pionniers de Mueller
(1977, 1986), il apparaît très clairement que la manifestation d'avantage concurrentiel
13
correspond à l'occurrence de firmes ayant, de façon plus ou moins persistante, une
performance supérieure à leurs concurrents. Dans cette optique, les travaux innovateurs de
Newbert (2014) et de Wiggins et Ruefli (2002) ont été une source d’influence importante
pour cette thèse.
Tel que suggéré par Newbert (2014), l'avantage concurrentiel comme variable dépendante
doit refléter la position concurrentielle d'une entreprise par rapport à ses compétiteurs. La
nature relative de l'avantage concurrentiel est importante, car elle permet de déterminer si
effectivement et dans quelle mesure une entreprise a un avantage sur ses compétiteurs
(Arend, 2006; Newbert, 2014).
Comme suggéré par Wiggins et Ruefli (2002), l'avantage concurrentiel comme variable
dépendante doit également prendre en compte la persistance temporelle de ces avantages.
En fait, comme ces derniers auteurs le suggèrent, un avantage concurrentiel difficilement
imitable devrait donner lieu à l'observation d'une performance supérieure aux concurrents
persistant dans le temps (qui s'érode moins rapidement).
Le développement de l'avantage concurrentiel en entreprise peut donc être vu comme un
processus au cours duquel une entreprise gradue d'une forme d'avantage concurrentiel à un
autre (de l'observation d'une simple performance absolue à l'occurrence d'une différence
positive persistante de performance par rapport à ses compétiteurs). À cette fin, quatre
nouvelles définitions de l'ACD sont proposées : l’avantage concurrentiel potentiel, réalisé,
persistant et durable.
Tel qu'illustré à la figure 2.1, toutes les entreprises ayant une certaine activité économique,
et donc une certaine performance, sont vues comme ayant un avantage concurrentiel
potentiel. Parmi ces entreprises, seulement celles dotées de certains avantages auront, à un
certain moment, une performance supérieure à leurs compétiteurs. Ces entreprises sont vues
comme ayant un avantage concurrentiel réalisé. Parmi ces entreprises, seulement celles
dotées d'un avantage difficile à imiter ou à substituer par leurs compétiteurs verront leur
avantage concurrentiel persister un certain temps. Ces entreprises sont vues comme ayant
un avantage concurrentiel persistant.
14
Figure 2.1. Représentation des quatre formes d'avantage concurrentiel de l'entreprise (potentiel, réalisé, persistant et durable).
Deuxièmement, la théorie institutionnelle reconnaît, contrairement à l'économique
classique, l'existence d'inefficiences propres aux mécanismes d'appropriation des marchés,
reconnaissant notamment le risque d'opportunisme (Williamson, 1975) et la notion
d'externalité (Dahlman, 1979). D'une part, l'idée d'opportunisme a mené au développement
de deux théories sur la protection de la valeur créée par l'entreprise : la théorie des coûts de
transaction (Williamson, 1975) et la théorie de l'agence (Eisenhardt, 1989). Cependant, si la
littérature institutionnelle classique et néoclassique s’est beaucoup intéressée à vérifier et
avancer les théories relatives à la protection de la valeur (Williamson, 1975; Eisenhardt,
1989), elle s’est peu ou pas intéressée au partage de la valeur créée par l'entreprise par ses
parties prenantes avant les travaux de Freeman (1984). Pourtant, la protection et le partage
de valeur sont deux côtés de la même médaille.
D'autre part, l'idée d'externalité a mené au développement de théories qui ont servi de bases
pour la formulation de politiques publiques visant, à titre d'exemple, la correction de
certaines inefficiences informationnelles (promotion de la divulgation volontaire des
entreprises) ou encore le développement de standards et de réglementations obligeant les
entreprises à assumer une plus grande partie des coûts sociaux et environnementaux liés à
leurs activités (Coase, 2000). Cela dit, là où il y a des coûts, il y a aussi des bénéfices
sociaux et, par extension, il y a non seulement des avantages concurrentiels économiques,
mais aussi sociaux et environnementaux.
Ainsi, une fois transposée au niveau de l'entreprise, la durabilité ne renvoie pas uniquement
à la performance économique de la firme (Dyllick et Hockerts, 2002; Steurer et coll., 2005).
15
Jusqu'à présent, les trois premières formes de l'avantage concurrentiel proposées (potentiel,
réalisé ou persistant) sont non spécifiques, car elles peuvent s'appliquer à tous les types de
performance de l'entreprise (économique, sociale et /ou environnementale). Autrement dit,
une entreprise pourrait avoir un avantage concurrentiel persistant économique, social et/ou
environnemental.
Tel que mentionné en introduction, les entreprises sont en concurrence sur plusieurs
marchés. Elles sont concurrentes pour des investisseurs, des employés, des clients, etc. La
valeur créée par une entreprise est partagée d'une certaine façon plus ou moins volontaire
parmi ses parties prenantes, y compris ses compétiteurs qui peuvent s'approprier ses
ressources et son marché. La notion de durabilité de l'avantage concurrentiel suggère une
prise en compte non seulement de la performance économique de la firme, mais également
de sa performance sociale et environnementale. Dans la thèse, la quatrième forme d'ACD
en entreprise proposée, aussi la plus riche d'entre toutes, correspond à la persistance
simultanée d'avantage concurrentiel économique, social et environnemental.
2.2. Les déterminants de l'avantage concurrentiel durable
Le courant dominant en management stratégique sur l'ACD de la firme emprunte la RBV.
Cette littérature peut être vue comme suivant deux courants principaux s'intéressant : soit 1)
aux déterminants des stratégies qui, en théorie, favorisent l'avantage concurrentiel de la
firme, soit 2) aux déterminants de l'ACD comme étant un construit de la performance de la
firme. La thèse s'inscrit dans le deuxième courant. Fait à noter, les facteurs étudiés (liés, par
exemple, à l'industrie, aux ressources, aux capacités dynamiques et/ou aux institutions)
pour expliquer les stratégies et ceux étudiés comme déterminants de la performance sont
similaires. Il s'agit tout de même de deux courants distincts de la littérature utilisant des
variables dépendantes différentes. La thèse s'intéresse donc à l'ACD comme étant un
construit de la performance de la firme.
Les variables indépendantes pouvant être utilisées pour prédire quantitativement différents
types d'avantage concurrentiel (basé sur la performance économique, sociale et
environnementale de la firme) sont ici présentées comme se rapportant à l'un ou à l'autre
16
des trois piliers de la gestion stratégique : la vision industrielle, la RBV et la vision
institutionnelle (figure 2.2) (Peng et coll., 2009).
Figure 2.2. Cadre théorique général de la thèse.
2.2.1. Les déterminants industriels de la performance de la firme
La vision industrielle de la firme est restée pratiquement inchangée depuis les travaux de
Mason (1939) et Bain (1956, 1968). Selon cette perspective, l’ACD de la firme est
déterminé par les caractéristiques de son industrie, comme l’illustre la théorie des cinq
forces de la concurrence de Porter (1979). Popularisé à la base par ce même auteur, le
concept d’avantage concurrentiel évolue en parallèle au courant de la littérature sur
l’existence possible de différences persistantes de profits (Mueler, 1986).
Comme suggéré par Porter (1979, 2008a, 2008b), les variables basées sur l'industrie
englobent les menaces et opportunités du marché, et le niveau de concurrence. Plusieurs
études en gestion stratégique reconnaissent l'importance de ces facteurs, car ils
conditionnent en quelque sorte les choix stratégiques des entreprises. Porter (1980) s'est
17
aussi intéressé, dans cette optique, à la relation entre les forces de la concurrence, les choix
stratégiques et la performance de l'entreprise (par exemple : ses stratégies génériques),
stipulant qu'en dépit d'un contexte industriel défavorable, une entreprise qui est positionnée
de manière optimale (ayant la bonne stratégie) peut quand même développer et maintenir
des avantages concurrentiels.
2.2.2. Les déterminants basés sur les ressources
Contrairement à la vision industrielle qui insiste sur le rapport de la firme avec la
concurrence et sur les caractéristiques structurelles de l’industrie, la RBV focalise son
attention sur le portefeuille de ressources de la firme (Barney, 1991). Ces dernières sont
instrumentales à son processus de création de valeur.
Les ressources acquièrent une valeur stratégique lorsqu’elles sont distribuées inégalement
d’une firme à l’autre et que les marchés destinés à leur échange sont imparfaits (Barney,
1991). Les ressources étant distribuées de façon hétérogène entre les entreprises et n'étant
pas parfaitement mobiles, les ressources rares qui ne sont ni parfaitement imitables ni
substituables sans grand effort (Barney, 1991) seraient à l'origine de la capacité des firmes à
maintenir des rendements supérieurs à la moyenne de leur industrie pendant un certain
temps.
Plus particulièrement, des ressources tangibles et intangibles contribuent à la création de
valeurs à l’échelle de la firme (Lowendahl, 2005; Tan et coll., 2008). Les ressources
tangibles incluent les ressources matérielles, infrastructurelles et financières de la firme. Tel
que mis en lumière par la revue de la littérature systématique, les ressources intangibles
incluent les ressources cognitives et relationnelles ainsi que le portefeuille d'opportunités de
la firme. Contrairement aux ressources intangibles, les ressources tangibles ont des
caractéristiques qui les rendent faciles à acquérir, à imiter ou à substituer. Conséquemment,
selon la RBV, ces ressources ne possèdent pas les qualités requises pour être de bonnes
variables explicatives de la persistance de l’ACD.
Cela étant dit, la RBV suppose que l'ACD de l'entreprise réside dans sa base de ressources
(Barney, 1991). Depuis le début des années 90, la RBV jugée trop statique (s'intéressant
seulement au stock de ressources de la firme) a laissé une place de taille à une nouvelle
18
littérature sur les capacités dynamiques de la firme (Barney, 1991; Ambrosini et coll.,
2009). Les capacités dynamiques telles que l'absorption des connaissances, l'innovation et
l'apprentissage (Cohen et Levinthal, 1990; Todorova et Durisin, 2007) sont de bons
exemples illustrant ces capacités sous-jacentes à l'adaptation et au renouvellement des
ressources et du portefeuille d'opportunités de l’entreprise.
2.2.3. Les déterminants institutionnels de l'avantage concurrentiel
La vision institutionnelle est maintenant plus formellement reconnue comme une des trois
principales perspectives de la discipline du management stratégique (Peng et coll., 2009).
Tel que défini par North (1990, p. 3), les institutions sont des contraintes humainement
construites qui structurent les interactions humaines. Elles sont transversales à
l’environnement externe et interne de la firme et sont plus ou moins formelles (Scott,
1995).
Tel que mentionné précédemment, les institutions visent à remédier à certaines
inefficiences de marchés. Lorsqu’il est question de l’ACD, la vision institutionnelle se
distingue par la reconnaissance de l’existence d’imperfections dans les mécanismes de
création et d’appropriation de la valeur (Williamson, 1975). Ces imperfections ou ces «
frictions », pour emprunter le vocabulaire de Williamson (1975), impliquent que la valeur
créée par une firme n’est pas toujours convertie en bénéfices pour celle-ci (Coff, 1999;
Makadok et Coff, 2002; Lepak et coll., 2007). La valeur créée et les coûts engendrés sont
parfois partagés avec d’autres acteurs, notamment les clients, les employés et les
générations futures (coûts sociaux et environnementaux).
Lorsqu’il est question des facteurs institutionnels, il est nécessaire de différencier plusieurs
types d'institutions. En fait, les variables institutionnelles se rapportent non seulement à la
gouvernance et aux réseaux de l'entreprise (Williamson, 1975; Powell, 1990; Dyer et Singh,
1998), mais aussi aux institutions nationales favorisant la libre circulation de l'information,
ainsi qu’au respect des lois et des réglementations (Peng et coll., 2009). D'une part, les
mécanismes de gouvernance (Williamson, 1985; Eisenhardt, 1989) régissent la façon dont
la valeur créée par l'entreprise est partagée avec les différentes parties prenantes de
l’organisation. D'autre part, les réseaux reflètent l'importance pour les firmes de collaborer
avec leurs fournisseurs, leurs clients, ainsi qu'avec leurs compétiteurs afin d'explorer de
19
nouvelles opportunités de développement, de réduire les coûts et les risques, et d’accélérer
la commercialisation de nouveaux produits et services (Hagedoorn et Schakenraad, 1992).
En dernier lieu, les institutions externes à la firme se rapportent aux lois et à la
réglementation (North, 1990; Scott, 1995) et aux caractéristiques macroéconomiques
nationales propres au pays de chaque entreprise.
2.3. Le développement de l'avantage concurrentiel en entreprise (problématique de complémentarité et de substitution)
Lors de la présentation de l’ACD comme variable dépendante (comme un construit de la
performance de la firme), les concepts rivaux de protection et de partage de la valeur ont
été présentés. En effet, tel que mentionné précédemment, la littérature institutionnelle, à
travers les théories des coûts de transaction et de l'agence, s'est fortement intéressée à l'idée
de protection de valeur créée par l'entreprise, mais peu ou pas à son partage (à la valeur
créée). Qui plus est, l'opposition entre ces deux concepts (protection de la valeur des
actionnaires versus partage de la valeur avec les parties prenantes) est à l'origine d'un
dilemme décisionnel important pour les gestionnaires face à la question : comment investir
les ressources de l'entreprise parmi des activités qui profitent à différentes parties
prenantes? De cette question émergent deux hypothèses.
La première repose sur une hypothèse de substitution, enracinée dans l'économie
néoclassique, et postule que les investissements pour améliorer la performance sociale ou
environnementale de l'entreprise le sont nécessairement au détriment de la performance de
l'entreprise pour ses actionnaires, car ils génèrent des coûts supplémentaires. Parmi les
partisans de cette école, Friedman (1962, 1970) est le plus connu. Cet auteur soutient que la
seule responsabilité d'une entreprise est d'être gérée en conformité avec le désir de ses
actionnaires de faire autant de profit que possible. En effet, selon ce courant de la
littérature, les ressources consacrées à des programmes ou à des actions sociales et
environnementales sont mal investies et devraient être soit redirigées afin d'améliorer
l'efficience de l'entreprise, soit retournées aux actionnaires (Barnett, 2007; Scherer et
Palazzo, 2011).
La deuxième hypothèse (l'hypothèse de complémentarité) suggère que les performances
économique, sociale et environnementale de l'entreprise se renforcent mutuellement.
20
L'hypothèse de complémentarité a été progressivement introduite dans la gestion
stratégique suivant les travaux de Freeman (1984) concernant la théorie des parties
prenantes, un modèle de gestion en rupture avec le modèle néoclassique. Cette théorie
affirme qu'il est nécessaire pour une entreprise de savoir qui sont ses parties prenantes les
plus pertinentes et dans quelle mesure leurs besoins doivent être intégrés dans les objectifs
stratégiques de l'entreprise. Clarkson (1995) va même plus loin en déclarant que la survie et
la rentabilité de l'entreprise dépendent de sa capacité à remplir sa mission économique et
sociale. Celle-ci est de créer et de distribuer suffisamment de richesse afin d'assurer que
chaque partie prenante primaire continue à faire partie du système de l'entreprise. Ainsi,
une faible orientation de l'entreprise vers ses parties prenantes pourrait nuire au rendement
de l'entreprise et, par conséquent, à la valeur créée pour les actionnaires (Harrison et John,
1994; Frooman, 1997). L'hypothèse de complémentarité suggère que les ressources
investies pour améliorer l'avantage concurrentiel social et environnemental de l’entreprise
prédiraient non seulement la persistance de ces types d'avantage concurrentiel, mais aussi la
persistance de l'avantage concurrentiel économique et vice-versa.
Cette question est très importante considérant la nature très prolifique de la littérature sur la
performance sociale de la firme et du débat qui y règne, à savoir si ces investissements sont
complémentaires ou en substitution (Orlitzky et coll., 2003).
21
Chapitre 3 : Objectifs de recherche et évolution de la thèse
3.1. Objectifs
L'objectif général de la thèse est de contribuer à l’avancement des connaissances sur l’ACD
comme variable dépendante, sur ses déterminants ainsi que sur son développement en
entreprise. De nombreuses implications pour la recherche et pour la pratique découlent
potentiellement de cet objectif.
3.1.1. Revue systématique de la littérature
De prime abord, la thèse permettra de remédier au manque d'intégration en management
stratégique traité lors du chapitre précédent (Hafsi et Thomas, 2005; Enders et coll., 2009).
Le domaine d'étude de l'ACD fait face à un défi de taille, étant caractérisé par un grand
nombre de débats isolés les uns des autres (Armstrong et coll., 2009).
En fait, bien que la RBV soit considérée comme un pilier fondamental soutenant
l’avancement des connaissances sur l'avantage concurrentiel en gestion stratégique
(Newbert, 2007; Armstrong et coll., 2009; Lockett et coll., 2009), celle-ci ne suffit pas. De
plus, l'utilisation de la RBV, isolé des autres perspectives, limite la représentativité de la
définition de l'avantage concurrentiel comme variable dépendante et limite aussi la diversité
des déterminants à considérer. La vision industrielle, la RBV et la vision institutionnelle
seront transversales à toute la thèse.
Le premier objectif spécifique de recherche de cette thèse est de réaliser une revue
systématique de la littérature sur les fondements et les déterminants de l'ACD, incluant une
plus grande diversité de perspective que les études antérieures. Ceci permettra de définir
l'avantage concurrentiel comme variable dépendante et d’identifier ses déterminants : la
vision industrielle, la RBV et la vision institutionnelle.
Plus spécifiquement, la revue systématique de la littérature permettra de documenter :
• les différentes formes d’avantage concurrentiel;
22
• les déterminants de la performance économique, sociale et
environnementale de la firme.
3.1.2. Validation de construit
En deuxième lieu, suivant la revue systématique de la littérature présentée au chapitre 4,
plusieurs autres limites importantes de la littérature ont été observées. En fait, la revue
systématique de la littérature a confirmé que les études antérieures sur l'ACD se sont en
quasi-totalité intéressées aux déterminants de la performance absolue de l’entreprise pour
ses actionnaires en tenant rarement compte de la relativité de la performance de l’entreprise
par rapport à ses compétiteurs, de la persistance temporelle de ses avantages ou de leur
durabilité (en considération de multiples parties prenantes) (Newbert, 2014; Cloutier et
coll., 2016).
Le deuxième objectif spécifique de recherche vise à remédier à cette lacune en proposant
et en validant un construit plus riche de l'ACD comme étant la persistance simultanée de
l'avantage concurrentiel économique, social et environnemental de l'entreprise.
Plus spécifiquement, la poursuite de cet objectif a permis de :
• collecter des données secondaires sur la performance économique,
sociale et environnementale des entreprises;
• mesurer la persistance de l'avantage concurrentiel économique,
social et environnemental de chaque firme;
• valider, à l'aide d'analyses exploratoires et confirmatoires, la
structure du construit de l'ACD.
3.1.3. Étudier les déterminants et le développement de l’ACD en entreprise
Finalement, notre revue systématique de la littérature montre qu'un débat important persiste
dans la littérature, à savoir si les investissements de ressources pour l'amélioration de
différents types d'avantage concurrentiel (profitant à diverses parties prenantes) entrent en
conflit ou se renforcent mutuellement (Orlitzky et coll., 2003). De plus, la plupart des
études antérieures, tenant compte de plusieurs types de performance, se concentrent soit sur
23
la relation entre la responsabilité sociale et la performance financière de l'entreprise, soit se
contentent d'examiner les déterminants des diverses formes de performance dans des
modèles séparés (Orlitzky et coll., 2003). Aucune étude n'a, selon notre revue de la
littérature systématique, examiné comment les entreprises décident d'investir leurs
ressources dans des activités qui profitent à différentes parties prenantes.
Le troisième objectif spécifique de recherche vise à remédier à cette lacune : 1) en
effectuant une analyse de complémentarité, de substitution et d’indépendance entre la
persistance de l'avantage concurrentiel économique, social et environnemental de
l'entreprise ; et 2) en identifiant les variables explicatives de ces différents types d'avantage.
Plus spécifiquement, la poursuite de cet objectif a permis de :
• collecter des données secondaires sur la performance économique,
sociale et environnementale des entreprises et sur les facteurs basés
sur l'industrie, les ressources et les institutions pouvant influencer
l'avantage concurrentiel;
• effectuer une analyse d'équations simultanées afin de mettre en
évidence les relations de complémentarité, de substitution ou
d'indépendance entre les équations et identifier, du même coup, les
déterminants de la persistance des trois avantages concurrentiels
(économique, social et environnemental).
3.2 Évolution de la thèse et dimensions mobilisées
L'ACD représente l'aspect transversal de cette recherche. Le point de départ de celle-ci (le
premier article) constitue une revue systématique de l'état des connaissances sur les
fondements et déterminants de l'ACD en entreprise. Les limites théoriques et
méthodologiques de cette littérature ont mené à la proposition de deux autres articles :
d'une part, sur l'ACD à titre de variable dépendante et, d'autre part, sur les déterminants et
les modèles de complémentarité et/ou de substitution liés aux différentes formes d'avantage
concurrentiel.
24
Les trois études sont illustrées à la figure 3.1 avec une reproduction sommaire du cadre
théorique global de la thèse afin de faire ressortir le lien entre les différentes études.
Figure 3.1. Évolution des articles selon le cadre théorique principal de la thèse.
Considérant les trois perspectives transversales à notre analyse théorique, la théorie
industrielle, basée sur les ressources, et institutionnelle ont permis de formuler un ensemble
de constats concernant l'avantage concurrentiel. L'ensemble des dimensions mobilisées
dans la thèse sont illustrées à la figure 3.2.
L'article 1 a pour objectif de documenter les différentes formes d'avantage concurrentiel
dans la littérature ainsi que les déterminants basés sur l'industrie, les ressources ou sur les
institutions, tel qu'illustré à la figure 3.2.
L'article 2 a pour objectif de valider un nouveau construit de l'ACD, celui-ci comprenant
trois dimensions, soit la persistance des avantages concurrentiels économique, social et
environnemental. Ce construit est illustré à la figure 3.2.
L'article 3 de la thèse vise à identifier les déterminants de ces trois avantages concurrentiels
persistants (les caractéristiques de l'industrie, les ressources, les capacités dynamiques et les
25
mécanismes de gouvernance de la firme). Il s’intéresse aussi aux relations de
complémentarité et/ou de substitution illustrées par les corrélations entre les relations de
causalité prédisant les trois types d’avantage concurrentiel persistant (figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2. Dimensions mobilisées et évolution de la thèse.
26
Chapitre 4 : Sustainable competitive advantage: a systematic review of the literature from 2007 to 2013
Jean-Samuel Cloutier, Nabil Amara, et Réjean Landry
27
Résumé
L'ACD est un concept fondamental en gestion stratégique. Sur la base d'une revue de la
littérature systématique des études empiriques publiées entre 2007 et 2013, cet article
montre que l'ACD, à titre de variable dépendante, est un construit de la performance de
l'entreprise incluant trois propriétés dyadiques fondamentales : 1) absolue vs relative; 2)
ponctuelle vs persistante; et 3) uni- vs multipartite. Cette étude confirme le rôle structurel
des trois piliers qui soutiennent le développement de l'ACD en entreprise : la vision basée
sur l’industrie, sur les ressources et sur les institutions. Les résultats de la revue
systématique de la littérature révèlent que les stratégies de différenciation, les actifs
incorporels, les capacités dynamiques, la gouvernance et les réseaux sont parmi les leviers
les plus importants de l'ACD en entreprise. Des pistes de recherche et des recommandations
pratiques susceptibles de faciliter l'étude et la promotion du développement de l'ACD en
entreprise sont proposées.
28
Abstract
Sustainable competitive advantage (SCA) is a fundamental construct in strategic
management. Relying on a systematic review of empirical studies published between 2007
and 2013, this article shows that SCA as a dependent variable is built upon three
fundamental dyadic properties: 1) absolute vs. relative, 2) punctual vs. persistent, and 3)
unistakeholder vs. multistakeholder. Moreover, our review supports the structural role of
the three pillars supporting SCA development in a firm: 1) the industry-, 2) resource-, and
3) institution-based views. Overall, this study reveals that differentiation strategies,
intangibles assets, dynamic capabilities, governance, and networks are among the most
direct and important levers to trigger a firm’s SCA. Finally, this paper outlines the research
and practical recommendations that may facilitate further initiatives in studying and
fostering SCA development in firms.
29
4.1. Introduction
Strategic management as a discipline is organized around four fundamental questions
(Rumelt et al. 1994, Peng et al. 2009): 1) what differentiates firms?; 2) how do they
behave?; 3) what determines their scope?; and 4) what determines their success or failure
around the world? In the end, strategic management aims to help firms and industries
understand their competitive advantage and reproduce their success in a sustainable
fashion. Indeed, the number of papers on firm SCA has evolved steadily during the last
decade.
As shown in Newbert’s (2007) recent systematic review of studies on this subject, which
exclusively used the resource-based view (RBV) lens, several researchers have tested the
effect of a large number of resource-based related variables. However, the RBV hypothesis
has received only modest support overall, which varies considerably depending on the
independent variable and theoretical approach employed (Newbert 2007, Armstrong et al.
2009).
Nonetheless, SCA literature encompasses the use of many theoretical perspectives. Even if
the RBV is seen as a fundamental pillar supporting SCA conversation in strategic
management (Newbert 2007, Armstrong et al. 2009, Lockett et al. 2009), it is not sufficient.
Considering the challenges facing the SCA field of study, “not having a small set of central,
directed conversations, but a large set of numerous, somewhat fractured, conversations”
(Armstrong et al. 2009, p.14), it seems that there is still a need for more integrative SCA
research (Hafsi and Thomas 2005, Enders et al. 2009).
This paper aims to go beyond the highly dispersed work on SCA, by providing a
multidisciplinary systematic review of empirical articles published between 2007 and 2013
on the subject. In contrast to Newbert (2007), our review will not limit its scope to RBV
studies. Besides, the resource-, industry-, and institution-based views have also contributed
to the study of the determinants of firm performance (Peng et al. 2009). Our main purpose
is to integrate the conceptualizations and findings of these studies in order to identify where
they both converge and diverge. This may provide important insight to researchers for the
development of a more comprehensive framework and empirical studies on the
30
determinants of SCA, and better recommendations for managers and policymakers for the
fostering of SCA development in firms.
This article is organized as follows. First, we will explain in more detail the objective and
scope of our study, and then describe the method used to locate, select, and analyze the
relevant literature. Next, we will present some general features of the reviewed studies. We
will then present and discuss the results of our review, and finish with the main
conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future research and practice in the
field.
4.2. Materials and methods
4.2.1. Objective and scope of our study
We conducted a systematic review of empirical articles published in scholarly journals
between 2007 and 2013 on the topic of SCA. Contrary to the traditional narrative literature
review methodology, widely criticized for its lack of relevance due to subjectivity and bias,
our study will use the principles of the systematic review methodology. The systematic
review method is seen as a more rigorous, replicable, scientific, and transparent process to
select and review the studies (Littell et al. 2008). It will enable us to identify key scientific
contributions in relation with our two main research objectives: 1) to study how the
dependent variable “SCA” was approached and measured by the authors, and 2) to identify
the main explanatory variables that determine firm SCA. For this review, we used a
diversity of perspectives to define the scope of firm SCA.
SCA is perceived in strategic management literature as a desirable finality for firms
because it focuses on the factors that explain a firm’s probability of sustaining a superior
performance than that of its counterparts (Wiggins and Ruefli 2002). Indeed, the notion of
SCA is closely linked to that of performance (Porter 1980), profit (Lockett et al. 2009), and
return (Amit and Schoemaker 1993). Moreover, for Porter (1985), SCA is a time-related
concept. Therefore, our study includes papers on the sustainability and persistence of such
an advantage.
However, the concept of sustainability should not be seen as having only a temporal
signification. Once implemented at the firm level, sustainability refers to the ability of the
31
firm to meet the needs of its direct and indirect stakeholders (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002,
Steurer et al. 2005). Therefore, we needed to expand our research statement to include
studies on the social and environmental performance of the firm. Consequently, we looked
for studies that refer to corporate social responsibility or a firm’s social and environmental
performance, in their title or abstract.
Moreover, we chose a priori to only include studies using causal quantitative analyses to
confirm or infirm the influences of the suggested SCA determinants. In order to capture
these, we looked for studies that included the following keywords in their abstract:
regression*, “structural equation,” “confirmatory factor analysis” or “path analysis.”
To limit our research to studies on firms, we looked for studies that included the following
keywords in their title or abstract: company*, business*, firm*, enterprise*, ventur* or
corp*. The final research statement used in this study is presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Research statement used in this study. RESEARCH STATEMENT
In EBSCO, EconLit and ABI: ((TI((Sustain* OR CSR OR Social OR environmental OR Persist*) AND ("competitive advantage" OR performance OR return* OR profit*))) OR (AB((Sustain* OR CSR OR Social OR environmental OR Persist*) AND ("competitive advantage" OR performance OR return* OR profit*) AND (company* OR business* OR firm* OR enterprise* OR ventur* OR corp*) AND (regression* OR "structural equation" OR "confirmatory factor analysis" OR "path analysis")))) In ISI Web of knowledge Social Social Science Index: (((TI=((Sustain* OR CSR OR Social OR environmental OR Persist*) AND ("competitive advantage" OR performance OR return* OR profit*))) OR (TS=((Sustain* OR CSR OR Social OR environmental OR Persist*) AND ("competitive advantage" OR performance OR return* OR profit*) AND (company* OR business* OR firm* OR enterprise* OR ventur* OR corp*) AND (regression* OR "structural equation" OR "confirmatory factor analysis" OR "path analysis")))))
4.2.2. Literature search
The notion of SCA reaches beyond administrative science and has ramifications in
economics as well. Upon the recommendations of the library advisors of Laval University,
specialized in administrative science and economics, we queried four multidisciplinary
databases to locate and retrieve peer-review articles on the subject, published from 2007 to
2013 (Table 4.2). We chose 2007 as the beginning of our time period because this was the
32
last publication year for articles included in the systematic review by Newbert (2007).
However, contrary to Newbert (2007), our study did not limit its scope to RBV literature.
We searched using the keywords presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.2. List of electronic databases used in this study and initial citation search results. Database URL Unique
documentsProQuest ABI/INFORM global
http://www.proquest.com/ 1571
ProQuest EconLit http://www.proquest.com/ 743 EBSCO : Business source premier
http://wwwebscohost.com/academic 2045
Thomson social sciences citation index
http://thomsonreuters.com/social-sciences-citation-index/
2402
Total 6761 Citation deleted upon important missing
information 77
Duplicates 2730 Total unique 3954
This search generated 3954 unique citations after the elimination of the duplicates (Table
4.2). Articles were excluded if reviewed titles and/or abstracts indicated that they did not
meet the selection criteria. A full review of the remaining abstract (n=672) was required to
determine whether it met the inclusion/exclusion criteria (Table 4.3). Of these, 448 were
excluded based on the above exclusion/inclusion criteria, yielding a final sample of 224
studies for in-depth analysis (Figure 4.1).
33
Table 4.3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Method: qualitative design; descriptive analysis only
Topic: studies on other types of performance such as marketing,
operational, job, and innovation performance.
Unit of analysis: other units of analysis (industry, country, and
individual) were not considered.
Type of publication: an article published between 2007 and 2013
inclusively in a peer‐review journal.
Method: regression, structural equation or path analysis.
Topic: consider firm economic, social, and environmental
performance as a dependent variable (i.e., the variable to be
explained).
Unit of analysis: an empirical study of a sample of firms.
Type of publication: grey literature (conference proceedings,
books, theses, newspapers articles, unpublished works, etc.)
Figure 4.1. Study selection process.
4.2.3. Data extraction and analysis
The first step in the analysis of the study was to extract data on firm SCA from all of the
included articles. A first information extraction form was created to collect all of the
relevant theoretical and operational definitions of dependent and independent variables
within each study. Next, firm performance variables and their determinants from all studies
were aggregated, following an interactive process, into diverse mutually exclusive
categories. This method of analysis was a helpful means through which our large dataset
34
could be systematically scrutinized and categorized. For this, we used existing theoretical
frameworks.
When possible, SCA dependent variables were organized following Freeman’s (1984)
seminal stakeholder typology (Figure 4.2). Although much narrower than the diversity of
Freeman’s stakeholder types, the range of performance types identified in our study
pertained to the stockholder, customer, employee, community, and environment. However,
as a significant number of studies used aggregate multistakeholder measures encompassing
two or more of these previous types of performance, we also defined a sixth category that
we labeled “overall social performance” (Table 4.4).
Figure 4.2. SCA framework.
35
Table 4.4. SCA dependent variables and their operational definitions. Dependent variables Definition Exemplary articles Firm performance for its:
Stockholders Measures of profit (ROA, ROE, ROI, ROS, others) and market performance (Tobin's Q, stock return, and market value).
(Bogner and Bansal 2007, Dehning et al. 2007, McDonald et al. 2008, Baron et al. 2011, Modi and Mishra 2011, Yang et al. 2011, Hoque et al. 2013, Kwon and Rupp 2013, Wu and Shen 2013)
Customers Measures, such as sales and sales growth, market share, and multidimensional indicators of satisfaction.
(Cho et al. 2008, Kumar et al. 2011, Huang and Lien 2012, Wu 2013)
Employees Measures, such as salary and bonus, employee turnover, and multidimensional indicators of satisfaction.
(Rettab et al. 2009, Huang 2010, Jalbert et al. 2011, Melo 2012a)
Community Measures, such as charitable giving, community relations, and participation in volunteer programs.
(Brammer and Millington 2008, Huang 2010, Melo 2012a, 2012b)
Environment Measures, such as adoption of practices and policies for clean energy use and pollution prevention measures, and emission reduction.
(Darnall 2009, Lafuente et al. 2009, Carrión-Flores and Innes 2010, Yang et al. 2011, Gholami et al. 2013)
Firm overall social performance
Measures that aggregate two or more of the previous types of performance.
(Pavelin and Porter 2008, Baron et al. 2011, Chiu and Sharfman 2011, Ioannou and Serafeim 2012)
As will be seen in Table 4.5, the independent variables that were quantitatively tested to
predict one or the other type of performance were organized according to the three pillars
of strategic management: the industry-, resource-, and institution-based views (Peng et al.
2009). First, as suggested by Porter (1979, 2008), industry-based variables encompass
industry structures (market threats and opportunities), the level of competition, and firm
strategies as predictors of SCA. Second, resource-based variables refer to a firm’s tangible
and intangible resources, as well as dynamic capabilities (Barney 1991, Ambrosini et al.
2009). Finally, institution-based variables refer to firm-level governance and networks
36
(Williamson 1975, Powell 1990, Dyer and Singh 1998), as well as country-level institutions
(Peng et al. 2009). Moreover, some papers report multiple models for the same analysis
(i.e., a general model and other multiple sub-models for the same dependent variable). In
most cases, we only considered the most general model and, when pertinent (e.g., when the
sub-models included new variables), we only considered results that were the most
consistent across the sub-models.
It is worth noting that an individual study could contain a causal analysis on multiple
dependent variables with similar predictors. Therefore, to limit redundancy in coding, a
second extraction form was automatically generated, presenting all possible combinations
of dependent and independent variables. As a means to synthesis data across studies, we
used the vote counting approach (Littell et al. 2008). This led us to organize all of the tested
causalities into three categories: positive (+), negative (-), and non-significant (ns). Thus,
we were able to determine how many times each determinant was included in an
econometric model, and to categorize their effects on each dependent variable (the
significance of the direction of the effect). However, only causalities that were significant
at the 5% level were considered.
37
Table 4.5. SCA independent variables and their operational definitions
Independent variables Definitions Exemplary articles Industry-based view Industry dummies Represent the sectoral activity of the firm. Generally coded as a dummy
variable to identify firm pertaining to a specific industry. (Bogner and Bansal 2007, Dehning et al. 2007, Brammer and Millington 2008)
Market and technological opportunities Environmental munificence, industry
investment, growth, innovation, and performance
Environmental munificence refers to the availability of resources in the environment.
(Karaevli 2007, Hsu and Pereira 2008, O'Brien and Folta 2009, Sirmon et al. 2010, Kumar et al. 2011, Modi and Mishra 2011)
Market turbulence and competition Market turbulence Environmental turbulence pertains to the level of instability on four markets
(employees, customers, innovation, and competitors). (Hmieleski and Ensley 2007, Lin and Shih 2008, Lin et al. 2009, Kumar et al. 2011)
Industry concentration and perceived competition
The concentration of firms in an industry is generally measured as a function of the number of firms and their respective market shares. The Herfindahl–Hirschman Index is the most used measure.
(Carrión-Flores and Innes 2010, Modi and Mishra 2011, Ho et al. 2012, Barroso and Giarratana 2013, Wu and Shen 2013)
Firm-generic strategies Cost leadership Cost leadership strategy can be operationalized by the ratio of cost of goods
sold over total sales (efficiency) and capital intensity and capital expenditures (assets parsimony).
(Lee and Qu 2011, Modi and Mishra 2011, Yamakawa et al. 2011, Belu and Manescu 2013, Klingenberg et al. 2013, Kwon and Rupp 2013)
Differentiation The differentiation strategy is generally measured by the ratio of a firm’s marketing expenses over total sales, which captures a firm’s willingness to differentiate itself from its rivals.
(Yamakawa et al. 2011, Barroso and Giarratana 2013, Hsu et al. 2013)
Market diversification (international) Measured as the ratio of foreign sales to total sales. (Lafuente et al. 2009, Carrión-Flores and Innes 2010) Product diversification Degree of focal firm product-market diversification using Jacquemin-Berry
entropy measure or the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index. (Lin et al. 2009, Sirmon et al. 2010)
Firm resources Tangible resources Debt Total debt to total assets, debt to capital ratio, or debt to equity ratio. (Brammer and Millington 2008, Elyasiani and Jia 2010,
Lourenço et al. 2012) Equity Refers to capital adequacy (calculated as equity to total assets), market
capitalization, or total shares outstanding. (Dehning et al. 2007, Coccorese and Pellecchia 2009, Baron et al. 2011, Wu and Shen 2013)
Liquidity Measured by the ratio of cash over sales or assets. (Brammer and Millington 2008, Artiach et al. 2010) Total assets Measured by total assets. (Brammer and Millington 2008, Elyasiani and Jia 2010,
Modi and Mishra 2011, Tang et al. 2012) Intangible resources Culture Cultural dimensions including organizational culture, organizational climate,
bureaucratic, consensual, corporate culture, individualism, cultural capability, and environmental culture.
(Farley et al. 2008, del Valle et al. 2009, Fraj et al. 2011, Wong and Wong 2011, Uzkurt et al. 2013)
Experience Defined as the number of years directors have worked for the firm. (Karaevli 2007, Chen et al. 2009, Camisón and Villar-López 2011, Hoque et al. 2013)
Intellectual capital Measured by value-added capital coefficient, human capital coefficient, or structural capital value added.
(Komnenic et al. 2013, Kwon and Rupp 2013)
Expertise Firm dynamic capability R&D, absorptive capacity, and
innovation Refers to how well the firm can use new knowledge and knowledge bases to achieve outcomes. Number of patents of the firms, product and process innovation, or R&D intensity.
(Brammer and Millington 2008, Carrión-Flores and Innes 2010, Lee 2010, Das and Joshi 2012, Hung and Chou 2013, Pesämaa et al. 2013, Tsai and Yang 2013)
Learning Formal training expenditures per employee. (Hsu and Pereira 2008, Camisón and Villar-López 2011, Kwon and Rupp 2013)
Institution-based view Firm governance Board diversity Members’ gender (male/female) and ethnicity. (Jiang et al. 2010, Hafsi and Turgut 2013) Duality CEO-Chairman Chairman that occupied or not the position of the chief executive officer. (Horton et al. 2012) Non executives outside directors Proportion of independent/non-executive directors. (McDonald et al. 2008, Baron et al. 2011, Horton et al.
2012) Board size Number of board members. (Hafsi and Turgut 2013, Hoque et al. 2013) Compensation Amount of salary, bonus, and/or stock options holding of board (CEO and/or
VPs). (Cordeiro et al. 2007, McDonald et al. 2008, Adams et al. 2009, Hoque et al. 2013)
Ownership concentration Calculated as a GIndex of the percentage of shares held by investors or as the proportion of total ownership represented by shareholder, with more than 5 or 10% share to the total capital of the firm.
(Guedri and Hollandts 2008, Baron et al. 2011, Ioannou and Serafeim 2012)
Ownership type (dummies) Percentage of shares owned by domestic, foreign, institutional, government, and state shareholders.
(McDonald et al. 2008, Wolf 2009, Elyasiani and Jia 2010, Sirmon et al. 2010, Wu 2013)
Networks Network Number of alliances, including business ties, strategic alliance, horizontal
linkages and commercial cooperation; political connection of the firm; exploration; number of times during the past year that a focal CEO had solicited strategic advice from managers at other companies.
( McDonald et al. 2008, Lin et al. 2009, Chellappa and Saraf 2010, Jiang et al. 2010, Omil et al. 2011, Yamakawa et al. 2011, Deng et al. 2012, Doran and Ryan 2012, Wang et al. 2013)
Country-level determinants Country A dummy variable taking the value 1 for firm from a specific country. (Darnall 2009, Kwon and Rupp 2013) Culture Cultural dimensions of Hofstede and GLOBE Model. (Ringov and Zollo 2007, Ioannou and Serafeim 2012, Wu
2013) Law Legislative regulation. (Aguilera-Caracuel et al. 2013, Wu 2013) Macroeconomic variables Refer to GDP, inflation, interest margin, energy cost, and unemployment rate. (Kosmidou 2008, Wolf 2009, Chiou et al. 2011, Dietrich
and Wanzenried 2011, Ioannou and Serafeim 2012) Openness (Import-Export-FDI) Defined as the sum of exports and imports divided by GDP. (Galdeano-Gomez 2008, Ioannou and Serafeim 2012) Tax rate Percentage of total taxes over pretax profit. (Dietrich and Wanzenried 2011, Roxas et al. 2012) Others Firm size Number of employees. (Carrión-Flores and Innes 2010, Chellappa and Saraf
2010, Camisón and Villar-López 2011) Firm age Number of year since firm foundation. (Chen et al. 2009, Elyasiani and Jia 2010, Kwon and Rupp
2013)
38
4.3. Results
4.3.1. Some general characteristics of the included studies
A total of 224 published research studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review (as
shown in Figure 4.2). The distribution of the reviewed articles per publication year shows
that the literature on SCA had grown steadily over the reviewed period (Table 4.6). Indeed,
the distribution of the authors shows that SCA research was split into several areas of
inquiry. Management and economics were the disciplines in which this phenomenon was
most examined, followed by finance and accounting.
In accordance with our selection criteria, all articles included in this review evaluated the
firm as their unit of analysis. The reviewed studies encompassed great cultural and
institutional diversity, representing 51 different countries. Mostly from America, Europe,
and Asia, firms from the United States, Taiwan, Spain, Turkey, China, Iran, and Pakistan
accounted for more than half of these studies (53%). Moreover, nearly half of the studies
(48%) focused on a specific industry. Of these, 49% focused on manufacturing and 44% on
service firms. The remaining 52% of the studies used unselective multi-industrial samples
of firms. Overall, 8% and 4%, respectively, of the studies focused only on innovating firms
or small and medium enterprises.
39
Table 4.6. Review study and firm sample characteristics. Review study characteristics
Publication year Disciplines 2007 9 Management 832008 17 Economics 442009 27 Finance 362010 22 Accounting 302011 38 Operational research 162012 43 Marketing 72013 68 Information and HR
management 8
Total 224
Total 224
Firm sample characteristics
Continent Country Multiple continent study 13 Multiple country study 11Single continent study 211 Single country study 233Africa 14 United States of America 52 North America 56 Taiwan 17 South America 2 Spain 16 Asia 80 Turkey 9 Europe 52 China 9 Oceania 7 Iran 8
Total 224 Pakistan 8 Others 114 Total 224Industry Multiple industry study 116 Single industry study 108
Manufacturing 57 Services 48 Others 3
Total 224
As shown in Table 4.7, articles reviewed by our study more recurrently analyzed secondary
data (74%) than primary (survey) data in their econometric models. Generally, secondary
data was obtained through third party databases (e.g., Standard and Poor’s Compustat
platform for American firms). Of these studies, 187 (83%) used regression analysis and 37
(17%) used structural equation and path analysis. Among the 187 regression studies, 51
used cross-sectional regression and 136 used panel regression. A vast majority of studies
40
used ordinary least square, while less than twenty studies used other methods such as
binomial, logit, probit, and hierarchical regressions.
Table 4.7. Econometric models and causality characteristics reviewed. Econometric models and causalities characteristics Data Analysis
Primary 58 Secondary 166 Regression 187
224 Cross-sectionnal 51 Cross-sectionnal 84 Panel 136 Longitudinal 140 SEM 37
Total 224
Total 224
Causalities Dependent variables Determinants
Shareholders 1490 Industry-level determinants 431Customers 252 Strategy 256Employees 58 Firm resources 841Community 30 Dynamic capabilities 184Social 292 Firm governance and networks 422Environmental 133 Country-level institution and
culture 121
Total 2255
Total 2255
As previously mentioned, we gathered evidence at the causality level. As a result, we
documented 2255 causalities regarding six types of performances and various SCA
predictors. A strong majority of these causalities (66% or 1490) were to predict a firm’s
performance for its stockholders. Next, firm overall social performance (13%),
environmental performance (6%), and firm performance for its customers (11%) were the
most studied. On the determinant side, firm resources was the most leveraged predictor,
followed by industry-level determinants, and firm governance mechanisms.
4.3.2. SCA as a dependent variable
As an output, SCA refers to a firm’s probability of sustaining a superior performance over
its counterparts (Wiggins and Ruefli 2002). As previously mentioned, SCA is by definition
a construct of firm performance that is relative to competitors, time-related, and
41
multifaceted. Therefore, we assessed how aligned the constructs used by the authors were
with this definition.
Among the studies reviewed on the subject of SCA, a majority (211) used an
unbenchmarked (absolute) firm performance measure. In contrast, only 15 articles were
found to study the relative performance of firms (benchmarked to their competitors) (Cho
et al. 2008, Peiró-Signes et al. 2012, Losonci and Demeter 2013, Uzkurt et al. 2013).
Moreover, we identified studies looking at the temporal persistence of firm profits (Chacar
et al. 2010, Chen and Lin 2010, Powell and Reinhardt 2010, Chari and David 2012).
However, these papers were excluded from the review since they focused more on the
profit erosion vs. persistence debate than on the identification of the determinant of such a
persistence. Finally, 45 studies were found to focus on more than one type of performance
at the time (Kim 2009, Camisón and Villar-López 2011, Chiou et al. 2011, Germann et al.
2013). Consequently, the firm performance constructs privileged by the authors could be
classified into four streams of literature: 1) study on absolute performance, 2) on relative
performance, 3) on profit persistence, and 4) on multistakeholder performance. These
streams are illustrated in Figure 4.3 along three axes, as they differ given the three
fundamental SCA dyadic properties (absolute vs. relative, punctual vs. persistent, and
unistakeholder vs. multistakeholder).
Figure 4.3. Representation of the four streams of literature given the three fundamental dyadic properties of SCA (in the x, y, and z axes).
42
4.3.3. SCA predictors
4.3.3.1. Industry-based variables The industry-based determinants of SCA refer mainly to industry structure and firm
strategy, as illustrated by Porter’s (1979, 2008) five forces framework, as well as his
prescription in terms of generic strategies (Porter 1980). Many strategic management
scholars recognize the importance of industry-level variance as good and persistent
predictors of the differences in inter-firm performance (McGahan and Porter 1997). Indeed,
the sectoral activity of a firm is regularly found as a significant predictor of firm
performance for its stockholders (Lichtenthaler 2009, Kwon and Rupp 2013), customers,
community, and environment (Brammer and Millington 2008, Pavelin and Porter 2008,
Darnall 2009, Kumar et al. 2011).
4.3.3.1.1. Industry structure When it comes to the influence of specific industrial environments on firm performance,
our review documented the effect of market and technological opportunity, market
turbulence, and competition intensity. Indeed, we expected that threatening conditions, such
as higher turbulence and competitive intensity, would have a negative impact on firm
performance, and that market and technological opportunities would positively affect firm
performance. As expected, Table 4.8 shows that the studies reviewed more often reported
the positive impact of market and technological opportunities on firm performance for its
stockholders, employees, and customers. For instance, Yamakawa et al. (2011) show that
growth opportunity has a positive impact on firm performance for its stockholders.
Likewise, Lin and Shih (2008), using a sample of 201 firms from all types of industries,
find that environmental munificence (environmental opportunities) has a positive effect on
firm stockholder returns. Finally, Lafuente et al. (2009), using a sample of 163 Spanish
manufacturing firms for the period 1996–2000, find a positive relationship between
industry aggregate technological investments and firm performance for its stockholders, as
measured by ROA and ROE.
43
Table 4.8. Determinants of firm SCA and their effects. Firm performance for its Independent variables Number
of significant causalities
Stockholders Customers Employees Community Overall social
Environment
Industry-based view Industry dummies 90 +/- + - +/- + + Market and technological opportunities Environmental munificence, industry
investment, growth, innovation, and performance
37 +
+ + - +/-
Market turbulence and competition Market turbulence 18 - - + Industry concentration and perceived
competition 25
- - -
Firm-generic strategies Cost leadership 56 - +/- + + + Differentiation 52 + + + + + + Market diversification (international) 20 + + +/- Product diversification 10 +/- Firm resources Tangible resources Debt 97 - - + - - Equity 32 - + Liquidity 29 - + + Total assets 119 + + + + + + Intangible resources Culture 9 + + + Experience 22 + - + +/- Intellectual capital 30 + + Expertise 13 + + + Firm dynamic capability R&D, absorptive capacity, and
innovation 78
+ + + + + +
Learning 20 + + + + Institution-based view Firm governance Board diversity 12 + + + Duality CEO-Chairman 10 - Non executives outside directors 26 + + + + Board size 15 + Compensation 16 + + Ownership concentration 14 + - Ownership type (dummies) 74 + + +/- + + + Networks Network 24 + + + Country-level determinants Country 5 + - Culture 10 - + - Law 10 +/- + + Macroeconomic variables 40 + + + + Openness (Import-Export-FDI) 5 +/- - Tax rate 3 - Others Firm size 52 + + + + + Firm age 29 - + - +
Moreover, market and technological opportunities, when significant, were always found to
positively influence firm performance for customers and employees (Table 4.8). For
instance, Ağca et al. (2012), with a sample of 331 Turkish manufacturing firms, show that
environmental munificence positively influences customer and employee satisfaction.
44
As expected, the reviewed studies reported more frequent negative effects of market
turbulence and competition intensity on firm performance for stockholders and customers,
and on a firm’s overall social performance. For instance, Wahyudi (2013), with a sample of
42 public Indonesian firms during the period 1996–2010, reports that market turbulence
negatively affects stockholders’ return. Similarly, Cho et al. (2008) report, using a sample
of 117 firms, that market turbulence negatively affects the profitability of a firm. Moreover,
Wu and Shen (2013), using a sample of 162 banks, report that industry concentration has a
negative impact on firm performance for its stockholders (as ROA) and customers (as
income).
Likewise, Garcia-Zamora et al. (2013), with a sample of 440 Spanish companies in four
sectors of activity (industry, construction, agriculture, and services), find that market
turbulence (measured with items such as changes in consumer demand and the introduction
of new products) has a negative influence on firm performance for customers, as with sales
and market share growth. Again, using two samples (the Inc. 500 list of America’s fastest
growing startups and a national (United States) random sample of new ventures), Hmieleski
and Ensley (2007) find that market turbulence negatively affects firm performance for
customers, calculated by revenue growth.
4.3.3.1.2. Firm-level strategies On the firm’s conduct side, given a specific industry structure, a firm that is optimally
positioned can, in spite of an industry context that is for some reason unattractive, generate
superior returns and gain a competitive advantage over rivals (Porter 1980). Indeed, our
review documented the influence of four distinct positioning strategies: cost leadership,
differentiation, product diversification, and market diversification (Table 4.8). However, we
did not elaborate on the influence of product diversification for which the reviewed
evidence was scant and insignificant.
As shown in Table 4.8, our review found that differentiation strategies, when significant,
were more frequently reported to have a positive impact on firm performance for the
stockholders, customers, employees, community, and environment. For instance, Mody and
Mishra (2011), using a sample of 3608 US-based manufacturing firms across the period
1991–2006, find that differentiation strategies positively influence stockholders’ benefits.
45
Moreover, using a large sample of 2098 Spanish firms, Fraj-Andrés et al. (2009) find that
differentiation (as a marketing investment) has a positive effect on firm performance for
customers. In addition, Melo (2012b) finds that differentiation strategies, measured as
firms’ advertising intensity, positively influence firm performance for the employees,
community, and environment (all measured using Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini and Co.
Research and Analytics Inc. (KLD)), in a sample of 624 American companies for the period
2001–2007.
Moreover, our study more recurrently reported a positive influence of international market
diversification on firm performance for stockholders, employees, and overall social
performance (Table 4.8). For instance, using a sample of 372 manufacturing firms in
Germany, Jirjahn and Kraft (2007) find that exports (measured by the percentage of the
establishment’s sales generated by exports) positively influence firm performance for
stockholders, measured using ROA. Hsu and Pereira (2008) find that internationalization
positively impacts firm performance for employees in a sample of 110 American
multinational enterprises. Sciascia and Mazzola (2008), using a sample of 620 family firms
in Italy, find that the level of internationalization (defined as the percentage of sales
generated from international markets in 2000) positively affects a firm’s overall social
performance.
On the other hand, it seems clear that businesses that over-pursue the turnover of capital
and fixed assets (i.e., adopt cost leadership strategies) hinder their performance. For
instance, Love et al. (2009) find that capital intensity (measured as the capital investment
per employee) negatively impacts the return on sales of manufacturing firms. Again, Lee
and Qu (2011) show that capital intensity (measured by dividing total fixed assets by total
revenues) negatively impacts Tobin’s Q in the US hotel industry. However, the impact of
such a strategy on other types of performance is too scant to be reported.
4.3.3.2. Resource-based variables and dynamic capabilities The RBV assumes that a firm’s SCA lies in its resource base. Since resources are
heterogeneous among firms, and not perfectly mobile, the firms that possess valuable
resources that are neither perfectly imitable nor substitutable without great effort (Barney
1991) would be able to maintain above average returns during a certain time. On the other
46
hand, dynamic capabilities, such as innovation and learning, refer to the dynamic
underlying stock adaptation of firm resources, and their renewal.
That is to say, every firm is endowed with a bundle of valuable tangible and intangible
resources, as well as dynamic capabilities (Penrose 1959, Wernerfelt 1984, Teece et al.
1997). Indeed, resources and dynamic capabilities are the most leveraged and significant
predictors of firm performance that we reviewed. However, our review gathered much
more evidence on the influence of tangible resources, than of intangible resources and
dynamic capabilities.
4.3.3.2.1. Tangible resources Tangible resources are generally reported in a firm’s balance sheet. Indeed, a firm can use
its assets, equity, or debt to feed and develop its activities. As shown in Table 4.8, a firm’s
total assets were recurrently found to have a positive influence on firm performance for the
stockholders, customers, employees, community, and environment. For instance, Wu and
Shen (2013), using a sample of 162 banks in 22 countries, find that a firm’s total assets
positively impacts its performance for stockholders, as measured using ROA. Again, using
a sample of 297 electronics companies in Taiwan, Huang (2010) finds that firm size,
measured by the log of total assets, positively impacts the four dimensions of corporate
social performance (customers, community, environment, and workers), using KLD.
In addition, as shown in Table 4.8, the influence of highly mobile firm liquidity on firm
performance for stockholders was less clear. However, firm liquidity was found to
positively influence firm performance for employees and the community, in line with the
resource slack hypothesis (Ullmann 1985, Waddock and Graves 1997). For instance, Jalbert
et al. (2011) find that free cash flow positively impacts firm performance for employees, as
the non-salary element of total compensation in a sample of 6305 firm-year observations,
from all industry sectors, over the period 1997–2006. Moreover, using a sample of 537
large UK enterprises from all sectorial activities, Brammer and Millington (2008) report
that liquidity, measured by the ratio of cash and equivalent balances to sales, positively
affects firm performance for the community (as the ratio of charitable donations to sales).
47
On the other hand, leverage with debt and equity was recurrently found to have a negative
impact on firm performance for stockholders, customers, the community, and overall social
performance. For instance, using a sample of 1532 firms, Elyasiani and Jia (2010) find that
leverage, defined as the ratio of total debt to total assets, is negatively associated with
industry-adjusted ROA. Moreover, Lourenço et al. (2012) show that leverage, measured by
end-of-year total debt divided by end-of-year market capitalization, has a negative
influence on stockholders’ return, calculated as the market price at the fiscal year-end, in a
sample of 418 firms for all industry sectors. In addition, Wu and Shen (2013) find that
leverage (the ratio of equity to total assets) has a negative effect on firm performance for
stockholders, as measured using ROA and non-interest income, in a sample of 162 banks in
22 countries.
When it comes to the other types of performance, Brammer and Millington (2008), using a
sample of 537 large UK enterprises from all sectorial activities, find that leverage,
measured by the ratio of total debt to equity, negatively affects firm performance for the
community (as the ratio of charitable donations to sales). Again, Crisóstomo et al. (2011)
report that leverage, measured by the ratio of total liabilities over total assets, negatively
impacts the index of social action related to employees, in a sample of 78 firms from all
industry sectors, over the period 2001–2006. Finally, Ho et al. (2012) show that leverage,
calculated by total debt divided by total assets, negatively impacts a firm’s overall social
performance, using KLD and Innovest, in firms from all industries.
4.3.3.2.2. Firm intangibles and dynamic capabilities As tangible assets are becoming commodities, firm intangibles and dynamic capabilities are
increasingly taking center stage in business strategies to create dominant market positions,
generate abnormal profits, and achieve growth and wealth. Indeed, as shown in Table 4.8,
most of the studies reviewed showed that expertise, experience, intellectual capital,
organizational culture, and dynamic capabilities more often had a significantly recurrent
positive influence on firm performance for the stockholders, customers, employees,
community, and environment.
When it comes to the influence of expertise, Guo et al. (2012) find that the percentage of
PhD degrees of CEOs and Vice-Presidents positively affects firm performance for
48
stockholders (as ROA), in a sample of 279 biotech firms listed in the US market for the
period 1994–2005. Moreover, Goll et al. (2008) find that expertise (as the education level
of human resources) positively impacts firm performance for stockholders (as operating
profit) and customers (as operating revenue), using panel data (1972–1995) from major US
airlines.
When it comes to experience, Hoque et al.’s (2013) study, which examines the relationship
between the CEO turnover and financial performance of 118 Australian firms for the period
1999–2007, finds that CEO tenure (as measured by the number of years on the board) has a
positive impact on firm performance for stockholders, as measured with ROE. Moreover,
using a sample of 6305 firm-year observations from all industry sectors over the period
1997–2006, Jalbert et al. (2011) show that CEO’s age positively affects firm performance
for employees (as the non-salary elements of total compensation). Likewise, using a sample
of 295 firms from all industries for the period 2000–2005, Melo (2012a) shows that
management tenure (measured as the average time members of the board have been
employed in their current firm) positively impacts firm performance for employees, as well
as a firm’s overall social performance, both measured with KLD.
More recurrently, a positive effect of intellectual capital on firm performance for
stockholders and customers has also been reported. Using data from 24 Serbian banks for
2006–2008, Komnenic et al. (2013) find that human capital efficiency, structural capital
efficiency, and capital employed efficiency coefficient all have a positive influence on firm
performance for stockholders, as measured by ROA and ROE. Likewise, Fathi et al. (2013)
examine the relationship between intellectual capital and performance in 49 Iranian
companies over the period 2001–2010. They find that the value-added efficiency of
structural capital and value-added intellectual coefficient positively affect firm performance
for customers, as measured by its growth in revenues.
Finally, Uzkurt et al. (2013) examine the relationship between organizational culture and
firm performance in 154 branches of 10 prominent banks in Turkey. These authors measure
the organizational culture using the scale developed by Ernest Chang and Lin (2007)
(managers actively lead the staff to grow and innovate, the company pays attention to the
uniqueness of employees and encourages innovation from employees, and managers have
49
vision and insights to create new business opportunities). The findings from their study
reveal that organizational culture has a direct and positive effect on firm performance for
stockholders (as firm profitability) and customers (as market share). Using a sample of
12764 observations for the period 2002–2008, including all industry sectors, Ioannou and
Serafeim (2012) report that the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups
positively impacts a firm’s overall social performance, as measured using a global ESG
dataset.
When it comes to the innovation dynamic capability, Bogner and Bansal (2007) reveal that
R&D intensity positively affects firm performance for stockholders, using ROE. Again,
Hung and Chou (2013), using a sample of 176 Taiwanese high-tech manufacturing firms,
find that R&D intensity (measured by dividing company R&D expenditures by its sales)
positively affects Tobin’s Q. Moreover, Lee and Roh (2012) show that R&D intensity
(measured as R&D expenditures/total sales) positively impacts ROA, ROE, and Tobin’s Q,
as well as positively influences firm performance for customers, as measured by sales
growth, in a sample of 108 high-tech firms. Again, Melo (2012b), in a sample of 624
American companies (in all industrial sectors) for 2001–2007, reports that R&D intensity
(calculated as a ratio of investment in R&D by total assets) positively impacts corporate
social performance and firm performance for employees, using KLD. Also, using a sample
of 537 large UK enterprises from all sectorial activities, Brammer and Millington (2008)
find that R&D intensity (calculated as the ratio of R&D by sales) positively affects firm
performance for the community, as the ratio of charitable donations to sales. Finally,
Carrion-Flores and Innes (2010) show that R&D intensity and patents have a positive
impact on firm performance for the environment (as the number of environmental patents
and reduction of toxic air emissions), in a sample of 127 manufacturing industries over the
period 1989–2004.
When it comes to the learning dynamic capability, Hsu and Pereira (2008), using a sample
of 110 American multinational enterprises, find that social learning (measured using items
such as penetrating new foreign markets, identifying foreign buyers, and gaining
confidence in managing different country risks) and market learning (with items such as
adapting products for local markets targeting multiple market segments in a foreign
50
country) positively influence firm performance for stockholders (ROS, ROE, and ROI). In
their paper, Theriou and Chatzoglou (2009) report that organizational learning capability
(measured using these items: commitment to learning and empowerment; systems
perspective and clarity of purpose and mission; openness and experimentation; and
organizational memory) has a positive effect on firm performance for stockholders (as
profitability) and customers (as market share), in a sample of Greek firms from the service
sector industry. Finally, del Valle and Castillo (2009) show that training, measured by
hours per employee/year, is positively associated with firm performance for employees, as
well as with customer loyalty, in a sample of 40 firms from all industries.
4.3.3.3. Country-level institutions, governance, and networks As the third leg of strategic management (Peng et al. 2009), the institution-based view
recalls that institutions are more than background conditions (Peng and Heath 1996, Oliver
1997). Indeed, the institution-based conversation exceeds a firm’s national and cultural
environment, as the questions of “humanly devised constraints” (North 1990) can be
assessed, as well as the level of the firm and its networks (Powell 1990).
4.3.3.3.1. Macroeconomics, regulation, and tax Following our review, international studies of firm performance, that have included some
country dummies, found no significant association with firm performance for stockholders,
but did for the environment and a firm’s overall social performance (Darnall 2009, Ho et al.
2012, Kwon and Rupp 2013).
However, our review documented interesting evidence regarding the influence of firm
country macroeconomics, regulation, and taxes. As seen in Table 4.8, the studies included
in our review frequently found that macroeconomics variables, such as GDP, interest rates,
and government subsidies, were more frequently reported to have a positive influence on
firm performance for stockholders. For instance, Dietrich and Wanzenried (2011), with a
sample of 372 commercial banks in Switzerland over the period 1999–2009, find that GDP
and the interest margin positively affect firm performance for stockholders (as ROAA).
Likewise, de Carvalho et al. (2013), using a sample of 182 small and medium-sized
Portuguese fitness firms, find that government subsidies positively impact firm
performance for stockholders (as profitability).
51
However, inflation, recession, regulation, and tax rates were, as expected, reported to have
a negative influence on firm performance for stockholders. For instance, Kosmidou’s
(2008) study reports that the annual inflation rate negatively affects the ROAA of the firm,
using a sample of 23 banks. Again, Muñoz-Bullón and Sanchez-Bueno (2011), using the
panel data of small and medium-sized Spanish manufacturing firms over the period 1993–
2006, find that recession negatively impacts the ROA and ROS of the firm. Moreover, Cho
et al. (2008) find that government regulation negatively affects the profitability of the firm
in a sample of 117 firms. Moreover, using the panel data of 372 banks in Switzerland
(1999–2009), Dietrich and Wanzenried (2011) find that the effective tax rate (calculated by
total taxes over pretax profit (%)) negatively impacts firm performance for stockholders,
measured by ROAA and ROAE.
When it comes to other types of performance, the reviewed studies found a positive
influence of legislative regulation on a firm’s overall social (Pavelin and Porter 2008) and
environmental performances (Aguilera-Caracuel et al. 2013). For instance, Aguilera-
Caracuel et al. (2013) find that environmental regulation (air pollution regulations,
chemical waste regulations, etc.) has a positive effect on a firm’s environmental
performance, in a sample of 128 multinational firms from high-polluting industries. Finally,
Pavelin and Porter (2008) report that government regulation positively impacts a firm’s
overall social performance, in a sample of 3464 UK companies from several sectors.
4.3.3.3.2. Firm governance structures and mechanisms At the firm level, organizational governance relates to board structures and incentives that
can be employed to deal with agency problems stemming from goal and objective
divergences among firm managers and stockholders. Indeed, larger, more diversified, and
independent boards were often found to have a positive influence on firm performance for
stockholders, customers, and overall social performance. For instance, using a sample of
174 banks for the period 1995–2002, Belkhir (2009) shows that the number of directors
sitting on the board (board size) positively impacts a firm’s ROA. When it comes to board
diversity, Reddy et al. (2008), using a sample of 355 small-cap firms, find that the
proportion of female directors on the board positively affects the financial performance
(Tobin’s Q). Moreover, Jalbert et al. (2013), using a sample of 6305 annual firm
52
observations that covers a 10-year period and includes all industry sectors, find that the
presence of a female CEO is positively associated with firm performance for customers (as
measured by sales growth). In addition, using a sample of 95 manufacturing and service
firms, Hafsi and Turgut (2013) report that the percentage of female directors on a given
board positively affects a firm’s overall social performance, as measured with KLD.
Likewise, Horton et al. (2012) find that having an outside director positively impacts
financial performance (ROA), in a sample of 4278 UK firms. Finally, Huang (2010) shows
that the percentage of the total number of independent directors on the board positively
impacts the four dimensions of corporate social performance (customers, community,
society, and workers), using KLD, in a sample of 297 electronics companies in Taiwan.
This tends to confirm the positive impact of practices meant to increase the independence
of board decisions on firm performance for stakeholders (a larger, more diversified board
with a superior proportion of non-executive directors).
On the other hand, practices that, instead, favor conflicting interests, such as when the CEO
also holds the position of the chairman of the board (CEO duality), were more often found
to have a negative influence on firm performance for shareholders. For instance, a negative
association between CEO duality and firm performance for stockholders, measured by
ROA, is reported in a sample of 187 Taiwanese-listed firms (Wen-Ting and Yunshi 2012).
The effect of ownership concentration was more often found to have a positive influence on
a firm’s shareholder performance. This might mean that adequate board control and
monitoring of managers, dependent on some focused objectives, can improve firm
performance for stockholders. For instance, Lafuente et al. (2009), with a sample of 163
Spanish manufacturing firms for the period 1996–2000, find that ownership concentration,
measured by the shares held by the largest stockholder, positively impacts firm ROE.
However, in a sample of 12764 observations for the period 2002–2008, including all
industry sectors, Ioannou and Serafeim (2012) find that the percentage of shares held by
investors, owing more than 5%, negatively influences corporate social performance, as
measured using a global ESG dataset.
When it comes to incentives, director compensations were more frequently found to foster
firm performance for stockholders and a firm’s overall social performance. For instance,
53
Cordeiro et al.’s (2007) study shows that the grant ratio (corresponding ratio of dollar stock
grant compensation) and the stock option ratio (ratio of dollar stock option compensation to
total dollar director compensation) are positively associated with firm performance for
stockholders (stock returns), in a sample of 450 Standard and Poor 500 firms over the
period 1995–1997. Likewise, Jalbert et al. (2013), using a sample of 6305 annual firm
observations covering the period 1997–2006, find that total compensation is positively
associated with firm performance, as measured by ROA. Moreover, Elyasiani and Jia’s
(2010) study, using a sample of 1532 firms, finds that the CEO incentive ratio positively
influences firm performance for stockholders (ROA). Finally, using a sample of 288 firms
from all industry sectors over the period 2003–2005, Callan and Thomas (2011) report that
annual cash remuneration for firms’ CEO has a positive effect on corporate social
performance, as measured with KLD.
Moreover, the reviewed studies tend to favor having a great diversity among firm
ownership types. When significant, the percentage of shares owned by domestic, foreign,
institutional, public, and state stockholders was more recurrently shown to positively
impact firm performance for the stockholders (O'Brien and Folta 2009, Elyasiani and Jia
2010), customers, employees, community, and environment (Table 4.8).
4.3.3.3.3. Networks At the meso level, firm network was more recurrently found to have a positive effect on
firm performance for the stockholders, customers, and environment. For instance, Omil et
al. (2011) find that commercial cooperation positively influences the profitability of
Spanish companies. Likewise, Wang et al. (2013) find that business ties (measures with
items such as relationships of top managers with buyers, suppliers, and competitors) and
political ties (measures with items such as relationships with officials in government
departments, industrial bureaus, and regulatory and supporting organizations) are positively
associated with relative firm performance, using several indicators (ROS, ROI, ROE, ROA,
and net profits), in a sample of 253 firms in China from all industry sectors. Finally, when
it comes to other types of performance, Chellappa and Saraf (2010), using a sample of
software enterprises, find that the number of alliances formed, and total number of linkages,
are positively associated with firm performance for customers (as sales). Moreover, using a
54
sample of 2181 firms from all industry sectors, Doran and Ryan (2012) report that
backward linkages are positively associated with a firm’s environmental performance (as
the engagement in eco-innovation activities).
4.4. Discussion and conclusions
The systematic review found numerous challenges for the study and for the promotion of
SCA in a firm. Upon the great diversity of measurements and methodologies used by
researchers to capture firm SCA, and to assess the influence of such a wide array of
determinants, the very complex nature of SCA development in a firm cannot be ignored.
Given the main limitation of our study, namely, that it only included articles published in
peer-review journals and that some of the knowledge produced about SCA might have been
overlooked, we propose that our results be considered as suggestions, so as not to fall into
abusive generalizations. Though we are aware of these limits and the specificity of each
firm, industry, and field of practices, we are quite confident in most of our conclusions and
recommendations.
Regarding SCA as a dependent variable, four literature streams were identified.
Divergences and convergences, among reviewed streams of literature, highlight that SCA is
a multifaceted construct built on three fundamental dyadic properties: absolute/relative,
punctual/persistent, and unistakeholder/multistakeholder. From these properties arise eight
possible forms of advantage, of which only four were documented by our review. Above
all, no academic attention has been given to the richest possible form of SCA (relative,
persistent, and multistakeholder). In the end, firm SCA should be conceptualized as the
simultaneous persistence of superior performance for all firm stakeholders.
However, a strong majority of SCA studies consider only an absolute, punctual, and
unistakeholder performance-based construct of SCA. This confirms Newbert’s (2014)
observation that scholars more often use the measure of absolute performance when
capturing firm SCA. Moreover, most of the time, the link between review article theories
and the methodology relating to the use of a specific SCA construct is, at best, implicit.
That is to say, no systematic review has, to our knowledge, highlighted, as we did in this
paper, the prevalent complexity behind the SCA construct and its measurement. Therefore,
55
it is suggested that future studies on SCA more explicitly posit their dependent variables,
given these three dyadic properties, thereby making it much clearer what form of SCA they
are, in fact, studying. Indeed, more studies should adopt, when possible, a richer vision of
competitive advantage as an outcome.
Regarding SCA predictors, our study went further than previous systematic reviews on the
subject. In fact, while previous reviews limited their scope to studies grounded in the RBV
(Newbert 2007, Lockett et al. 2009), our review was more inclusive. As previously
mentioned, SCA literature encompasses the use of many theoretical perspectives and, even
if the RBV is seen as essential, it is not sufficient. Indeed, our study intended to confirm the
structural role of the three pillars supporting the SCA conversation in strategic
management: the industry-, resource-, and institution-based views (Peng et al. 2009).
However, a strong majority of the reviewed studies only focus on the determinants of
stockholder performance. Yet, it seems clear that industry-, resource-, and institution-based
variables are at play when it comes to the prediction of other types of performance than that
of the stockholders. Indeed, future research should focus on the identification of the
determinants of a firm’s competitive advantage for the customers, employees, community,
and environment. Even though we organized the presentation of our results given Peng’s
(2009) tripod, future studies should not restrict themselves to such frameworks. For
instance, the business model framework (Chesbrough 2006, 2010) could be of special
interest when analyzing the determinants of SCA and their interplay.
At the firm level, our study confirmed that differentiation and internationalization
strategies, intangibles assets, dynamic capabilities (such as innovation and learning),
governance, and networks are among the most significant levers to trigger a firm’s SCA.
However, notwithstanding the importance of variables, such as diversification strategies,
innovation, and learning, they cannot be reduced to unidimensional measures such as
marketing, training, and R&D investments. Further studies should favor the use of more
reliable measures over more simplistic measures. For example, innovation is not limited to
product and process innovation. Rather, innovation occurs in business practices as well as
in the market. Likewise, organizational learning is not limited to deliberate learning through
training. Better indicators exist and, therefore, should be used.
56
Conversely, the results were more conflicting when it comes to the effect of contextual,
industrial, and institutional variables. Why? One explanation might be that most of the
tested causalities we reviewed were direct and overlooked indirect effects, which we
posited are of great importance when it comes to the effect of such contextual factors on
firm performance. Although our study failed to systematically review the indirect effects
due to an unexpected higher level of complexity when coding indirect causalities, some
interactions were observed between industry-level determinants (e.g., competitive intensity
and industry turbulence) and firm dynamic capabilities (e.g., innovation) (Akgün et al.
2008, Lichtenthaler 2009, Oh et al. 2012, García-Zamora et al. 2013, Jiao et al. 2013). This
suggests that more studies should take into account the indirect effect of industrial and
institutional contexts on firm SCA. Indeed, since a strong majority of the reviewed studies
chose typical regression as the method of analysis, future studies should favor more
powerful tools to assess the indirect causalities and mediating effects, such as structural
equations and path analysis.
Moreover, one important limit of previous studies on the influence of the industrial and
institutional context on SCA is that they did not take regional diversity into account, thus
implicitly postulating that regions are homogeneous. Practitioners that support businesses at
the regional level generally observe great differences between their regions and
surrounding regions. Indeed, to be useful to stakeholders that act at the regional level,
future studies should take into account the variety of regional contexts, diversity of abilities
and attitudes of businesses, and the diversity of factors facilitating or impeding SCA
development in firms.
For managers, investors, and policymakers, promoting SCA development in firms begins
with, among other things, a clear and precise vision of the complexity underlying firm
SCA. However, a reliable instrument that captures the relativeness of firm performance (in
comparison with that of its competitors), and the persistence of a firm’s competitive
advantage for all firm stockholders, has yet to be developed. Nonetheless, studying richer
forms of competitive advantage entails numerous challenges: 1) the identification of the
most appropriate and least biased performance measures in a given empirical setting, 2)
selection of a valid benchmark to detect over-performers, and 3) access to longitudinal data
57
to assess the persistence of such a superior performance. Moreover, these instruments might
have to be context-specific, considering that the stakeholder landscape may vary
significantly from one context to another. Indeed, given the state of knowledge and
empirics pertaining to a specific empirical setting, qualitative analyses might be required
prior to the development of quantitative tools (Edmondson and McManus 2007).
Finally, the challenge for all researchers and practitioners is less to understand what enables
a firm to perform for stockholders in absolute terms, and more to understand how a firm
can maintain a superior performance through time than that of its counterparts, not only in
the eyes of stockholders, but in those of all firm stakeholders. As such, practitioners should
promote the development and use of skills, experience, learning, innovation, good
governance mechanisms, and networking when managing, investing, or policymaking.
58
4.5. References
Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C. and Collier, N. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: An exploration of how firms renew their resource base. British Journal of Management, 20, S9-S24.
Adams, R., Almeida, H. and Ferreira, D. (2009). Understanding the relationship between founder–CEOs and firm performance. Journal of Empirical Finance, 16, 136-150.
Ağca, V., Topal, Y. and Kaya, H. (2012). Linking intrapreneurship activities to multidimensional firm performance in Turkish manufacturing firms: an empirical study. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8, 15-33.
Aguilera-Caracuel, J., Hurtado-Torres, N.E., Aragón-Correa, J.A. and Rugman, A.M. (2013). Differentiated effects of formal and informal institutional distance between countries on the environmental performance of multinational enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 66, 2657-2665.
Akgün, A.E., Keskin, H. and Byrne, J. (2008). The moderating role of environmental dynamism between firm emotional capability and performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21, 230-252.
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 33-46.
Armstrong, C.E., Drnevich, P.L. and Newbert, S.L. (2009). Conversations in competitive advantage: A bibliographic analysis of the major research streams and their influence on the field. Atlanta Competitive Advantage Conference Paper, 1-26.
Artiach, T., Lee, D., Nelson, D. and Walker, J. (2010). The determinants of corporate sustainability performance. Accounting & Finance, 50, 31-51.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
Baron, D.P., Agus Harjoto, M. and Jo, H. (2011). The economics and politics of corporate social performance. Business and Politics, 13.
Barroso, A. and Giarratana, M.S. (2013). Product proliferation strategies and firm performance: The moderating role of product space complexity. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 1435-1452.
Belkhir, M. (2009). Board of directors' size and performance in the banking industry. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 5, 201-221.
Bogner, W.C. and Bansal, P. (2007). Knowledge management as the basis of sustained high performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 165-188.
59
Brammer, S. and Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1325-1343.
Callan, S.J. and Thomas, J.M. (2011). Executive compensation, corporate social responsibility, and corporate financial performance: a multi‐equation framework. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18, 332-351.
Camisón, C. and Villar-López, A. (2011). Non-technical innovation: organizational memory and learning capabilities as antecedent factors with effects on sustained competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 1294-1304.
Carrión-Flores, C.E. and Innes, R. (2010). Environmental innovation and environmental performance. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59, 27-42.
Chacar, A.S., Newburry, W. and Vissa, B. (2010). Bringing institutions into performance persistence research: Exploring the impact of product, financial, and labor market institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1119-1140.
Chari, M.D. and David, P. (2012). Sustaining superior performance in an emerging economy: An empirical test in the Indian context. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 217-229.
Chellappa, R.K. and Saraf, N. (2010). Alliances, rivalry, and firm performance in enterprise systems software markets: a social network approach. Information Systems Research, 21, 849-871.
Chen, X., Zou, H. and Wang, D.T. (2009). How do new ventures grow? Firm capabilities, growth strategies and performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 294-303.
Chen, Y.-M. and Lin, F.-J. (2010). The persistence of superior performance at industry and firm levels: Evidence from the IT industry in Taiwan. Industry and Innovation, 17, 469-486.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape: Harvard Business Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43, 354-363.
Chiou, T.-Y., Chan, H.K., Lettice, F. and Chung, S.H. (2011). The influence of greening the suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47, 822-836.
60
Chiu, S.-C. and Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 36, 1558-1585.
Cho, J.J.-K., Ozment, J. and Sink, H. (2008). Logistics capability, logistics outsourcing and firm performance in an e-commerce market. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38, 336-359.
Coccorese, P. and Pellecchia, A. (2009). Multimarket contact and profitability in banking: evidence from Italy. Journal of Financial Services Research, 35, 245-271.
Cordeiro, J.J., Veliyath, R. and Romal, J.B. (2007). Moderators of the Relationship Between Director Stock‐Based Compensation and Firm Performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 1384-1393.
Crisóstomo, V.L., De Souza Freire, F. and De Vasconcellos, F.C. (2011). Corporate social responsibility, firm value and financial performance in Brazil. Social Responsibility Journal, 7, 295-309.
Darnall, N. (2009). Regulatory stringency, green production offsets, and organizations' financial performance. Public Administration Review, 69, 418-434.
Das, S.R. and Joshi, M.P. (2012). Process Innovativeness and Firm Performance in Technology Service Firms: The Effect of External and Internal Contingencies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59, 401-414.
De Carvalho, P.G., Serrasqueiro, Z. and Nunes, P.M. (2013). Profitability determinants of fitness SMEs: Empirical evidence from Portugal using panel data. The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, 15, 417-430.
Dehning, B., Richardson, V.J. and Zmud, R.W. (2007). The financial performance effects of IT-based supply chain management systems in manufacturing firms. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 806-824.
Del Valle, I.D. and Castillo, M.a.S. (2009). Human capital and sustainable competitive advantage: an analysis of the relationship between training and performance. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5, 139-163.
Del Valle, I.D., Castillo, M.Á.S. and Rodríguez-Duarte, A. (2009). The effects of training on performance in service companies: A data panel study. International Journal of Manpower, 30, 393-407.
Deng, X.M., Tian, Z.L., Li, J.F. and Abrar, M. (2012). The diversification effects of a firm's political connection and its performance implications Evidence from China. Chinese Management Studies, 6, 462-487.
61
Dietrich, A. and Wanzenried, G. (2011). Determinants of bank profitability before and during the crisis: Evidence from Switzerland. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 21, 307-327.
Doran, J. and Ryan, G. (2012). Regulation and firm perception, eco-innovation and firm performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15, 421-441.
Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 23, 660-679.
Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business strategy and the environment, 11, 130-141.
Edmondson, A.C. and Mcmanus, S.E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of management review, 32, 1246-1264.
Elyasiani, E. and Jia, J. (2010). Distribution of institutional ownership and corporate firm performance. Journal of banking & finance, 34, 606-620.
Enders, A., König, A., Hungenberg, H. and Engelbertz, T. (2009). Towards an integrated perspective of strategy: the value-process framework. Journal of strategy and management, 2, 76-96.
Ernest Chang, S. and Lin, C.-S. (2007). Exploring organizational culture for information security management. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107, 438-458.
Farley, J.U., Hoenig, S. and Ismail, Z. (2008). Organizational culture, innovativeness, market orientation and firm performance in South Africa: an interdisciplinary perspective. Journal of African Business, 9, 59-76.
Fathi, S., Farahmand, S. and Khorasani, M. (2013). Impact of Intellectual Capital on Financial Performance. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 2, 6-17.
Fraj-Andrés, E., Martinez-Salinas, E. and Matute-Vallejo, J. (2009). A multidimensional approach to the influence of environmental marketing and orientation on the firm’s organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 263-286.
Fraj, E., Martínez, E. and Matute, J. (2011). Green marketing strategy and the firm's performance: the moderating role of environmental culture. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19, 339-355.
Freeman, R.E. (1984). Stakeholder management: framework and philosophy. Pitman, Mansfield, MA.
Galdeano-Gomez, E. (2008). Productivity effects of environmental performance: evidence from TFP analysis on marketing cooperatives. Applied Economics, 40, 1873-1888.
62
García-Zamora, E., González-Benito, O. and Muñoz-Gallego, P.A. (2013). Organizational and environmental factors as moderators of the relationship between multidimensional innovation and performance. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 15, 224-244.
Germann, F., Lilien, G.L. and Rangaswamy, A. (2013). Performance implications of deploying marketing analytics. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30, 114-128.
Gholami, R., Sulaiman, A.B., Ramayah, T. and Molla, A. (2013). Senior managers’ perception on green information systems (IS) adoption and environmental performance: Results from a field survey. Information & Management, 50, 431-438.
Goll, I., Johnson, N.B. and Rasheed, A.A. (2008). Top management team demographic characteristics, business strategy, and firm performance in the US airline industry: the role of managerial discretion. Management Decision, 46, 201-222.
Guedri, Z. and Hollandts, X. (2008). Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear impact of employee ownership on firm performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16, 460-474.
Guo, W.-C., Shiah-Hou, S.-R. and Chien, W.-J. (2012). A study on intellectual capital and firm performance in biotech companies. Applied Economics Letters, 19, 1603-1608.
Hafsi, T. and Thomas, H. (2005). The Field of Strategy:: In Search of a Walking Stick. European Management Journal, 23, 507-519.
Hafsi, T. and Turgut, G. (2013). Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 463-479.
Hmieleski, K.M. and Ensley, M.D. (2007). A contextual examination of new venture performance: entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 865-889.
Ho, F.N., Wang, H.-M.D. and Vitell, S.J. (2012). A global analysis of corporate social performance: The effects of cultural and geographic environments. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 423-433.
Hoque, M.Z., Islam, M. and Azam, M.N. (2013). Board Committee Meetings and Firm Financial Performance: An Investigation of Australian Companies. International Review of Finance, 13, 503-528.
Horton, J., Millo, Y. and Serafeim, G. (2012). Resources or power? Implications of social networks on compensation and firm performance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 39, 399-426.
Hsu, C.-C. and Pereira, A. (2008). Internationalization and performance: The moderating effects of organizational learning. Omega, 36, 188-205.
63
Hsu, C.-W., Lien, Y.-C. and Chen, H. (2013). International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 48, 58-67.
Huang, C.-F. and Lien, H.-C. (2012). An empirical analysis of the influences of corporate social responsibility on organizational performance of Taiwan’s construction industry: using corporate image as a mediator. Construction Management and Economics, 30, 263-275.
Huang, C.-J. (2010). Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 16, 641-655.
Hung, K.-P. and Chou, C. (2013). The impact of open innovation on firm performance: The moderating effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence. Technovation, 33, 368-380.
Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G. (2012). What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43, 834-864.
Jalbert, T., Furumo, K. and Jalbert, M. (2011). Does Educational Background Affect CEO Compensation And Firm Performance? Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 27, 15-40.
Jalbert, T., Jalbert, M. and Furumo, K. (2013). The Relationship Between CEO Gender, Financial Performance, And Financial Management. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 11, 25-34.
Jiang, R.J., Tao, Q.T. and Santoro, M.D. (2010). Alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1136-1144.
Jiao, H., Alon, I., Koo, C.K. and Cui, Y. (2013). When should organizational change be implemented? The moderating effect of environmental dynamism between dynamic capabilities and new venture performance. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, 30, 188-205.
Jirjahn, U. and Kraft, K. (2007). Intra‐firm Wage Dispersion and Firm Performance–Is There a Uniform Relationship? Kyklos, 60, 231-253.
Karaevli, A. (2007). Performance consequences of new CEO ‘Outsiderness’: Moderating effects of pre‐and post‐succession contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 681-706.
Kim, S.W. (2009). An investigation on the direct and indirect effect of supply chain integration on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 119, 328-346.
Klingenberg, B., Timberlake, R., Geurts, T.G. and Brown, R.J. (2013). The relationship of operational innovation and financial performance—A critical perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 142, 317-323.
64
Komnenic, B., Tomic, D. and Tomic, R. (2013). Intangible Assets and Business Performance. Journal of American Business Review, Cambridge, 1, 165-172.
Kosmidou, K. (2008). The determinants of banks' profits in Greece during the period of EU financial integration. Managerial Finance, 34, 146-159.
Kumar, V., Jones, E., Venkatesan, R. and Leone, R.P. (2011). Is market orientation a source of sustainable competitive advantage or simply the cost of competing? Journal of Marketing, 75, 16-30.
Lafuente, E., Bayo‐Moriones, A. and García‐Cestona, M. (2009). ISO‐9000 Certification and Ownership Structure: Effects upon Firm Performance. British Journal of Management, 21, 649-665.
Lee, J. and Roh, J.J. (2012). Revisiting corporate reputation and firm performance link. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 19, 649-664.
Lee, R.P. (2010). Extending the Environment-Strategy-Performance Framework: The roles of multinational corporation network strength, market responsiveness, and product innovation. Journal of International Marketing, 18, 58-73.
Lee, S. and Qu, X. (2011). An examination of the curvilinear relationship between capital intensity and firm performance for publicly traded US hotels and restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23, 862-880.
Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: examining environmental influences. R&d Management, 39, 317-330.
Lin, H.-C. and Shih, C.-T. (2008). How Executive SHRM System Links to Firm Performance: The Perspectives of Upper Echelon and Competitive Dynamics†. Journal of Management, 34, 853-881.
Lin, Z.J., Yang, H. and Arya, B. (2009). Alliance partners and firm performance: resource complementarity and status association. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 921-940.
Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., and Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Oxford University Press. Lockett, A., Thompson, S. and Morgenstern, U. (2009). The development of the resource‐based view of the firm: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 9-28.
Losonci, D. and Demeter, K. (2013). Lean production and business performance: international empirical results. Competitiveness Review, 23, 218-233.
Lourenço, I.C., Branco, M.C., Curto, J.D. and Eugénio, T. (2012). How does the market value corporate sustainability performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 417-428.
65
Love, J.H., Roper, S. and Du, J. (2009). Innovation, ownership and profitability. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27, 424-434.
McDonald, M.L., Khanna, P. and Westphal, J.D. (2008). Getting them to think outside the circle: Corporate governance, CEOs' external advice networks, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 453-475.
McGahan, A.M. and Porter, M.E. (1997). How much does industry matter, really?
Melo, T. (2012a). Determinants of corporate social performance: The influence of organizational culture, management tenure and financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 8, 33-47.
Melo, T. (2012b). Slack-resources hypothesis: a critical analysis under a multidimensional approach to corporate social performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 8, 257-269.
Modi, S.B. and Mishra, S. (2011). What drives financial performance–resource efficiency or resource slack?: Evidence from US Based Manufacturing Firms from 1991 to 2006. Journal of Operations Management, 29, 254-273.
Muñoz-Bullón, F. and Sanchez-Bueno, M.J. (2011). Is there new evidence to show that product and international diversification influence SMEs' performance? EuroMed Journal of Business, 6, 63-76.
Newbert, S.L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource‐based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 121-146.
Newbert, S.L. (2014). Assessing performance measurement in RBV research. Journal of strategy and management, 7, 265-283.
North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance: Cambridge university press.
O'Brien, J.P. and Folta, T.B. (2009). A transaction cost perspective on why, how, and when cash impacts firm performance. Managerial and Decision Economics, 30, 465-479.
Oh, L.-B., Teo, H.-H. and Sambamurthy, V. (2012). The effects of retail channel integration through the use of information technologies on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 30, 368-381.
Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 697-713.
Omil, J.C., Lorenzo, P.C. and Liste, A.V. (2011). The power of intangibles in high-profitability firms. Total Quality Management, 22, 29-42.
66
Pavelin, S. and Porter, L.A. (2008). The corporate social performance content of innovation in the UK. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 711-725.
Peiró-Signes, Á., Verma, R. and Miret-Pastor, L. (2012). Does environmental certification help the economic performance of hotels? Evidence from the Spanish hotel industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53, 242-256.
Peng, M.W. and Heath, P.S. (1996). The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. Academy of management review, 21, 492-528.
Peng, M.W., Sun, S.L., Pinkham, B. and Chen, H. (2009). The Institution-Based View as a Third Leg for a Strategy Tripod. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 63-81.
Penrose, E.T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Wiley, New York.
Pesämaa, O., Shoham, A., Wincent, J. and Ruvio, A.A. (2013). How a learning orientation affects drivers of innovativeness and performance in service delivery. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, 30, 169-187.
Porter, M.E. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review.
Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competition. New York, 300.
Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive strategy: Creating and sustaining superior performance. The free, New York.
Porter, M.E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Simon and Schuster.
Powell, T.C. and Reinhardt, I. (2010). Rank friction: an ordinal approach to persistent profitability. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1244-1255.
Powell, W. (1990). In BM Staw & LL Cummings (Eds.). Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. Research in organizational behavior, 12, 295-336.
Reddy, K., Locke, S., Scrimgeour, F. and Gunasekarage, A. (2008). Corporate governance practices of small cap companies and their financial performance: an empirical study in New Zealand. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 4, 51-78.
Rettab, B., Brik, A.B. and Mellahi, K. (2009). A study of management perceptions of the impact of corporate social responsibility on organisational performance in emerging economies: the case of Dubai. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 371-390.
Ringov, D. and Zollo, M. (2007). The impact of national culture on corporate social performance. Corporate Governance, 7, 476-485.
Roxas, B., Chadee, D. and Erwee, R. (2012). Effects of rule of law on firm performance in South Africa. European Business Review, 24, 478-492.
67
Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D.E. and Teece, D.J. (1994). Fundamental issues in strategy. Fundamental issues in strategy: A research agenda, 9, 47.
Sciascia, S. and Mazzola, P. (2008). Family involvement in ownership and management: Exploring nonlinear effects on performance. Family Business Review, 21, 331-345.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Arregle, J.L. and Campbell, J.T. (2010). The dynamic interplay of capability strengths and weaknesses: investigating the bases of temporary competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1386-1409.
Steurer, R., Langer, M.E., Konrad, A. and Martinuzzi, A. (2005). Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development I: A theoretical exploration of business–society relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 263-281.
Tang, Z., Hull, C.E. and Rothenberg, S. (2012). How corporate social responsibility engagement strategy moderates the CSR–financial performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1274-1303.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-533.
Theriou, G.N. and Chatzoglou, P.D. (2009). Exploring the best HRM practices-performance relationship: an empirical approach. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21, 614-646.
Tsai, K.-H. and Yang, S.-Y. (2013). Firm innovativeness and business performance: The joint moderating effects of market turbulence and competition. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 1279-1294.
Ullmann, A.A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of management review, 10, 540-557.
Uzkurt, C., Kumar, R., Kimzan, H.S. and Eminoglu, G. (2013). Role of innovation in the relationship between organizational culture and firm performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16, 92-117.
Waddock, S.A. and Graves, S.B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303-319.
Wahyudi, I. (2013). Environmental dynamic, business strategy, and financial performance. South East Asian Journal of Management, 7, 57-71.
Wang, G., Jiang, X., Yuan, C.-H. and Yi, Y.-Q. (2013). Managerial ties and firm performance in an emerging economy: Tests of the mediating and moderating effects. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30, 537-559.
68
Wen-Ting, L. and Yunshi, L. (2012). Successor characteristics, change in the degree of firm internationalization, and firm performance: The moderating role of environmental uncertainty. Journal of Management & Organization, 18, 16-35.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180.
Wiggins, R.R. and Ruefli, T.W. (2002). Sustained competitive advantage: Temporal dynamics and the incidence and persistence of superior economic performance. Organization Science, 13, 81-105.
Williamson, O.E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York, 26-30.
Wolf, C. (2009). Does ownership matter? The performance and efficiency of State Oil vs. Private Oil (1987–2006). Energy Policy, 37, 2642-2652.
Wong, W.P. and Wong, K.Y. (2011). Supply chain management, knowledge management capability, and their linkages towards firm performance. Business Process Management Journal, 17, 940-964.
Wu, J. (2013). Marketing capabilities, institutional development, and the performance of emerging market firms: A multinational study. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30, 36-45.
Wu, M.-W. and Shen, C.-H. (2013). Corporate social responsibility in the banking industry: Motives and financial performance. Journal of banking & finance, 37, 3529-3547.
Yamakawa, Y., Yang, H. and Lin, Z.J. (2011). Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio: Performance implications of organizational, strategic, and environmental fit. Research Policy, 40, 287-296.
Yang, M.G.M., Hong, P. and Modi, S.B. (2011). Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental management on business performance: An empirical study of manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 129, 251-261.
69
Chapitre 5 : Conceptualizing and operationalizing sustainable competitive advantage as persistent superior economic, social, and environmental performance
Jean-Samuel Cloutier, Nabil Amara, and Réjean Landry
70
Résumé
L'article propose une nouvelle conceptualisation de l'ACD comme un construit de la
persistance de l'avantage concurrentiel économique, social et environnemental de
l'entreprise. Le nouvel instrument de mesure a été construit et validé en utilisant la
modélisation par équation structurelle et un échantillon de 1 419 entreprises cotées en
bourse. Les résultats soutiennent un construit de l'ACD comportant trois dimensions.
Contrairement aux études précédentes qui ont capté l'ACD en utilisant des mesures
ponctuelles, absolues et unipartites, ce document présente une conceptualisation et une
mesure de l'ACD qui tient compte de sa nature relative, persistante et multipartite. Une des
limites potentielles concerne la gamme de sous-dimensions développées, telles que
certaines facettes de l'ACD qui auraient pu avoir été négligées. Une autre limite concerne
les obstacles d'application à prévoir lors de cadres empiriques différents, par exemple
lorsqu'il est question de petites et moyennes entreprises.
71
Abstract
Purpose : This study served as a first step in introducing an interdisciplinary
conceptualization and operationalization of sustainable competitive advantage (SCA) as a
construct of persistent, higher than average economic, social, and environmental
performance.
Design/methodology/approach : A new measurement instrument was constructed and
validated using structural equation modeling and a sample of 1419 publicly traded firms.
Findings : The proposed measurement model provides a promising first step for measuring
SCA. The findings support the conceptualization and operationalization of SCA as a three-
dimensional construct.
Originality/value : The proposed model is unique in that unlike previous studies capturing
SCA using absolute, punctual, and uni-stakeholder measures, this model conceptualizes and
measures SCA to account for its relative, persistent, and multi-stakeholder nature.
Limitations : The range of developed sub-dimensions may be limited as some facets of
SCA may have been overlooked. Given the study’s empirical setting, the instrument may
not apply in the context of small and medium enterprises.
72
5.1. Introduction
The extensive strategic management literature presents sustainable competitive advantage
(SCA) as a desirable outcome because it focuses on the factors explaining their probability
of sustaining superior performance compared to competitors (Porter, 1985). Our previous
systematic reviews (Cloutier et al., 2016), along with a previous review (Newbert 2007),
show that earlier empirical studies have focused much more on confirming or disproving
particular relationships between explanatory variables and firm performance (Industry,
Resource, and Institution-based predictors) than on SCA as an outcome. Despite this
extensive literature on SCA determinants, surprisingly few systematic efforts are devoted to
conceptualizing and developing a valid SCA outcome measure (Wiggins and Ruefli, 2002,
Armstrong and Shimizu, 2007, Newbert, 2007, Newbert, 2014).
In most of the SCA empirical literature, the link between theories and methodology relating
to a specific SCA construct was at best implicit (Newbert, 2014, Cloutier et al., 2016). SCA
is predominantly operationalized as a firm’s absolute performance for its stockholders
without considering competitor performance nor sustainability (Newbert, 2014, Cloutier et
al., 2016). Moreover, a study acknowledging for relativity or persistence of SCA has used
uni-stakeholder constructs (Cloutier et al., 2016). Thus, a SCA construct refers to a firm’s
ability to persistently outperform its competitors from the viewpoint of all stakeholders.
This paper aims to address this gap by providing a richer conceptualization and
measurement of SCA as a construct of a firm’s persistent, abnormal economic, social, and
environmental performance. This perspective has several advantages: (1) it captures the
very relative and persistent nature of SCA overlooked by previous studies; (2) it captures
the persistence of firm competitive advantage for multiple stakeholders that seems not to
have been covered in earlier research; (3) it provides more accurate benchmarking tools to
assess SCA; and (4) from a managerial perspective, such a tool can help managers detect
specific strengths and weaknesses to guide their strategic and resource allocations
decisions.
Given SCA’s potentially important role in strategic management and the limitations noted
above, this paper has four primary purposes. First, this study uses the results of our
73
previous literature review (Cloutier et al., 2016) to describe the different operationalizations
of SCA, and to propose a relative, persistent, and multi-stakeholder conceptualization of
SCA. Second, relying on the best economic, social, and environmental performance data of
publicly traded firms, this study suggests an operationalization for the SCA construct.
However, given the lack of scholarly consensus in establishing the number of dimensions
comprising the construct (Callan and Thomas, 2009, Hubbard, 2009), this study compares
two competing models using exploratory and confirmatory structural equation modeling
analysis. Finally, the results are developed and analyzed, with limitations, and proposals for
future lines of research are made.
5.1.1. From absolute performance to persistent competitive advantage
There is as yet no agreement regarding the conceptualization and operationalization of
SCA. In this regard, the approaches used in empirical studies to the determinants of SCA
should connect with the definition of SCA in firms. A recent systematic literature review
suggests that there are four approaches to SCA: 1) absolute performance, 2) relative
performance, 3) profit persistence, and 4) multi-stakeholder performance (Cloutier et al.,
2016). A majority of articles use an unbenchmarked (absolute) measure of firm
performance, and few benchmarked firms’ performance relative to their competitors,
studied the temporal persistence of profits (Chacar et al., 2010, Chen and Lin, 2010, Powell
and Reinhardt, 2010, Chari and David, 2012) or examined more than one type of
performance (Kim, 2009, Camisón and Villar-López, 2011, Chiou et al., 2011, Germann et
al., 2013).
As underlined by Newbert (2014), the main shortcoming of previous empirical studies
using the first approach is a misalignment between theory and measurement, leading to
inconsistent findings in that even if strategic management scholars traditionally
conceptualized SCA as firm performance compared directly to that of its competitors
(relative performance), the overwhelming majority operationalizes the dependent variable
in terms of a firm’s performance in isolation or absolute performance (Newbert, 2014,
Cloutier et al., 2016). In contrast, the second approach investigating firms’ relative
performance underlines the importance of using a competitive benchmark (industry
average) to assess a firm’s competitive position and competitive advantage.
74
However, the second approach does not account for the sustainability of competitive
advantage by any means (Wiggins and Ruefli, 2005). In contrast, empirical studies
following the third approach accounted for the persistence of firm competitive advantage.
Temporal persistence is a fundamental property of SCA that challenges the very
foundations of the theory of general equilibrium (Arrow and Debreu, 1954) and the
resulting profit convergence hypothesis (Mueller, 1986). Indeed, two particularly explicit
references to temporal sustainability worth mentioning are publications by Porter (1985) on
sustained superior performance and Lockett et al.’s (2009) review on the resource-based
view of competitive advantage that defines SCA as an abnormal profit persisting in the
longer term (Lockett et al., 2009, p.11). However, despite the importance of persistent
abnormal returns as a research stream in economics (for a review see Mueller, 1986), few
studies in strategic management focus on this phenomenon (Wiggins and Ruefli, 2002,
Wiggins and Ruefli, 2005, Choi and Wang, 2009, Powell and Reinhardt, 2010).
As shown in Figure 5.1, this study distinguishes between three forms of competitive
advantage. All firms performing a significant economic activity yielding a certain
performance have a potential competitive advantage. Only those firms that outperform
their competitors have a realized competitive advantage, and among these, only those
with superiority persisting over time have a persistent competitive advantage (PCA).
Figure 5.1. From potential competitive advantage to persistent competitive advantage.
However, the concept of sustainability has more than a simply temporal signification.
Studies of absolute performance, relative performance, and persistence of abnormal returns
focused only on shareholder performance. The form of competitive advantage proposed
75
here (potential, realized or persistent) is non-specific and unrelated to any particular
stakeholder. Indeed, these forms of competitive advantage apply to any type of
performance. The next section discusses SCA using a multi-stakeholder perspective to
account for the sustainability of PCA, as suggested by the fourth approach.
5.1.2. From persistent to sustainable competitive advantage: two competing models
A recent systematic review of the literature into SCA reveals a range of performance types
pertaining to stockholders, customers, employees, the community, and the environment
(Cloutier et al., 2016). Stockholder performance was most often captured with measures of
profit such as return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), return on investments (ROI),
and return on sales (ROS) (Bogner and Bansal, 2007, Dehning et al., 2007, McDonald et
al., 2008, Baron et al., 2011, Modi and Mishra, 2011, Yang et al., 2011, Hoque et al., 2013,
Kwon and Rupp, 2013, Wu and Shen, 2013).
Firm performance for its customers was generally captured with measures of sales growth
and market share. Market share is calculated as the ratio of sales to all firms’ sales
(Galdeano-Gomez, 2008) and sales growth as measured by the average growth rate of sales
revenue (Lee and Roh, 2012).
Firm performance for its employees was captured with measures such as salary and
bonuses, employee turnover, and perceived satisfaction (Rettab et al., 2009, Huang, 2010,
Jalbert et al., 2011, Melo, 2012a).
Firm performance for its community was generally captured with measures of charitable
giving and volunteer program participation (Brammer and Millington, 2008, Huang, 2010,
Melo, 2012a, Melo, 2012b).
Firm performance for the environment was measured according to its adoption of practices
and policies for clean energy use and pollution prevention, and effective reductions in
emissions (Darnall, 2009, Lafuente et al., 2009, Carrión-Flores and Innes, 2010, Yang et
al., 2011, Gholami et al., 2013).
A previous systematic review (Cloutier et al., 2016) provides a broader vision of SCA
conceptualized as a multi-stakeholder construct of a firm’s PCA, including: stockholders,
76
customers, employees, the community, and the environment. However, even if many
studies published to date agree that sustainability is essentially multidimensional (e.g.,
(Brundtland, 1987, Elkington, 1997)), they establish a different number of dimensions with
a different content, thus leading to two competing models of SCA (Figure 5.2).
Studies into corporate social responsibility in a previous systematic review (Cloutier et al.,
2016) almost always conceptualize SCA as a two-dimensional construct: a firm’s ability to
have good corporate social responsibility (social and environmental performance) that does
not hinder financial performance; or using the triple bottom line theory (Elkington, 1997,
Hubbard, 2009) that sees sustainability as a firm’s ability to perform economically,
socially, and environmentally, thereby suggesting a three-dimension construct.
Figure 5.2. Two competing models of SCA suggested by : a) corporate social responsibility studies, and b) the triple bottom line.
5.2. Methodology
5.2.1. Data and measures
Data from KLD Research and Analytics Inc. was used to construct measures of firm PCA
for stockholders, customers, employees, the community, and the environment. These data
were analyzed for the 7-year period from 2003 to 2009, which was then merged with
COMPUSTAT data to obtain information about financial performance. After preserving
only firms present in the database for the total sample period, those whose status was
"active'', and eliminating those whose status was "in reorganization," "acquired,"
77
"liquidated," or "out of business", a final sample of 1419 firms and 9933 firm-year
observations was left. All firms from our sample pertain to the Russell 3000 Index which
measures the performance of the largest 3,000 U.S. companies, representing approximately
98% of the U.S. equity market. The Russell 3000 Index is constructed to provide a
comprehensive, unbiased, and stable barometer of the broad market (Russell Investments).
According to Bloomberg, the number of firms in the Russell 3000 on 31 January 2009 was
2950, the sample is quite representative (48%) of the large publicly owned American firms.
KLD employee, community, diversity, product safety, and environmental performance
measures are appraised in terms of several “strengths” and “concerns.” To arrive at a net
score for each dimension, the total number of concerns was subtracted from the total
number of strengths (Graves et al., 2005). Firm performance for its stockholders was
measured using ROA and return on capital (ROC). Firm performance for its customers was
measured using sales growth. Following previous studies on persistence performance
(McGahan and Porter, 1997, 1999), all economic, social, and environmental measures of
firm performance were adjusted by its industry average (for COMPUSTAT measures) or
median (for KLD measures) calculated at the four-digit Standard Industrial Classification
code level. All firms with a positive relative performance in a given year were given the
value 1, and 0 otherwise, and were considered to have a competitive advantage over rivals
in a given year. The persistence of each competitive advantage was obtained by counting
the number of years a firm held a competitive advantage. Two random, independent
samples were then drawn from the total sample. The first sub-sample includes 664
observations and the second 754, used for the exploratory and confirmatory stages of the
study, respectively.
The most commonly used statistical estimators for structural equation modeling, such as the
Maximum Likelihood and Generalized Least Squares, assume the normality of the data.
The SPSS software package is used to analyze the normality of each indicator, which
indicated the absence of normality in the data. This study therefore used the MLR
estimator, which is a maximum likelihood parameter estimate with standard errors and a
chi-square test statistic that are robust to non-normality of observations.
78
5.2.2. Exploratory analysis
The exploratory analysis uses the first sub-sample of 664 observations, using principal
component factor extraction with Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization and set free
the number of factors to extract. Before the analysis, the correlation matrix between the
items was first checked for problems of multicollinearity to ensure that no variable
displayed a correlation coefficient greater than 0.80 or less than 0.30 with all other
variables (Field, 2009, p.647). Second, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy is 0.631, indicating that the sample size is sufficient for the number of processed
variables. Third, the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was significant at 1% (α = 0.000),
rejecting the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix and indicating
that the observed variables are sufficiently correlated to perform the analysis. The
exploratory analysis was performed as these three conditions were verified (Stafford and
Bodson, 2006).
With almost all communalities greater than 0.5, except competitive advantage for
employees and the environment, which were lower (0.385 and 0.388, respectively), the
proportion of each variable's variance that can be explained by the analysis is sufficient,
though not optimal. These two variables were retained as they are important in the
construct. Thus, as shown in Table 5.1, all items in the analysis have significant loadings on
a single factor such that three latent factors remained after this exploratory analysis.
The total variance explained by these five factors is 57.9%, with an additional uni-
dimensionality and internal consistency check performed using Cronbach's Alpha index of
reliability (Cronbach, 1951) for each of the three factors. While they prove uni-
dimensional, the Cronbach (0.71, 0.45, and 0.294) coefficients were rather weak, especially
for the social and environmental dimensions (see Table 5.1). This study served as a first
step in introducing an interdisciplinary conceptualization and operationalization of the SCA
construct as economic, social, and environmental PCA. The weakness of the psychometric
quality of these dimensions calls for the development of better data collection tools for the
assessment of the social and environmental performance of firms.
79
Table 5.1. Exploratory analysis of the SCA dimensions. Factors Persistence of firm competitive advantage for: 1 2 3 Stockholders (Profit margin) 0.849 -0.119 0.091 Stockholders (ROA) 0.706 0.111 -0.125
Customers (Sales growth) 0.816 0.124 0.207 Community (Charitable giving) -0.039 0.741 Diversity (Respect for minorities) 0.092 0.745 Employee (Union relations and profit sharing) 0.082 0.538 Environment (Input and emission reduction) 0.032 0.194 0.700 Environment (Product safety) -0.004 -0.05 0.778 Cronbach's Alpha 0.705 0.45 0.294
Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation
A priori, the exploratory analysis favors a three-factor model in line with the three baselines
theory. The first dimension of SCA would be a persistent economic advantage (for its
stockholders and customers), the second would be a persistent social competitive advantage
(for its employees, the community, and diversity), and the third would be a persistent
environmental competitive advantage (for input and emission reductions, and product
safety). However, further analyses are required to confirm this assertion.
5.2.3. Confirmatory analysis
As illustrated in Figure 5.2, studies into the corporate social responsibility theory or the
triple bottom line theory agree that sustainability is a multidimensional construct, but
establish a different number of dimensions with different contents. Corporate social
responsibility studies identified in a previous systematic review (Cloutier et al., 2016)
suggest a two-dimensional construct for SCA: the first is PCA for stockholders and
customers, and the second is PCA for all other stakeholders (employees, community,
diversity, pollution prevention and reduction, and product safety).
On the other hand, the triple bottom line theory suggests a three-dimensional construct for
SCA. Operationally, and given the previous exploratory analysis, the first dimension of
SCA is PCA for stockholders and customers, the second is PCA for other stakeholders
(employees, community, and diversity), and the third is PCA in terms of environmental
performance.
80
Our confirmatory analysis in light of this theoretical discussion aims to determine the
theoretical configuration of SCA that best represents the empirical setting. Nonetheless,
since the two proposed SCA configurations consist of models of a second order, this study
adopted a systematic hierarchical approach to validate the better of two theoretical
configurations. Following Koufteros et al.’s (2009) paradigm for second-order modeling,
this exercise is necessary as there could be multiple measurement model configurations that
can characterize a given data set, and this effort is hierarchical in nature.
This hierarchical approach analyzes the seven alternative empirical configurations that
potentially describe the relationships between observed and latent variables. Model 1 is
hypothesized to include one first-order latent variable with 8 observed indicators. Models
1a and 2a hypothesize second order models with two and three first-order uncorrelated
factors, respectively. Models 1b and 2b are similar to Models 1a and 2a, except that factor
correlations are specified. Models 1c and 2c hypothesize second order models with two and
three latent factors.
The confirmatory analysis uses the second sub-sample of 754 observations, with the
goodness of fit for each configuration based on the absolute fit indices (Chi2/dl and
RMSEA), which determine how well an a priori model fits the sample data (McDonald and
Ho, 2002), Incremental fit indices (CFI and TLI) compare different models (McDonald and
Ho, 2002, Miles and Shevlin, 2007), and parsimonious fit indices (BIC) indicate which of
the models is the most practical.
The results of the confirmatory analyses determine which SCA construct is the best for this
empirical setting. The next section examines the fit of each of these theoretical and
empirical configurations.
5.3. Results
Figure 5.3 illustrates a comparison of all model configurations, and Table 5.2 reports their
goodness of fit indices. The one factor (Model 0) specifies that economic, social, and
environmental items reflect one latent variable. The chi-square per degree of freedom of the
model was above 5, and other fit indices indicate a poor model fit, which also illustrates
one of the adverse consequences of combining observed variables representing different
81
content domains into the same latent variable. Although they are somewhat correlated, this
indicates that the items in each domain reflect distinct facets of SCA that are not
acknowledged through a specification such as that represented by Model 0.
The uncorrelated two and three factor models (Models 1a and 2a) show that the latent
variables in the model are too strongly correlated to produce a good model fit with such an
orthogonal specification. These models did have a poor fit. When first-order factors are
poorly correlated, this specification could prove appropriate, though this case has high
correlations between first-order factors, so Models 1a and 2a are not adapted. Models 1b
and 2b were similar to Models 1a and 2a, except that the latent variables were free to
correlate. A second-order model structure was then added to test Models 1c and 2c. Though
freeing the correlation and adding a second order structure significantly improved the fit for
both the two and the three factor models, all models except 2c show a poor fit. The three-
factor model with a second order structure fit was the best of all tested models, as almost all
fit indices met the minimum criteria. Given the need for second-order models from a
conceptual point of view, Model 2c appears to be a reliable alternative for SCA modeling in
this empirical setting.
Overall, given the absolute and incremental fit indices, the three-factor second order model
(Model 2c) has the best fit. However, an initial review of the data could suggest that the
two and the three-factor models have an insignificantly different fit. Indeed, comparing
their respective BIC, a difference of 7 indicates strong evidence (Kass and Raftery, 1995)
that the three-factor second order model is more appropriate than the two-factor second
order model, given this empirical setting.
82
Figure 5.3. Alternative models for the SCA construct of PCA.
83
Table 5.2. Goodness of fit indices for alternative models.
5.4. Discussion
The measurement model proposed in this study offers a very good fit for measuring SCA.
SCA has previously suffered from theoretical and measurement misalignment, leading to
inconsistent findings resulting from overlapping conceptualizations of performance,
competitive advantage, persistence, and SCA, or from failing to provide a clear distinction
between these concepts. Unlike previous studies, this study offers a conceptualization and
measurement of SCA as the firm’s ability to simultaneously develop an economic, social,
and environmental PCA.
The new measurement instrument was constructed and validated following a hierarchical
methodology to test multiple measurement model configurations that can characterize a
given data set, repeated to validate the two main competing models of firm SCA and
identify the most reliable one. Given the empirical setting, evidence suggests that the triple
bottom line model is more appropriate than the two factor model used by most corporate
social responsibility studies in terms of SCA. The exploratory and confirmatory analysis
supports the conceptualization and operationalization of SCA as a three-dimensional
construct of persistent economic, social, and environmental competitive advantage
(superior performance than competitors). In fact, most of the reviewed corporate social
responsibility studies use an aggregate measure of corporate social/environmental
performance (Graves and Waddock, 1994, Griffin and Mahon, 1997, Waddock and Graves,
1997, Johnson and Greening, 1999, Hillman and Keim, 2001, Ruf et al., 2001, Deckop et
al., 2006, Shropshire and Hillman, 2007, Hull and Rothenberg, 2008, Callan and Thomas,
Fit indices Chi2/dl CFI TLI RMSEA BIC
Acceptable Threshold Levels < 3 > 0.95 > 0.95 < 0.05 Model 0 (one factor) 9.82 0.80 0.72 0.11 1667.07 Model 1a (2 factors uncorrelated) 4.47 0.91 0.88 0.07 1538.28 Model 1b (2 factors correlated) 3.65 0.93 0.91 0.06 1523.54 Model 1c (second order 2 factors) 3.65 0.93 0.91 0.06 1523.54 Model 2a (3 factors uncorrelated) 4.76 0.91 0.88 0.07 1553.76 Model 2b (3 factors correlated) 3.35 0.95 0.93 0.06 1523.19 Model 2c (second order 3 factors) 3.10 0.96 0.93 0.05 1516.72 Sub-Sample 2 (n= 754)
84
2009, Nelling and Webb, 2009, Gibbs, 2012, Mulyadi and Anwar, 2012, Sun, 2012, Lee et
al., 2013, Peters and Golden, 2013), as Waddock and Graves (1997) and McWilliams and
Siegel (2000) recommend. However, combining manifest variables from various content
domains (i.e., that are not unidimensional) into one first-order latent variable is
conceptually and methodologically perilous. Therefore, future studies must follow more
rigorous steps when combining observed variables to form latent indices.
The measurement instrument developed herein could facilitate the identification of direct
and indirect determinants of economic, social, and environmental persistence and SCA.
Industry characteristics, firm resources, dynamic capabilities, and governance mechanisms
greatly influence a firm’s economic, social, and environmental performance (Cloutier et al.,
2016). However, no study has considered the influence of these industry and firm level
predictors on economic, social, and environmental PCA, nor on SCA as defined in this
study.
Moreover, since firms invest their resources to improve their ability to develop economic,
social, and environmental PCA, a question emerges: How do firms decide which categories
of activities to invest their resources in? The complementary hypothesis suggests that
resources invested in one activity predict performance in that activity as well as in other
associated activities. The substitution hypothesis rests on the idea that investments in one
activity come at the expense of investments in and the performance of other activities.
Researchers could examine the interaction patterns (i.e., complementarity, substitution, and
independence) among the development of a persistent economic, social, and environmental
competitive advantage in firms.
This study sought to conceptualize and operationalize SCA, though it has several
limitations. One potential limitation concerns the range of the developed sub-dimensions
for SCA, since its complexity may mean that some facets of SCA may have been
overlooked. Indeed, the data in this study cover only a limited set of stakeholders than those
defined according to the Freeman stakeholder types (1984). However, this limitation seems
to have minimal impact because the conceptualization of SCA incorporated multiple rounds
of theory built upon a previous extensive systematic literature review (Cloutier et al., 2016).
Moreover, each of the dimensions was included, solely or with others, in previous studies.
85
Another potential limitation concerns the nature of the samples used in this research. The
survey targeted publicly traded enterprises likely to have longitudinal data available for
their economic, social, and environmental performance. The specific nature of the sample
used in this study may have had an impact on the conceptualization of SCA and thereby on
the generalizability of the results. The instrument developed herein may not apply to small
and medium enterprises, which are the cornerstone of several economic systems. For
instance, there may be more relevant dimensions in the small and medium enterprises
context. A further validation of the SCA conceptualization and measurement should also
examine other types of organizations.
In conclusion, this study served as a first step in introducing an interdisciplinary
conceptualization and operationalization of the SCA construct as economic, social, and
environmental PCA. Despite the limitations noted earlier, these results provide a promising
first step that will hopefully facilitate the future study of the extent and determinants of
SCA in different industries and types of firms.
86
5.5. References
ARMSTRONG, C. E., DRNEVICH, P. L. & NEWBERT, S. L. Conversations in competitive advantage: A bibliographic analysis of the major research streams and their influence on the field. Atlanta Competitive Advantage Conference Paper, 2009.
ARMSTRONG, C. E. & SHIMIZU, K. 2007. A Review of Approaches to Empirical Research on the Resource-Based View of the Firm†. Journal of management, 33, 959-986.
ARROW, K. J. & DEBREU, G. 1954. Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 265-290.
BARON, D. P., AGUS HARJOTO, M. & JO, H. 2011. The economics and politics of corporate social performance. Business and Politics, 13.
BOGNER, W. C. & BANSAL, P. 2007. Knowledge management as the basis of sustained high performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 165-188.
BRAMMER, S. & MILLINGTON, A. 2008. Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1325-1343.
BRUNDTLAND, G. H. 1987. Our Common Future: World Commission on Environmental Development. The Brundtland-Report Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
CALLAN, S. J. & THOMAS, J. M. 2009. Corporate financial performance and corporate social performance: an update and reinvestigation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 61-78.
CAMISÓN, C. & VILLAR-LÓPEZ, A. 2011. Non-technical innovation: organizational memory and learning capabilities as antecedent factors with effects on sustained competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 1294-1304.
CARRIÓN-FLORES, C. E. & INNES, R. 2010. Environmental innovation and environmental performance. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59, 27-42.
CHACAR, A. S., NEWBURRY, W. & VISSA, B. 2010. Bringing institutions into performance persistence research: Exploring the impact of product, financial, and labor market institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1119-1140.
CHARI, M. D. & DAVID, P. 2012. Sustaining superior performance in an emerging economy: An empirical test in the Indian context. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 217-229.
CHEN, Y.-M. & LIN, F.-J. 2010. The persistence of superior performance at industry and firm levels: Evidence from the IT industry in Taiwan. Industry and Innovation, 17, 469-486.
87
CHIOU, T.-Y., CHAN, H. K., LETTICE, F. & CHUNG, S. H. 2011. The influence of greening the suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47, 822-836.
CHOI, J. & WANG, H. 2009. Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 895-907.
CLOUTIER, J.-S., AMARA, N. & LANDRY, R. 2016. Sustainable competitive advantage: a systematic review of the literature from 2007 to 2013. Unpublished Manuscript.
CRONBACH, L. J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
DARNALL, N. 2009. Regulatory stringency, green production offsets, and organizations' financial performance. Public Administration Review, 69, 418-434.
DECKOP, J. R., MERRIMAN, K. K. & GUPTA, S. 2006. The effects of CEO pay structure on corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 32, 329-342.
DEHNING, B., RICHARDSON, V. J. & ZMUD, R. W. 2007. The financial performance effects of IT-based supply chain management systems in manufacturing firms. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 806-824.
ELKINGTON, J. 1997. Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of twenty first century business. Capstone, Mankato, MN.
FIELD, A. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS, Sage publications.
FREEMAN, R. E. 1984. Stakeholder management: framework and philosophy. Pitman, Mansfield, MA.
GALDEANO-GOMEZ, E. 2008. Productivity effects of environmental performance: evidence from TFP analysis on marketing cooperatives. Applied Economics, 40, 1873-1888.
GERMANN, F., LILIEN, G. L. & RANGASWAMY, A. 2013. Performance implications of deploying marketing analytics. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30, 114-128.
GHOLAMI, R., SULAIMAN, A. B., RAMAYAH, T. & MOLLA, A. 2013. Senior managers’ perception on green information systems (IS) adoption and environmental performance: Results from a field survey. Information & Management, 50, 431-438.
GIBBS, C. 2012. Corporate citizenship and corporate environmental performance. Crime, law and social change, 57, 345-372.
88
GRAVES, S., WADDOCK, S. & KELLY, M. 2005. How the list is put together: The methodology behind the corporate citizenship rankings.
GRAVES, S. B. & WADDOCK, S. A. 1994. Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1034-1046.
GRIFFIN, J. J. & MAHON, J. F. 1997. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36, 5-31.
HILLMAN, A. J. & KEIM, G. D. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what's the bottom line? Strategic management journal, 22, 125-139.
HOQUE, M. Z., ISLAM, M. & AZAM, M. N. 2013. Board Committee Meetings and Firm Financial Performance: An Investigation of Australian Companies. International Review of Finance, 13, 503-528.
HUANG, C.-J. 2010. Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 16, 641-655.
HUBBARD, G. 2009. Measuring organizational performance: beyond the triple bottom line. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18, 177-191.
HULL, C. E. & ROTHENBERG, S. 2008. Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 781-789.
JALBERT, T., FURUMO, K. & JALBERT, M. 2011. Does Educational Background Affect CEO Compensation And Firm Performance? Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 27, 15-40.
JOHNSON, R. A. & GREENING, D. W. 1999. The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 564-576.
KASS, R. E. & RAFTERY, A. E. 1995. Bayes factors. Journal of the American statistical association, 90, 773-795.
KIM, S. W. 2009. An investigation on the direct and indirect effect of supply chain integration on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 119, 328-346.
KOUFTEROS, X., BABBAR, S. & KAIGHOBADI, M. 2009. A paradigm for examining second-order factor models employing structural equation modeling. International Journal of Production Economics, 120, 633-652.
89
KWON, K. & RUPP, D. E. 2013. High‐performer turnover and firm performance: The moderating role of human capital investment and firm reputation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 129-150.
LAFUENTE, E., BAYO‐MORIONES, A. & GARCÍA‐CESTONA, M. 2009. ISO‐9000 Certification and Ownership Structure: Effects upon Firm Performance. British Journal of Management, 21, 649-665.
LEE, J. & ROH, J. J. 2012. Revisiting corporate reputation and firm performance link. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 19, 649-664.
LEE, S., SEO, K. & SHARMA, A. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and firm performance in the airline industry: The moderating role of oil prices. Tourism Management, 38, 20-30.
LOCKETT, A., THOMPSON, S. & MORGENSTERN, U. 2009. The development of the resource‐based view of the firm: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 9-28.
MCDONALD, M. L., KHANNA, P. & WESTPHAL, J. D. 2008. Getting them to think outside the circle: Corporate governance, CEOs' external advice networks, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 453-475.
MCDONALD, R. P. & HO, M.-H. R. 2002. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological methods, 7, 64.
MCGAHAN, A. M. & PORTER, M. E. 1997. How much does industry matter, really? Strategic management journal, 18(SUMMER), 15-30.
MCGAHAN, A. M. & PORTER, M. E. 1999. The persistence of shocks to profitability. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81, 143-153.
MCWILLIAMS, A. & SIEGEL, D. 2000. Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Correlation or Misspecification. V Strategic Management Journal (May 2000), 21, 603.
MELO, T. 2012a. Determinants of corporate social performance: The influence of organizational culture, management tenure and financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 8, 33-47.
MELO, T. 2012b. Slack-resources hypothesis: a critical analysis under a multidimensional approach to corporate social performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 8, 257-269.
MILES, J. & SHEVLIN, M. 2007. A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 869-874.
90
MODI, S. B. & MISHRA, S. 2011. What drives financial performance–resource efficiency or resource slack?: Evidence from US Based Manufacturing Firms from 1991 to 2006. Journal of Operations Management, 29, 254-273.
MUELLER, D. C. 1986. Profits in the long run, Cambridge University Press.
MULYADI, M. S. & ANWAR, Y. 2012. Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Toward Firm Value and Profitability. The Business Review, Cambridge, 19, 316-322.
NELLING, E. & WEBB, E. 2009. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: the “virtuous circle” revisited. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 32, 197-209.
NEWBERT, S. L. 2007. Empirical research on the resource‐based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic management journal, 28, 121-146.
NEWBERT, S. L. 2014. Assessing performance measurement in RBV research. Journal of Strategy and Management, 7, 265-283.
PETERS, R. & GOLDEN, P. 2013. Stakeholder Networks and Strategy: The Influence of Network Consistency and Network Diversity on Firm Performance. Journal of Business Strategies, 30.
PORTER, M. E. 1985. Competitive strategy: Creating and sustaining superior performance. The free, New York.
POWELL, T. C. & REINHARDT, I. 2010. Rank friction: an ordinal approach to persistent profitability. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1244-1255.
RETTAB, B., BRIK, A. B. & MELLAHI, K. 2009. A study of management perceptions of the impact of corporate social responsibility on organisational performance in emerging economies: the case of Dubai. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 371-390.
RUF, B. M., MURALIDHAR, K., BROWN, R. M., JANNEY, J. J. & PAUL, K. 2001. An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 32, 143-156.
SHROPSHIRE, C. & HILLMAN, A. J. 2007. A longitudinal study of significant change in stakeholder management. Business & society, 46, 63-87.
STAFFORD, J. & BODSON, P. 2006. L'analyse multivariée avec SPSS, Puq.
SUN, L. 2012. Further evidence on the association between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. International Journal of Law and Management, 54, 472-484.
WADDOCK, S. A. & GRAVES, S. B. 1997. The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic management journal, 18, 303-319.
91
WIGGINS, R. R. & RUEFLI, T. W. 2002. Sustained competitive advantage: Temporal dynamics and the incidence and persistence of superior economic performance. Organization Science, 13, 81-105.
WIGGINS, R. R. & RUEFLI, T. W. 2005. Schumpeter's ghost: Is hypercompetition making the best of times shorter? Strategic Management Journal, 26, 887-911.
WU, M.-W. & SHEN, C.-H. 2013. Corporate social responsibility in the banking industry: Motives and financial performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37, 3529-3547.
YANG, M. G. M., HONG, P. & MODI, S. B. 2011. Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental management on business performance: An empirical study of manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 129, 251-261.
92
Chapitre 6 : The virtuous cycle of economic, social, and environmental persistent competitive advantage
Jean-Samuel Cloutier, Nabil Amara, and Réjean Landry
93
Résumé
Cet article s'intéresse à la question suivante : comment les entreprises gèrent-elles le
développement de leur ACD lorsqu'elles ont à choisir parmi des activités qui profitent à
différentes parties prenantes? Un échantillon de 992 entreprises cotées en bourse est utilisé
pour étudier les relations de complémentarité entre la persistance de l'avantage
concurrentiel économique, social et environnemental et leurs déterminants. Les résultats de
l'étude suggèrent que ces types d'avantage concurrentiel se renforcent mutuellement,
comme si les ressources investies pour améliorer l'avantage concurrentiel social et
environnemental de la firme prédisaient non seulement la persistance de ces types
d'avantage concurrentiel, mais aussi la persistance de l'avantage concurrentiel économique.
En outre, les résultats montrent également que les caractéristiques de l'industrie, les
ressources, les capacités dynamiques et les mécanismes de gouvernance sont des
déterminants importants de la persistance de l'avantage concurrentiel économique, social et
environnemental.
94
Abstract
Purpose: This study examines how firms manage to develop a sustainable competitive
advantage when choosing among activities that benefit different categories of stakeholders.
Design/methodology/approach: This article uses data on publicly traded firms and employs
structural equation modeling to investigate relationships between several dimensions of
persistent competitive advantages (PCA).
Findings: The results show significant complementarities among three dimensions of
competitive advantages, suggesting that economic, social, and environmental PCA
reinforce each other. Moreover, the results also show that industry characteristics, firm
resources, dynamic capabilities, and governance mechanisms are important determinants of
these PCAs.
Originality/value: This study differs from most prior articles studying multiple type of
performance in separate models, since it simultaneously investigate complementarities
between economic, social, and environmental persistent competitive advantage.
95
6.1. Introduction
The strategic management literature presents sustainable competitive advantage (SCA) as a
desirable outcome for firms because it focuses on the factors that explain their probability
of sustaining a superior performance compared to competitors (Porter, 1985). The
importance for firms of developing and sustaining a competitive advantage has increased in
the 1990s as a result of changes in market conditions and increasing competition (D'Aveni,
2010). These changes generate threats and opportunities, giving new significance to the
question: how should firms develop and maintain SCA when they must choose among
activities that benefit different stakeholders?
This study has two primary aims. First, it examines complementarities between economic,
social, and environmental persistent competitive advantage (PCA) to understand how firms
invest in these activities benefitting different stakeholders. Studying the relationships
between these three dimensions of PCA can provide insights into firm strategies to develop
SCA. Second, this study identifies industry-, resource-, and governance-based determinants
of the three forms of competitive advantage.
Prior studies of SCA focus on the determinants of absolute performance for stockholders,
rarely considering the performance relative to competitors, temporal persistence, or
sustainability (benefits for multiple stakeholders) (e.g. Newbert, 2014, Cloutier et al.,
2016b). The richer form of competitive advantage captured by relative, persistent, and
multi-stakeholder measures and the question of how firms allocate investments to activities
that benefit different categories of stakeholders have received much less attention. This
study aims to fill this gap by examining a sample of publicly traded firms to shed light on
the determinants of economic, social, and environmental PCA, and on the interaction
patterns among these competitive advantages.
Moreover, while prior studies have examined the determinants of firm stockholders, social,
and/or environmental performance in separate models, this study simultaneously estimates
three regression equations to reflect the fact that, in practice, firms must constantly choose
among activities that benefit different stakeholders when deciding where to invest their
resources. This study uses three dependent variables, namely, economic, social, and
96
environmental PCA, and includes industry competition, firms’ tangible and intangible
resources, experience, R&D intensity, networks, governance, firm size, and age as
explanatory variables. The results show that most explanatory variables are consistent
significant predictors across the different forms of competitive advantage.
The paper is organized as follows. First, a construct of SCA is presented as the persistence
of economic, social, and environmental competitive advantage, followed by the hypothesis
of substitution and complementarities in how firms allocate their resources among activities
to increase their economic, social, and environmental PCA. Third, relying on the best
available data on the economic, social, and environmental performance of publicly traded
firms, a structural multivariate model is estimated to identify the patterns of
complementarities and/or substitution, and the determinants of each form of PCA. The
subsequent section outlines the estimation results. Last, the paper concludes with a
discussion of the implications of the results on firm strategies and offers future research
avenues.
6.2. Literature review
6.2.1. An extended vision of competitive advantage
Strategic management scholars generally conceptualize SCA as a firm’s performance in
direct comparison to that of its competitors (relative performance) (Newbert, 2014).
Moreover, many authors (e.g. Porter, 1985, McGahan and Porter, 1997, McGahan and
Porter, 1999) and profit persistence studies (Chacar et al., 2010, Chen and Lin, 2010,
Powell and Reinhardt, 2010, Chari and David, 2012), suggest that the sustainability of
competitive advantage is a time-related concept. Cloutier et al. (2016a) distinguish between
absolute and relative, and between punctual and persistent measures of competitive
advantage, and propose three forms of competitive advantage: potential, realized, and
persistent. Indeed, all firms performing a significant economic activity yielding a certain
performance have a potential competitive advantage. Firms that outperform their
competitors (i.e. that have a positive relative performance), have a realized competitive
advantage. Subsequently, only the firms that maintain this superiority over time have a
PCA.
97
However, since the concept of sustainability as applied to firms’ SCA should not be seen as
having only a temporal significance, this study uses the multi-stakeholder construct of SCA
previously proposed by Cloutier et al. (2016b) as well as a similar empirical setting. Figure
6.1 illustrates SCA as a construct of persistent economic, social, and environmental
performance (Cloutier et al., 2016b). As shown in Cloutier et al. (2016b) systematic review,
industry-, resource-, and institution-based variables are at play when it comes to the
predictor of SCA, the most significant lever to trigger a firm’s SCA being: the firm’s
intangible resources, experience, networks, innovation, and governance mechanisms.
Indeed, this study tests these most leveraged determinants as shown in Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1. SCA as the persistence of economic, social, and environmental performance and its determinants.
6.2.2. Interaction patterns among economic, social, and environmental PCA
From the question: “How do firms decide to invest their resources among activities that
benefit different stakeholders?”, two hypotheses emerge. The first, a substitution hypothesis
rooted in neoclassical economics, rests on the idea that investments to improve a firm’s
social or environmental performance come at the expense of performance for stockholders,
98
as they generate unnecessary costs that decrease competitive advantage. Among the
proponents of the substitution hypothesis, Friedman (1962, 1970) is the best known for
arguing that a company’s sole responsibility is to conduct business according to the
shareholders’ desire to make as much money as possible. According to this research stream,
resources dedicated to social and environmental programs or actions are better spent
improving efficiency or should be returned to shareholders (Barnett, 2007, Scherer and
Palazzo, 2011).
On the other hand, proponents of the complementary hypothesis suggest that resources
dedicated to social and environmental performance also predict firm performance for its
stockholders, and vice versa. The complementarity hypothesis was developed following
Freeman's (1984) seminal work setting the basis for a new managerial model involving
radical changes in the neoclassical model. The stakeholder approach introduces the
necessity for a firm to know the most relevant stakeholders and the extent to which their
needs are integrated into the strategic objectives. Following proponents of the stakeholder
theory, value is generated for shareholders when the firm generates value for different
stakeholders, and vice versa (Freeman, 2004, Husted and de Jesus Salazar, 2006). Clarkson
(1995) goes even further, arguing that ''the survival and continuing profitability of the
corporation depend upon its ability to fulfil its economic and social purpose, which is to
create and distribute wealth or value sufficient to ensure that each primary stakeholder
group continues as a part of the corporation’s stakeholder system.” A weak stakeholder
orientation negatively affects a firm’s performance and thus, shareholder value (Harrison
and John, 1994, Frooman, 1997).
However, the few previous studies that consider simultaneously several types of
performance are either studying the relationship between corporate social/environmental
performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP), or examining the
determinants of firms’ stockholders and social and/or environmental performance in
separate models. We are unaware of other studies that examine how firms allocate
resources among activities that aim to increase the persistence of competitive advantages
which benefit simultaneously several stakeholders. Moreover, determinants tested in this
study are included on the basis of a systematic review of literature and encompass industry-
99
, resource-, and institution-based predictors, contrary to many previous studies which limit
their scope to predictors of the resource-based view (Newbert, 2007, Lockett et al., 2009).
6.3. Methodology
6.3.1. Data and measures
Data from KLD Research and Analytics Inc. are used to construct measures of social and
environmental competitive advantage persistence. KLD data are merged with accounting
and financial data from COMPUSTAT to construct measures of economic competitive
advantage persistence, and analyzed for the 7-year period from 2007 to 2013. KLD data on
employee, community, diversity, product safety, and environmental performance are
appraised in terms of several “strengths” and “concerns.” To arrive at a net score for each
dimension, the total number of concerns is subtracted from the total number of strengths
(Graves et al., 2005). Firm performance for stockholders is measured using return on assets
(ROA) and return on capital (ROC). Firm performance for its customers is measured using
growth in sales. Following previous studies on persistence performance (Waring, 1996,
McGahan and Porter, 1999), all economic, social, and environmental measures of firm
performance are adjusted by the industry average (for COMPUSTAT measures) or the
industry median (for KLD measures) calculated at the four-digit Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code level.
Data about industry concentration, firm’s tangible and intangible resources, R&D
investments, age, and number of employees are also obtained from COMPUSTAT. Data
from GMI Ratings, the leading independent provider of global corporate governance
ratings, are used to construct measures of governance, and board director experience and
networks. The operational definitions of independent variables used in this study are
presented in Table 6.1. After preserving only companies whose status was "active,'' and
eliminating the firms whose status was "in reorganization," "acquired," "liquidated," or "out
of business," a final sample of 992 firms in various industries is left.
100
Table 6.1. Operational definitions of independent variables. Exogenous variables Operational definition Industry concentration The Herfindahl–Hirschman Index. Tangible resources Firm total asset = current asset + long term asset. Intangible resources An indice of three items (Cronbach alpha = 87.6):
- Good will: is another intangible asset representing the premium a buyer would pay to acquire the firm over its fair market value. -Intangible asset: The net value of intangible assets. Intangibles are assets that have no physical existence in themselves, but represent rights to enjoy some privilege (in millions of dollars). -Value added: Firm’s ability to create value added (VA) to all stakeholders is the difference between net sales revenues and all the expenses incurred in earning the sales revenues except labour costs.
Experience An indice of two items (Cronbach alpha = 79): - Sum of all directors with tenure exceeding 10 years on a given board. - Sum of all directors with tenure exceeding 15 years on a given board.
Networks Percentage of directors with more than 4 corporate (public) directorships on a given board.
R&D Research development expenses. Board independence Proportion of independent/non-executive directors. Ownership concentration Percentage of shares held by 5% greater holders. Board diversity Percentage of female directors on a given board. Firm size Number of employees. Firm age Number of years since firm foundation.
6.3.2. Measures of PCA and their determinants
This study uses a previously proposed multi-stakeholder construct of SCA (Cloutier et al.,
2016b), but with more recent data. All firms with a positive relative performance given
their industry average, thereby having a competitive advantage over rivals in a given year
for each performance indicator, are assigned the value 1, and 0 otherwise. The persistence
of competitive advantage is obtained by counting the number of years a firm has a
particular competitive advantage. Figure 6.1 illustrates the model of SCA as a construct of
the persistence of economic, social, and environmental performance.
A confirmatory analysis on the second order model using the MPLUS 3.13 software
package is performed to ensure the construct’s validity for this new dataset. The models
101
performed quite well, as indicated by the CFI of 98.9, the TLI of 98.3, the chi-square per
degree of freedom of 2.5, and the RMSEA of 0.04. The latent factors for each firm are
computed along the previous confirmatory analysis and the scores are saved for further
analysis. The reliability of all latent factors is assessed and the uni-dimensionality of their
underlying variables is assessed using SPSS principal component analysis. All items
composing the three factors are uni-dimensional and have a Cronbach’s alpha value of
91.5, 66 and 0.42 for economic, social, and environmental PCA, respectively.
Moreover, the data distributions have to be assessed for both the dependent and exogenous
variables. A Q-Q plot procedure plotting the quintiles of a variable's distribution against the
quintiles of a normal distribution indicates that most of the dependent and independent
variables are not clustered around a straight line corresponding to normal distributions.
According to the limited improvements achieved using traditional variable transformation,
this study adopts a more suitable estimator for this type of data. Most commonly used
statistical estimators for structural equation modeling, such as the Maximum Likelihood
and Generalized Least Squares, assume normality in the data. Thus, this study uses MLR,
which is a maximum likelihood parameter estimate with standard errors and a chi-square
test statistic that is robust to non-normality of observations for all estimations.
This study also checks for potential multicollinearity problems, as the correlation matrix
between the predictors used in the regression model indicates a rather high correlation
coefficient between variables such as board independence and ownership concentration
(0.52), R&D and tangible assets (0.52), and intangible and tangible assets (0.86). The
tolerance statistic values (reciprocal of Variance Inflation Factors (VIF)) for these
predictors is therefore checked, all of which are much higher than 0.2, thereby minimizing
the risk of multicollinearity issues (Menard, 1995, Field, 2009).
6.3.4. Analytical plan
The analytical plan contains two stages. The first simultaneously estimates three linear
equations (see Muthén 2004) to explore the correlates of this study’s three interaction
patterns. The model is similar to univariate linear models, except that it applies three
simultaneously estimated linear equations with free error-term co-variances.
102
The same model is then estimated by removing insignificant variables (i.e., those with two-
tailed p-value > 0.10,) from the model. Ouimet et al. (2007) highlight that statistically
significant effects can be diminished due to multicollinearity with insignificant effects, so
saturated models are difficult to interpret. To address these shortcomings, Golob and Regan
(2002) recommend fixing insignificant parameters to zero. Unlike the first model, the
second is assessed for model fit.
6.4. Results
6.4.1. Sample characteristics
Of the 992 firms, 56% are manufacturing firms and 35.6% are from the service sector. The
average industry concentration was of 13.9%. At the firm level, the descriptive statistics
show that, the average firm has 82 employees and 47.4 years of existence, 8.4 billion in
tangible assets, 1.3 billion in goodwill, 2 billion in intangible assets, and 3 billion in value
added. Moreover, each firm has 40% and 17% of its directors with 10 or 15 years of
experience, respectively, and Research and Development Expenses of 150,000 U.S. dollars.
As for the board of director network, firms have 16.2% of directors that also served on
other boards as a CEO and 1.5% serving as board members of 4 or more other firms. In
terms of governance, firm boards have an average of 38% independent directors and 12.8%
female directors. The average ownership concentration is of 27%.
6.4.2. Regression results
As the saturated structural multivariate model estimated in the first stage could not be
assessed for model fit as it typically has zero degrees of freedom, only the fit of the final
model is presented, which excludes the insignificant parameters found in the saturated
model estimated in stage 1. The final unsaturated model had 13 degrees of freedom and an
insignificant Chi-Square statistic of 0.90 (p = 0.70), indicating that the final model has an
excellent fit.
Table 6.2. Percent of variance accounted for by different models. Endogenous variable Estimated R2 Final model Saturated model Persistence of economic competitive advantage 0.119 0.123 Persistence of social competitive advantage 0.431 0.431 Persistence of environmental competitive advantage 0.221 0.233
103
Table 6.2 lists the R2 estimates for both the saturated and final multivariate models, and
these values refer to the proportion of explained variance. The differences in R2 values
between the final and saturated models describe the reduction in the explanatory power
from eliminating all statistically insignificant exogenous variable effects (Golob and Regan,
2002, Ouimet et al., 2007). The persistence of social and economic advantage is the most
effectively explained in both models. However, the model does a relatively poor job of
explaining the persistence of economic and environmental competitive advantage.
Table 6.3. Initial correlation estimates among dependent variables / estimated error-term covariance for the final model. (1) (2) (1) Persistence of social competitive advantage
(2) Persistence of economic competitive advantage
13.582***/ 4.617***
(2.100) / (3.095)
(3) Persistence of environmental competitive advantage
12.898*** / 6.574***
(1.044) / (9.843) 6.524*** / 3.152***
(0.875) / (4.418) *** p ˂ 0.01; two-tailed; χ2 statistic in parentheses.
Table 6.3 provides the correlation coefficients between dependent variables and among the
disturbances of the six estimated equations. All correlation coefficients are significant and
positive at the p = 0.01 level.
The error-term co-variances are all lower than the initial correlations among dependent
variables listed in Table 6.3, indicating that the final structural model explains a relatively
good proportion of the relationships between interaction types (see Golob and Regan, 2002,
Ouimet et al., 2007). Three other models were tested: 1) forcing the correlations between
the equations’ disturbances to be equal to zero, 2) constraining the three equation to have
equal intercepts, and 3) forcing the regression coefficients for each independent variable to
be equal across the three equations. The first two alternative restricted models had highly
significant Chi-Square statistics, and the third restricted model did not converge, indicating
poor fit and the inappropriateness of these three restricted models. This strongly suggests
that first, the correlation coefficients between the equations’ disturbances differ from zero,
104
that the three equation intercepts are not all equal, and that there is at least one independent
variable with a heterogeneous effect across the equations. Indeed, this last result provides
evidence, at least for our data, that the use of the separate regression models is
inappropriate to estimate the determinants of these three PCAs.
The results listed in Table 6.3 indicate that the unexplained variance of all types of PCA is
significantly and positively correlated with one another. Overall, this provides evidence in
favor of the complementarity hypothesis, suggesting that resources dedicated to boost a
firm’s social, environmental, and economic competitive advantage reinforce each other.
These findings are consistent with earlier findings (Cochran and Wood, 1984, Wokutch and
Spencer, 1987) stressing the complementarities between corporate social responsibility and
traditional profit-oriented management. However, some correlations are higher than others.
The high correlation among social and environmental PCA indicates that there seems to be
an important virtuous cycle in which social and environmental PCA are mutually
reinforced. On the other hand, the correlations involving economic PCA and social or
environmental PCA are much weaker, with the correlation between economic and
environmental PCA being the strongest.
6.4.3. Determinants of economic, social, and environmental PCA
Table 6.4 lists the estimated effects of industry-, resource- and institution-based variables
on economic, social, and environmental PCA. Let us first consider the capacity of the
different variables to explain these different PCAs. Innovative dynamic capability, board
independence, and firm age had a significant positive impact on all three persistent
competitive advantages. The positive influence of R&D intensity on the likelihood of
developing an economic, social, and environmental PCA we observed is consistent with
previous studies finding that R&D intensity had a positive effect on firm performance for
stockholders and customers (Bogner and Bansal, 2007, Lee and Roh, 2012, Hung and
Chou, 2013) as well as on social (Brammer and Millington, 2008, Melo, 2012b) and
environmental (Carrión-Flores and Innes, 2010) performance. Moreover, the positive
influence of board independence on firms’ economic, social, and environmental PCA we
observed is consistent with previous studies finding a positive influence from this variable
on economic (Horton et al., 2012) and social performance (Huang, 2010).
105
Table 6.4. Estimated effects of industry-, resource- and institution-based variables on economic, social, and environmental PCA. Exogenous variables Persistence of
economic competitive advantage
Persistence of social competitive advantage
Persistence of environmental competitive advantage
Industry concentration -0.055* (-1.769)
0.072*** (3.274)
Tangible resources 0.276*** (4.710)
Intangible resources 0.116** (2.529)
Experience 0.192*** (6.295)
Networks 0.067** (2.518)
0.078*** (2.671)
R&D 0.095*** (3.937)
0.149*** (3.460)
0.195*** (3.748)
Board independence 0.224*** (7.154)
0.321*** (5.850)
0.192*** (6.059)
Board diversity 0.321*** (11.895)
0.148*** (4.886)
Firm size 0.078*** (2.596)
Firm age 0.061** (2.002)
0.084*** (3.144)
0.099*** (3.397)
χ2 statistics are in parentheses. * p ˂ 0.1, ** p ˂ 0.05, *** p ˂ 0.01; two-tailed. Unconstrained model : χ2 = 9.90 P-value = 0.7 Disturbances = 0 model: χ2 134.10 P-value = 0.0000 Equal intercepts model: χ2 213.98 P-value = 0.0000 Equal coefficients model: no convergence
In addition, network and board diversity significantly explained social and environmental,
but not economic PCA. The positive influence of network on social and environmental
PCA we observed is in line with Doran and Ryan (2012), who found that company
networks had a positive influence on environmental performance. This is the first study to
report a positive influence of firm networks on the persistence of social competitive
advantage. However, the results show no significant influence of firm networks on
economic competitive advantage, though this is expected and suggested in previous studies
(Chellappa and Saraf, 2010, Omil et al., 2011, Wang et al., 2013). Moreover, the positive
106
influence of board diversity on social and environmental PCA we observe is consistent with
other studies reporting that the proportion of female directors on a board positively affects
overall social performance (Hafsi and Turgut, 2013, Jalbert et al., 2013). However, where
this study did not find a significant effect, Reddy et al. (2008) did find a positive impact of
board diversity on economic performance. The present study may be the first to report a
positive influence of board diversity on the persistence of environmental competitive
advantage.
When it comes to industry-level variables, the results show that industry concentration has
a negative impact on the persistence of economic competitive advantage and a positive
impact on the persistence of social competitive advantage. Wu and Shen (2013) found
similar results in the negative influence of industry concentration on firm performance for
its stockholders and customers. In contrast, the results from this study regarding the
positive influence of industry concentration on the persistence of social competitive
advantage differ from García-Zamora et al. (2013) who found a negative influence of
industry concentration on firms’ social performance, the only one addressing the influence
of this variable on social performance. One rationale for this positive influence could be
that a higher concentration increases the competition for employees and reputational assets.
Therefore, firms evolving in a more competitive setting need to invest more resources to
satisfy their employees and to maintain good social performance.
At the firm level, tangible resources have a significant positive impact on the persistence of
social competitive advantage, a result consistent with those of Huang (2010), who found
that total assets positively affect the four dimensions of corporate social performance.
However, in contrast with Wu and Shen (2013), who found that a firm’s total assets
positively affect its performance for stockholders, this study did not find a significant effect
of tangible resources on economic competitive advantage persistence. Intangible resources
had a positive influence on the persistence of environmental competitive advantage. This
may be the first study addressing the influence of intangible assets on environmental
competitive advantage. On the other hand, the results indicate no significant influence of
intangible resources on social and economic performance, though a positive influence of
this variable is expected on economic competitive advantage persistence, as suggested by
107
previous studies (Fathi et al., 2013, Komnenic et al., 2013). Moreover, directors’
experience has a positive effect on the persistence of economic competitive advantage.
Hoque et al. (2013) found similar results indicating that CEO experience (number of years
on the board) had a positive impact on firm performance for stockholders. However, this
study finds no significant influence of experience on social and environmental
performance, though a positive influence was expected, as is suggested by previous studies
(Jalbert et al., 2011, Melo, 2012a).
Finally, the results related to firm size are consistent with Kumar et al. (2011), who found
that firm size positively affects the persistence of economic competitive advantage.
However, in contrast with Carrión-Flores and Innes (2010) and Pavelin and Porter (2008),
who found a positive influence of firm size on social and environmental performance, our
study found no significant relationship.
6.5. Discussion
Competitive advantage can benefit multiple stakeholders. Compared to previous studies
defining SCA using absolute, punctual, and uni-stakeholder constructs, this study measured
SCA as persistent, above normal economic, social, and environmental performance.
Contrary to prior studies examining the determinants of multi-stakeholder competitive
advantage in different models, this study uses a multivariate model that includes three
equations simultaneously estimated to account for the fact that firms must concurrently
consider investments in activities benefitting different stakeholders. The simultaneous
equation model indicated positive significant correlations between all equations to predict
economic, social, and environmental PCA, suggesting that resources invested in one type of
competitive advantage predict this type of PCA as well as that of other types.
As a direct consequence of earlier operationalizations of SCA as a dependent variable, no
study has considered the influence of industry- and firm-level predictors on economic,
social, and environmental PCA, nor on SCA as defined in this study. This study’s results
show that industry competition, firm resources, dynamic capabilities, and governance
mechanisms are important determinants of these different forms of PCA.
108
Moreover, regarding literature on the determinants of all types of competitive advantage
(absolute, relative or persistent), this study may be the first to report a positive influence of
intangible resources on environmental competitive advantage, a positive influence of the
company’s network on social competitive advantage, and a positive influence of board
independence and board diversity on environmental competitive advantage.
Finally, this study attempts to identify the dynamics and determinants of various forms of
PCA, conceptualizing and operationalizing SCA in a richer form than all previous studies,
with the exception of Cloutier et al. (2016b). Thus, this study could be seen as exploratory.
However, debates about the sustainability of competitive advantage and the industry-,
resource-, and institution-based views seem mature enough to benefit from the development
of a new area of inquiry.
Another potential limitation concerns the nature of the sample used in this study, which
necessarily affects the generalizability of the results. This study examines publicly traded
enterprises likely to have longitudinal data about their economic, social, and environmental
performance, as well as about the industry-, resource-, and institution-based determinants of
SCA. Therefore, these results may not apply in the context of small and medium
enterprises, which are the cornerstone of several economic systems. Indeed, large public
firm were once small-medium sized ones that succeeded. However, the results indicate that
practitioners take few risks in promoting the development and good use of experience,
innovation, governance mechanisms, and networking in management, investments, setting
policies, and working to leverage the complementarities among the firm's economic, social,
and environmental competitive advantage.
109
6.6. References
Barnett, M. L. 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 794-816.
Bogner, W. C. and Bansal, P. 2007. Knowledge management as the basis of sustained high performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 165-188.
Brammer, S. and Millington, A. 2008. Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1325-1343.
Carrión-Flores, C. E. and Innes, R. 2010. Environmental innovation and environmental performance. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59, 27-42.
Chacar, A. S., Newburry, W. and Vissa, B. 2010. Bringing institutions into performance persistence research: Exploring the impact of product, financial, and labor market institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1119-1140.
Chari, M. D. and David, P. 2012. Sustaining superior performance in an emerging economy: An empirical test in the Indian context. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 217-229.
Chellappa, R. K. and Saraf, N. 2010. Alliances, rivalry, and firm performance in enterprise systems software markets: a social network approach. Information Systems Research, 21, 849-871.
Chen, Y.-M. and Lin, F.-J. 2010. The persistence of superior performance at industry and firm levels: Evidence from the IT industry in Taiwan. Industry and Innovation, 17, 469-486.
Clarkson, M. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of management review, 20, 92-117.
Cloutier, J.-S., Amara, N. and Landry, R. 2016a. Conceptualizing and operationalizing sustainable competitive advantage as persistent superior economic social and environmental performance. Unpublished Manuscript.
Cloutier, J.-S., Amara, N. and Landry, R. 2016b. Sustainable competitive advantage: a systematic review of the literature from 2007 to 2013. Unpublished Manuscript.
Cochran, P. L. and Wood, R. A. 1984. Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 42-56.
D'Aveni, R. A. 2010. Hypercompetition, Simon and Schuster.
Doran, J. and Ryan, G. 2012. Regulation and firm perception, eco-innovation and firm performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15, 421-441.
110
Fathi, S., Farahmand, S. and Khorasani, M. 2013. Impact of Intellectual Capital on Financial Performance. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 2, 6-17.
Field, A. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS, Sage publications.
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Stakeholder management: framework and philosophy. Pitman, Mansfield, MA.
Freeman, R. E. 2004. The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik, 5, 228-241.
Friedman, M. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom: With the Assistance of Rose D. Friedman, University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13, 32-33.
Frooman, J. 1997. Socially irresponsible and illegal behavior and shareholder wealth A meta-analysis of event studies. Business & Society, 36, 221-249.
García-Zamora, E., González-Benito, O. and Muñoz-Gallego, P. A. 2013. Organizational and environmental factors as moderators of the relationship between multidimensional innovation and performance. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 15, 224-244.
Golob, T. F. and Regan, A. C. 2002. Trucking industry adoption of information technology: a multivariate discrete choice model. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 10, 205-228.
Graves, S., Waddock, S. and Kelly, M. 2005. How the list is put together: The methodology behind the corporate citizenship rankings.
Hafsi, T. and Turgut, G. 2013. Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance: Conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of business ethics, 112, 463-479.
Harrison, J. S. and John, C. H. S. 1994. Strategic management of organizations and stakeholders: Theory and cases, West Group.
Hoque, M. Z., Islam, M. and Azam, M. N. 2013. Board Committee Meetings and Firm Financial Performance: An Investigation of Australian Companies. International Review of Finance, 13, 503-528.
Horton, J., Millo, Y. and Serafeim, G. 2012. Resources or power? Implications of social networks on compensation and firm performance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 39, 399-426.
111
Huang, C.-J. 2010. Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 16, 641-655.
Hung, K.-P. and Chou, C. 2013. The impact of open innovation on firm performance: The moderating effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence. Technovation, 33, 368-380.
Husted, B. W. and de Jesus Salazar, J. 2006. Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance*. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 75-91.
Jalbert, T., Furumo, K. and Jalbert, M. 2011. Does Educational Background Affect CEO Compensation And Firm Performance? Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 27, 15-40.
Jalbert, T., Jalbert, M. and Furumo, K. 2013. The Relationship Between CEO Gender, Financial Performance, And Financial Management. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 11, 25-34.
Komnenic, B., Tomic, D. and Tomic, R. 2013. Intangible Assets and Business Performance. Journal of American Business Review, Cambridge, 1, 165-172.
Kumar, V., Jones, E., Venkatesan, R. and Leone, R. P. 2011. Is market orientation a source of sustainable competitive advantage or simply the cost of competing? Journal of Marketing, 75, 16-30.
Lee, J. and Roh, J. J. 2012. Revisiting corporate reputation and firm performance link. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 19, 649-664.
Lockett, A., Thompson, S. and Morgenstern, U. 2009. The development of the resource‐based view of the firm: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 9-28.
McGahan, A. M. and Porter, M. E. 1997. How much does industry matter, really? Strategic management journal, 18, 15-30.
McGahan, A. M. and Porter, M. E. 1999. The persistence of shocks to profitability. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81, 143-153.
Melo, T. 2012a. Determinants of corporate social performance: The influence of organizational culture, management tenure and financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 8, 33-47.
Melo, T. 2012b. Slack-resources hypothesis: a critical analysis under a multidimensional approach to corporate social performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 8, 257-269.
Menard, S. 1995. Applied logistic regression analysis: Sage university series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
112
Muthén, B. O. 2004. 1998-2004. Mplus technical appendices. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Newbert, S. L. 2007. Empirical research on the resource‐based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic management journal, 28, 121-146.
Newbert, S. L. 2014. Assessing performance measurement in RBV research. Journal of Strategy and Management, 7, 265-283.
Omil, J. C., Lorenzo, P. C. and Liste, A. V. 2011. The power of intangibles in high-profitability firms. Total Quality Management, 22, 29-42.
Ouimet, M., Amara, N., Landry, R. and Lavis, J. 2007. Direct interactions medical school faculty members have with professionals and managers working in public and private sector organizations: A cross-sectional study. Scientometrics, 72, 307-323.
Pavelin, S. and Porter, L. A. 2008. The corporate social performance content of innovation in the UK. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 711-725.
Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive strategy: Creating and sustaining superior performance. The free, New York.
Powell, T. C. and Reinhardt, I. 2010. Rank friction: an ordinal approach to persistent profitability. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1244-1255.
Reddy, K., Locke, S., Scrimgeour, F. and Gunasekarage, A. 2008. Corporate governance practices of small cap companies and their financial performance: an empirical study in New Zealand. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 4, 51-78.
Scherer, A. G. and Palazzo, G. 2011. The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 899-931.
Wang, G., Jiang, X., Yuan, C.-H. and Yi, Y.-Q. 2013. Managerial ties and firm performance in an emerging economy: Tests of the mediating and moderating effects. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30, 537-559.
Waring, G. F. 1996. Industry differences in the persistence of firm-specific returns. The American Economic Review, 1253-1265.
Wokutch, R. E. and Spencer, B. A. 1987. Corporate Saints and Sinners: The Effects of Philanthropic and Illegal Activity on Organizational Performance.
Wu, M.-W. and Shen, C.-H. 2013. Corporate social responsibility in the banking industry: Motives and financial performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37, 3529-3547.
113
Chapitre 7 : Conclusion
Cette thèse porte sur les fondements, les déterminants et le développement de l'ACD en
entreprise. Ce chapitre se penche sur les trois articles et présente certaines conclusions et
implications pour la recherche et la pratique. Une dernière section établit les limites
inhérentes à ces trois articles après avoir proposé quelques pistes pertinentes de recherche
sur le sujet.
7.1. Synthèse
L'examen systématique de la littérature présenté dans l'article 1 a mis en lumière de
nombreuses pistes pour l'étude et pour la promotion de l'ACD en entreprise. Cette
littérature est très diversifiée en ce qui a trait aux mesures utilisées par les chercheurs pour
capter l'ACD en entreprise et à l'éventail des déterminants testés. La complexité mise en
lumière relativement à la nature et au développement de l'ACD en entreprise ne doit plus
être ignorée.
Pour ce qui est de l'ACD à titre de variable dépendante, quatre courants de la littérature ont
été identifiés dans ce premier article. Les divergences et convergences entre les différents
courants de littérature recensés indiquent que l'ACD est un construit de la performance de
la firme incluant trois propriétés dyadiques sous-jacentes fondamentales : absolu / relatif,
ponctuel/ persistant, et uni- / multipartie.
En ce qui concerne les déterminants de l'ACD en entreprise, l’étude pousse la réflexion plus
loin que les précédentes revues systématiques sur le sujet. Alors que les travaux précédents
ont limité leur champ d'application à des études utilisant la RBV (Newbert, 2007; Lockett
et coll., 2009), la revue systématique de la littérature présentée dans la thèse est beaucoup
plus inclusive. L'article 1 confirme le rôle structurel des trois piliers soutenant l’avancement
des connaissances sur l'ACD en gestion stratégique: la vision industrielle, la RBV et la
vision institutionnelle (Peng et coll., 2009).
En somme, plusieurs pistes de recherche émergent de ce premier article. La revue
systématique de la littérature démontre que les études antérieures sur l'ACD se sont en
quasi-totalité intéressées aux déterminants de la performance absolue de l'entreprise pour
114
ses actionnaires en tenant rarement compte de la relativité de la performance de l'entreprise
par rapport à ses compétiteurs, de la persistance temporelle des avantages concurrentiels ou
de leur durabilité (considérant de multiples parties prenantes) (Newbert, 2014; Cloutier et
al., 2016). Dans une majorité des études recensées dans la revue de la littérature
systématique (chapitre 4), l'opérationnalisation de la variable dépendante suggère que
l’ACD est une construction absolue, ponctuelle et unipartie de la performance de
l'entreprise. Newbert (2014) avait déjà observé ce problème d'alignement entre les
méthodes utilisées et que peu d’études prenaient en compte le fait que l'ACD soit un
construit de la performance relatif à celle des compétiteurs. La revue systématique de la
littérature effectuée dans le cadre de cette thèse montre que ce problème d'alignement
s'étend à d'autres propriétés fondamentales de l'ACD, notamment à sa persistance et à sa
nature multipartie.
La validation de construit effectuée dans l'article 2 propose un construit plus riche de l'ACD
que les études antérieures (Armstrong et coll., 2009; Newbert, 2014), tenant compte de la
relativité de la performance et de la persistance de l'avantage concurrentiel économique,
social et environnemental de l'entreprise. En réalité, l'instrument de mesure présenté offre
une très bonne piste pour développer des outils afin de mieux mesurer l'ACD et, à notre
connaissance, il est le seul en son genre.
Le nouvel instrument de mesure a été construit et validé suivant une méthodologie
hiérarchique impliquant l'analyse de plusieurs configurations de modèles de mesure qui
peuvent caractériser l'échantillon. La même méthode a été répétée pour la validation
comparée des deux principaux modèles concurrents concernant la durabilité de l'avantage
concurrentiel en entreprise. Compte tenu du contexte empirique choisi, l’article 2 présente
des évidences qui supportent l’idée que le modèle proposé par la théorie de la triple
performance (« Triple bottom line ») est plus approprié que le modèle à deux facteurs
utilisé par la plupart des études sur la responsabilité sociale (Orlitzky et coll., 2003). Ce
modèle est réutilisé dans le troisième article sur la complémentarité de ces différents
avantages concurrentiels persistants et sur leurs déterminants.
115
Dans l’introduction de la thèse, nous avions mis en opposition les concepts de protection et
de partage de valeur donnant lieu à un dilemme décisionnel pour les gestionnaires. La revue
systématique de la littérature a aussi permis de confirmer l’existence et l’importance de ce
débat de longue date, toujours d'actualité, opposant les hypothèses de substitution et de
complémentarité lorsqu'une entreprise doit choisir d'investir ses ressources dans des
activités qui profitent à différentes parties prenantes (Orlitzky et coll., 2003).
Le troisième article s'inscrit dans ce débat et vise à combler certaines lacunes de la
littérature. Par l'utilisation d'équations simultanées, l'article a permis de remédier aux
faiblesses des précédents articles étudiant plusieurs types de performance dans des modèles
séparés. En fait, le modèle d'équations simultanées de l'article 3 montre des corrélations
significatives positives entre toutes les équations pour prédire la persistance de l'avantage
concurrentiel économique, social et environnemental. Ceci suggère que les différents types
d’avantage se renforcent mutuellement.
De plus, cet article a permis d’identifier plusieurs déterminants de ces trois formes
d'avantage concurrentiel persistant. Les résultats montrent que la compétition, les
ressources tangibles et intangibles, l'expérience, la capacité dynamique d'innovation et les
mécanismes de gouvernance sont des déterminants importants de ces différents avantages
concurrentiels.
7.2. Implications
Pour les gestionnaires, les investisseurs et les décideurs politiques, la promotion du
développement de l'ACD dans les entreprises commence par une vision claire et une bonne
compréhension des fondements, des déterminants et du développement de l'ACD en
entreprise. Le défi pour tous les chercheurs et les praticiens consiste donc moins à
comprendre ce qui permet à une entreprise d'améliorer sa performance économique en
termes absolus pour ses actionnaires, mais beaucoup plus à savoir comment une entreprise
peut maintenir dans le temps une performance supérieure à celle de ses compétiteurs, non
seulement aux yeux de ses actionnaires, mais aux yeux de toutes ses parties prenantes. Dans
un marché concurrentiel, si l'entreprise n'offre pas un rendement sur investissement
supérieur, ses investisseurs se retireront pour aller investir leur patrimoine dans les
116
entreprises concurrentes. Si l'entreprise n'offre pas des conditions d'emploi supérieures, les
employés quitteront l'entreprise avec leur savoir, souvent critique au fonctionnement et à
l'avantage concurrentiel de l'entreprise, et iront travailler pour la concurrence. Enfin, si
l'entreprise n'offre pas des produits se démarquant suffisamment, c'est la concurrence qui se
saisira des parts de marché les plus importantes.
Cependant, développer des instruments fiables qui captent toute cette complexité entraîne
de nombreux défis : 1) l'identification de mesures de rendement les plus appropriées et les
moins biaisées, 2) la sélection d'une mesure étalon pour détecter l'occurrence d'avantage
concurrentiel, et 3) l'accès à des données longitudinales permettant d'évaluer la persistance
d'un grand nombre d'avantages concurrentiels se rapportant à différentes parties prenantes
de l'entreprise.
Ces différents défis ont été relevés pour la validation d’un premier construit développé dans
l'article 2. Celui-ci pourrait servir de première piste afin de développer de meilleurs outils
pour mesurer l'ACD et suivre son évolution dans les entreprises américaines cotées en
Bourse. Suivant cette prémisse, d’autres instruments de mesure pourraient être développés
pour d’autres contextes empiriques.
De plus, les gestionnaires, les investisseurs et les décideurs politiques doivent intégrer, dans
leur prise de décision, l'implication des évidences présentées dans le troisième article sur la
complémentarité des différentes formes d'avantage concurrentiel. En fait, il s'avère qu'en
investissant ses ressources afin d'accroître un type d'avantage concurrentiel (i.e. social ou
environnemental), l'entreprise favorise aussi le développement d'autres types d'avantage
concurrentiel (économique) et vice-versa. Ainsi, l’élaboration de stratégies de gestion et
d'investissement ou le développement d'instruments politiques devrait être plus intégratif de
façon à tirer profit et favoriser ces relations de complémentarité. Par exemple, les stratégies
et les mesures visant à accroître la performance économique, sociale ou environnementale
des entreprises ne devraient pas être développées isolées les unes des autres.
De la même façon, cette thèse ne défend pas l'idée que les entreprises ont tout à gagner ou
qu'elles doivent absolument investir afin d'accroître l'un ou l'autre de ces types de
performance. Aucune évidence n’a été recensée à savoir comment se développent ces
117
avantages, s'ils se développent simultanément ou de façon différée. Est-ce que certaines
formes d'avantages sont préalables à d'autres et est-ce que le développement de ces
avantages diffère selon le contexte étudié?
Enfin, le troisième article a montré que l'intensité de la concurrence, les ressources
tangibles et intangibles de l'entreprise, la capacité dynamique d'innovation et les
mécanismes de gouvernance de l’entreprise sont d'importants déterminants de la
persistance de son avantage concurrentiel économique, social et environnemental. Les
entreprises doivent continuer à investir, et les gouvernements à promouvoir, le
développement d’avantages concurrentiels basés sur l’innovation et sur le partage de la
valeur créée à l’aide de bons mécanismes de gouvernance.
Cela dit, de futures études devraient élargir et approfondir l'éventail des déterminants
connus de ces différents types d'avantage.
7.3. Principales contributions de l'étude
Dans cette section, les contributions de cette thèse seront présentées. Elles s'inscrivent dans
les plus récents développements de la littérature sur l'ACD en entreprise. La revue
systématique de la littérature a permis d'identifier plusieurs pistes de recherche importantes
à exploiter. La nature de ces contributions est présentée ci-dessous.
7.3.1. Contributions théoriques
La thèse est beaucoup plus inclusive que les travaux antérieurs en ce qui a trait aux
différentes perspectives sur l'ACD et ses déterminants (Peng et coll., 2009; Newbert, 2014).
Cette thèse a tenté de mieux capter la complexité sous-jacente au phénomène.
La majorité des études antérieures se limitait à une perspective (par exemple, RBV)
(Newbert, 2014). La revue systématique de la littérature ainsi que le troisième article
confirment le rôle structurel des trois piliers soutenant l’avancement des connaissances sur
l'ACD en gestion stratégique: la vision industrielle, la RBV et la vision institutionnelle
(Peng et coll., 2009).
118
Sur le plan théorique, cette étude a contribué à l'avancement des connaissances en
proposant de nouvelles définitions de l'ACD découlant d'une revue systématique de la
littérature sur l'avantage concurrentiel. La thèse distingue quatre formes d'avantage
concurrentiel pouvant être mesurées : potentiel, réalisé, persistant et durable. Il est donc
suggéré que les futures études sur l'ACD positionnent plus explicitement leurs variables
dépendantes selon les trois propriétés dyadiques fondamentales de l'ACD présentées
précédemment. Cela mettrait en évidence les formes d'ACD étudiées d’une façon plus
explicite que ce fut le cas dans les études antérieures.
Enfin, comme mentionné ci-haut, un débat de longue date, et toujours d'actualité, oppose
les hypothèses de substitution et de complémentarité relativement aux décisions de
l'entreprise visant à investir ses ressources dans des activités qui profitent à différentes
parties prenantes (Orlitzky et coll., 2003). En guise de contribution à ce débat, le troisième
article présente des évidences à l'effet que les ressources investies dans un type d'avantage
concurrentiel prédisent ce type d'avantage concurrentiel persistant ainsi que les autres
types.
7.3.2. Contributions empiriques
À la différence des études antérieures utilisant des instruments de mesure absolue,
ponctuelle et unipartie afin de capter l'ACD comme variable dépendante (Newbert, 2014),
l'ACD est présenté comme un construit de la performance relative, persistante et multipartie
de l’entreprise. En ce sens, la thèse contribue à l'avancement des connaissances par la
validation d'un construit plus riche de l'ACD.
Enfin, selon les études recensées dans la revue systématique de la littérature concernant les
déterminants de tous les types d'avantage concurrentiel confondus (absolu, relatif,
persistant ou multipartie), cette étude est la première à montrer une influence positive des
ressources intangibles sur l'avantage concurrentiel environnemental, une influence positive
du réseau de l'entreprise sur l'avantage concurrentiel social, et une influence positive de
l'indépendance et de la diversité du conseil d'administration sur l'avantage concurrentiel
environnemental en entreprise.
119
7.4. Limites et pistes de recherche
Puisque cette thèse s’est référée uniquement à des articles scientifiques publiés dans des
revues spécialisées, certaines connaissances à propos de l’ACD auraient pu avoir été
négligées et non incluses.
En ce qui a trait au nouveau construit de l'avantage concurrentiel validé dans le deuxième
article, il est évident qu’il s’agit d’une première tentative de modéliser un phénomène dans
sa complexité et que la gamme de sous-dimensions développées pour modéliser l'ACD
pourrait potentiellement être développée. En effet, le paysage des parties prenantes
couvertes par nos données est beaucoup plus étroit que les types de parties prenantes définis
par Freeman (1984). En raison de la complexité de l'ACD en entreprise, de meilleures
mesures de performance et de mesures étalons (comparatives) pourraient également être
développées. Malgré les faiblesses psychométriques du construit proposé, celui-ci comporte
un intérêt méthodologique certain pour de futures recherches. Considérant les limites
inhérentes aux instruments de mesure et aux données sur la performance sociale et
environnementale des firmes utilisés dans cette thèse, le développement et la validation
d'un instrument de mesure plus systématique s'imposent. Par exemple, en plus de s'appuyer
sur une revue systématique de la littérature, de futures recherches devraient considérer
l'avis d'experts, ainsi que développer un questionnaire qui aura été préalablement validé au
cours d'une étude pilote, avant d'être administré dans le cadre d'une collecte de données à
grande échelle.
Dans le même sens, même si notre troisième article confirme l'influence de plusieurs
déterminants de l'ACD en entreprise, certaines mesures utilisées pour capter les ressources
intangibles et les capacités dynamiques pourraient être vues comme simplistes. De futures
recherches devraient définitivement favoriser l'utilisation de mesures plus riches. Par
exemple, l'innovation ne se limite pas à la recherche et au développement, de même que
l'expérience ne se limite pas à l'ancienneté des directeurs qui siègent au conseil
d'administration de l'entreprise.
Cela étant dit, ceci n’est qu’un léger désavantage lié à l’utilisation de données secondaires.
Rappelons-nous que c'est sur la base de la collecte, de l'analyse et de l'interprétation de ces
120
données que des trillions (milliers de milliards) de dollars sont investis chaque année par les
investisseurs institutionnels qui gèrent, d’une façon non limitative, la quasi-totalité de notre
richesse collective. Une faible amélioration des décisions de ces investisseurs
institutionnels se traduirait par un impact économique majeur.
De plus, cette thèse se limite à l'étude des relations directes entre les caractéristiques de
l'industrie, les ressources, les capacités dynamiques et les mécanismes de gouvernance, et
l'ACD en entreprise. Plus d'études devraient s'intéresser aux relations indirectes de
médiation et de modération existant dans la prédiction des différentes formes d'avantage
concurrentiel.
Finalement, une autre limite importante concerne la nature de l'échantillon utilisé dans cette
recherche. Comme indiqué, le cadre empirique se limite aux entreprises cotées en Bourse
qui étaient susceptibles d'avoir fourni des données longitudinales sur leur performance
économique, sociale et environnementale. La nature spécifique de l'échantillon utilisé dans
cette étude peut avoir eu un impact sur la conceptualisation de l'ACD et sur les
déterminants identifiés. Cela influence nécessairement la généralisation des résultats.
L'instrument de mesure développé ici pourrait rencontrer certains obstacles pour son
application dans d'autres contextes (par exemple, les petites et moyennes entreprises).
Ainsi, de futures recherches devraient s'intéresser au construit de l'avantage concurrentiel
dans d'autres cadres empiriques.
121
8. Références
AMBROSINI, V., BOWMAN, C. & COLLIER, N. 2009. Dynamic capabilities: an exploration of how firms renew their resource base. British Journal of Management, 20, S9-S24.
AREND, R. J. 2006. SME–supplier alliance activity in manufacturing: contingent benefits and perceptions. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 741-763.
ARMSTRONG, C. E., DRNEVICH, P. L. & NEWBERT, S. L. 2009. Conversations in competitive advantage: A bibliographic analysis of the major research streams and their influence on the field. Atlanta Competitive Advantage Conference Paper.
ARMSTRONG, C. E. & SHIMIZU, K. 2007. A Review of Approaches to Empirical Research on the Resource-Based View of the Firm†. Journal of management, 33, 959-986.
BAIN, J. S. 1956. Barriers to New Competition: Their Character and Consequences in Manu/acturing Industries. Harvard University Press.
BAIN, J. S. (1968). Industrial organization. John Wiley & Sons.
BARNETT, M. L. 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 794-816.
BARNEY, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17, 99-120.
BECHEIKH, N., LANDRY, R., & AMARA, N. 2006. Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993–2003. Technovation, 26, 644-664.
BRAMMER, S. & MILLINGTON, A. 2008. Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1325-1343.
CHOI, J. & WANG, H. 2009. Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 895-907.
CLARKSON, M. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of management review, 20, 92-117.
CLOUTIER, J.-S., AMARA, N. & LANDRY, R. 2016. Sustainable competitive advantage: a systematic review of the literature from 2007 to 2013. Unpublished Manuscript.
122
COFF, R. W. 1999. When Competitive Advantage Doesn't Lead to Performance: The Resource-Based View and Stakeholder Bargaining Power. Organization Science, 10, 119-133.
COHEN, W. M. & LEVINTHAL, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 128-152.
COASE, D. 2000. The Problem of Social Cost. Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 87-137.
DAHLMAN, C. J. 1979. The Problem of Externality. The Journal of Law & Economics, 22, 141-166.
D'Aveni, R. A. 2010. Hypercompetition, Simon and Schuster.
DYER, J. H. & SINGH, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 23, 660-679.
DYLLICK, T. & HOCKERTS, K. 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business strategy and the environment, 11, 130-141.
EISENHARDT, K. M. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of management review, 14, 57-74.
ENDERS, A., KÖNIG, A., HUNGENBERG, H. & ENGELBERTZ, T. 2009. Towards an integrated perspective of strategy: the value-process framework. Journal of Strategy and Management, 2, 76-96.
FREEMAN, R. E. 1984. Stakeholder management: framework and philosophy. Pitman, Mansfield, MA.
FREEMAN, R. E. 2004. The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik, 5, 228-241.
FRIEDMAN, M. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom: With the Assistance of Rose D. Friedman, University of Chicago Press.
FRIEDMAN, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13, 32-33.
FROOMAN, J. 1997. Socially irresponsible and illegal behavior and shareholder wealth. A meta-analysis of event studies. Business & Society, 36, 221-249.
HAFSI, T. & THOMAS, H. 2005. The Field of Strategy:: In Search of a Walking Stick. European Management Journal, 23, 507-519.
HAGEDOORN, J. & SCHAKENRAAD, J. 1992. Leading companies and networks of strategic alliances in information technologies. Research Policy, 21, 163-190.
123
HAMBRICK, D. C. & CHEN, M.-J. 2008. New academic fields as admittance-seeking social movements: The case of strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 33, 32-54.
HARRISON, J. S. & JOHN, C. H. S. 1994. Strategic management of organizations and stakeholders: Theory and cases, West Group.
LEPAK, D. P., SMITH, K. G., & TAYLOR, M. S. 2007. Introduction to special topic forum: Value creation and value capture: a multilevel perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 32, 180-194.
LOCKETT, A., THOMPSON, S. & MORGENSTERN, U. 2009. The development of the resource‐based view of the firm: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 9-28.
LOWENDAHL, B. 2005. Strategic management of professional service firms. Copenhagen Business School Press DK.
MAKADOK, R. & COFF, R. 2002. The theory of value and the value of theory: breaking new ground versus reinventing the wheel. Academy of Management Review, 27, 10–13.
MASON, E. S. 1939. Price and Production Policies of Large-Scale Enterprise, American Economic Review, 29, 61–74.
MUELLER, D. C. 1977. The persistence of profits above the norm. Economica, 44, 369-380.
MUELLER, D. C. 1986. Profits in the long run, Cambridge University Press.
NEWBERT, S. L. 2007. Empirical research on the resource‐based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic management journal, 28, 121-146.
NEWBERT, S. L. 2014. Assessing performance measurement in RBV research. Journal of Strategy and Management, 7, 265-283.
NORTH, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Cambridge university press.
ORLITZKY, M., SCHMIDT, F. L. & RYNES, S. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization studies, 24, 403-441.
PENG, M. W., SUN, S. L., PINKHAM, B. & CHEN, H. 2009. The Institution-Based View as a Third Leg for a Strategy Tripod. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 63-81.
PORTER, M. E. 1979. How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review.
124
PORTER, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competition. New York, 300.
PORTER, M. E. 1985. Competitive strategy: Creating and sustaining superior performance. The free, New York.
PORTER, M. E. 2008a. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance, Simon and Schuster.
PORTER, M. E. 2008b. The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard business review, 86, 78.
POWELL, T. C. 2001. Competitive advantage: logical and philosophical considerations. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 875-888.
POWELL, T. C. & REINHARDT, I. 2010. Rank friction: an ordinal approach to persistent profitability. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1244-1255.
POWELL, W. 1990. In BM Staw & LL Cummings (Eds.). Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. Research in organizational behavior, 12, 295-336.
RUMELT, R. P., SCHENDEL, D. E. & TEECE, D. J. 1994. Fundamental issues in strategy. Fundamental issues in strategy: A research agenda, 9, 47.
SCHENDEL, D. 1994. Introduction to the summer 1994 special issue—‘Strategy: Search for New Paradigms’. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 1-4.
SCHERER, A. G. & PALAZZO, G. 2011. The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 899-931.
SCOTT, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations, Sage Thousand Oaks, CA.
STEURER, R., LANGER, M. E., KONRAD, A. & MARTINUZZI, A. 2005. Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development I: A theoretical exploration of business–society relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 263-281.
TAN, H. P., PLOWMAN, D., & HANCOCK, P. 2008. The evolving research on intellectual capital. Journal of intellectual capital, 9, 585-608.
TODOROVA, G. & DURISIN, B. 2007. Absortive capacity: valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 32, 774-786.
WIGGINS, R. R. & RUEFLI, T. W. 2002. Sustained competitive advantage: Temporal dynamics and the incidence and persistence of superior economic performance. Organization Science, 13, 81-105.
WIGGINS, R. R. & RUEFLI, T. W. 2005. Schumpeter's ghost: Is hypercompetition making the best of times shorter? Strategic Management Journal, 26, 887-911.
125
WILLIAMSON, O. E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies. New York, 26-30.
WILLIAMSON, O. E. 1985. The economic intstitutions of capitalism, Simon and Schuster.