Historically, management theory has ignored the constraints imposed by the biophysical (natural) environment. Building upon resource-based theory, this article attempts to fill this void by proposing a natural-resource-based view of the firm—a theory of competitive advantage based upon the firm's relationship to the natural environment. It is composed of three interconnected strategies: pollution prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable development. Propositions are advanced for each of these strategies regarding key resource requirements and their contributions to sustained competitive advantage.

/pdf/a-natural-resource-based-view-of-the-firm-19i7lyrwq8.pdf

A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm

This paper challenges the prevalent notion that family-owned firms are more risk averse than publicly owned firms. Using behavioral theory, we argue that for family firms, the primary reference point is the loss of their socioemotional wealth, and to avoid those losses, family firms are willing to accept a significant risk to their performance; yet at the same time, they avoid risky business decisions that might aggravate that risk. Thus, we propose that the predictions of behavioral theory differ depending on family ownership. We confirm our hypotheses using a population of 1,237 family-owned olive oil mills in Southern Spain who faced the choice during a 54-year period of becoming a member of a cooperative, a decision associated with loss of family control but lower business risk, or remaining independent, which preserves the family's socioemotional wealth but greatly increases its performance hazard. As shown in this study, family firms may be risk willing and risk averse at the same time.

/pdf/socioemotional-wealth-and-business-risks-in-family-44bbmmx58o.pdf

Socioemotional Wealth and Business Risks in Family-controlled Firms: Evidence from Spanish Olive Oil Mills

What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

Decision makers have a strong tendency to consider problems as unique. They isolate the current choice from future opportunities and neglect the statistics of the past in evaluating current plans. Overly cautious attitudes to risk result from a failure to appreciate the effects of statistical aggregation in mitigating relative risk. Overly optimistic forecasts result from the adoption of an inside view of the problem, which anchors predictions on plans and scenarios. The conflicting biases are documented in psychological research. Possible implications for decision making in organizations are examined.

https://courses.washington.edu/pbafhall/514/514%20Readings/TimidChoicesAndBoldForecasts.pdf

Timid choices and bold forecasts: a cognitive perspective on risk taking

Cluster analysis is a statistical technique that sorts observations into similar sets or groups. The use of cluster analysis presents a complex challenge because it requires several methodological choices that determine the quality of a cluster solution. This paper chronicles the application of cluster analysis in strategic management research, where the technique has been used since the late 1970s to investigate issues of central importance. Analysis of 45 published strategy studies reveals that the implementation of cluster analysis has been often less than ideal, perhaps detracting from the ability of studies to generate knowledge. Given these findings, suggestions are offered for improving the application of cluster analysis in future inquiry.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2486927.pdf

The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: an analysis and critique

This study attempted to explain Bowman's risk–return paradox in terms of recent research in behavioral decision theory and prospect theory. The research emphasized the role of reference, or target,...

https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2861&context=lkcsb_research

Attitudes Toward Risk and The Risk–Return Paradox: Prospect Theory Explanations

We explore three theoretical perspectives that look at output flexibility as a competitive advantage for small firms as was initially described by Stigler (1939). First, small firms are more willing to fluctuate their output. As a result: second, small firms can trade cost inefficiency with volume flexibility to increase their profits; third, output flexibility is a more viable source of competitive advantage in volatile and capital-intensive industries, and less viable in profitable industries. Indeed, the empirical analysis of over 3000 companies representing 83 industries during the 1979-87 time period supports our theoretical perspectives. Future research directions that combine firm flexibility and other strategic dimensions are discussed in the context of providing a general strategic framework for small firms competing against large ones.

Output Flexibility-A Competitive Advantage for Small Firms

How can executives achieve a match between expected external environmental conditions and internal organizational capabilities that facilitates improved performance? This paper argues that a firm's choice of ‘reference points’ can help achieve strategic alignment capable of yielding improved performance and potentially even a sustainable competitive advantage. Building upon prospect theory and other relevant theoretical perspectives, the strategic reference point (SRP) matrix is developed. A firm's SRP consists of three dimensions: internal capability, external conditions, and time. A theory is developed which posits an optimal SRP structure, and propositions are offered which articulate the expected relationships between the SRP, strategic choice behavior, and firm performance. The paper closes with some suggestions for using strategic reference points in both research and practice.

Strategic reference point theory

Previous studies on strategic groups have mainly focused on their static characteristics in order to test the theory of strategic groups and intraindustry performance differences (Porter, 1979; Cool and Schendel, 1988; Fiegenbaum and Thomas, 1990). In contrast, this study takes a longitudinal, dynamic perspective and describes the forces driving strategic group membership and structural evolution. It proposes that a strategic group acts as a reference point for group members in formulating competitive strategy. A partial adjustment model of strategic mobility is then developed which incorporates the idea of a strategic group as a reference group. It models strategic change in an industry both within and across strategic groups. The model is tested in the context of an in-depth industry analysis of the more significant firms in the insurance industry over the 1970-84 time period. The results suggest that strategic groups act as reference points for firm strategies and that predictions of future firm strategies and industry/group structures may also be successfully derived.

Strategic Groups as Reference Groups: Theory, Modeling and Empirical Examination of Industry and Competitive Strategy

The concept of strategic groups has been accepted as an important unit of analysis in understanding competitive strategy (Porter, 1980; McGee and Thomas, 1986; Hatten and Hatten, 1987). This study builds upon previous research (Hatten et al., 1978; McGee and Thomas, 1986; Harrigan, 1985; Cool, 1985; Cool and Schendel, 1987, 1988) and provides a general framework for the formation of strategic groups based upon important aspects of firm strategy. This framework is applied to the insurance industry over the 1970–84 time period and strategic implications are drawn. The empirical findings demonstrate that some performance differences exist among strategic groups, and also indicate that the structure of strategic groups (both in terms of the number, and the membership) changes over time. The use of this framework for understanding competitive positioning and developing dynamic theories of strategic group movement is also discussed.

Avi Fiegenbaum

Papers

Attitudes Toward Risk and The Risk–Return Paradox: Prospect Theory Explanations

Output Flexibility-A Competitive Advantage for Small Firms

Strategic reference point theory

Strategic Groups as Reference Groups: Theory, Modeling and Empirical Examination of Industry and Competitive Strategy

Strategic groups and performance: the u.s. insurance industry, 1970-84