London Business School

About: London Business School is a education organization based out in London, England, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Portfolio & Equity (finance). The organization has 1138 authors who have published 5118 publications receiving 437980 citations. The organization is also known as: LBS.

Related diversification, core competences and corporate performance

Abstract: Despite nearly 30 years of academic research on the benefits of related diversification, there is still considerable disagreement about precisely how and when diversification can be used to build long-run competitive advantage. In this paper we argue that the disagreement exists for two main reasons: (a) the traditional way of measuring relatedness between two businesses is incomplete because it ignores the ‘strategic importance’ and similarity of the underlying assets residing in these businesses, and (b) the way researchers have traditionally thought of relatedness is limited, primarily because it has tended to equate the benefits of relatedness with the static exploitation of economies of scope (asset amortization), thus ignoring the main contribution of related diversification to long-run, competitive advantage; namely the potential for the firm to expand its stock of strategic assets and create new ones more rapidly and at lower cost than rivals who are not diversified across related businesses. An empirical test supports our view that ‘strategic’ relatedness is superior to market relatedness in predicting when related diversifies outperform unrelated ones.

The quest for resilience.

Abstract: In less turbulent times, executives had the luxury of assuming that business models were more or less immortal. Companies always had to work to get better, but they seldom had to get different--not at their core, not in their essence. Today, getting different is the imperative. It's the challenge facing Coca-Cola as it struggles to raise its "share of throat" in noncarbonated beverages. It's the task that bedevils McDonald's as it tries to restart its growth in a burger-weary world. It's the hurdle for Sun Microsystems as it searches for ways to protect its high-margin server business from the Linux onslaught. Continued success no longer hinges on momentum. Rather, it rides on resilience-on the ability to dynamically reinvent business models and strategies as circumstances change. Strategic resilience is not about responding to a onetime crisis or rebounding from a setback. It's about continually anticipating and adjusting to deep, secular trends that can permanently impair the earning power of a core business. It's about having the capacity to change even before the case for change becomes obvious. To thrive in turbulent times, companies must become as efficient at renewal as they are at producing today's products and services. To achieve strategic resilience, companies will have to overcome the cognitive challenge of eliminating denial, nostalgia, and arrogance; the strategic challenge of learning how to create a wealth of small tactical experiments; the political challenge of reallocating financial and human resources to where they can earn the best returns; and the ideological challenge of learning that strategic renewal is as important as optimization.

The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Firm Value: The Role of Customer Awareness

Abstract: This paper shows that corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm value are positively related for firms with high customer awareness, as proxied by advertising expenditures. For firms with low customer awareness, the relation is either negative or insignificant. In addition, we find that the effect of awareness on the CSR–value relation is reversed for firms with a poor prior reputation as corporate citizens. This evidence is consistent with the view that CSR activities can add value to the firm but only under certain conditions. This paper was accepted by Bruno Cassiman, business strategy.

Market-Driven Versus Driving Markets:

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to discuss two approaches to being market oriented—a market-driven approach and a driving-markets approach.Market driven refers to a business orientation that is based on understanding and reacting to the preferences and behaviors of players within a given market structure.Driving markets, on the other hand, implies influencing the structure of the market and/or the behavior(s) of market players in a direction that enhances the competitive position of the business. There are three generic ways of changing the structure of a market: (1) eliminating players in a market (deconstruction approach), (2) building a new or modified set of players in a market (construction approach), and (3) changing the functions performed by players (functional modification approach). Market behavior can be modified directly or, alternatively, indirectly by changing the mind-set of market players (e.g., customers, competitors, and other stakeholders).