Ownership Effects on Unrelated Diversification: An Institutions' Perspective

Purpose To show that differences in the extent to which firms engage in unrelated diversification can be attributed to differences in ownership structure. Methodology/approach We draw on longitudinal data and use a panel analysis specification to test our hypotheses. Findings We find that unrelated diversification destroys value; pressure-sensitive Anglo-American owners in a firm’s equity reduce unrelated diversification, whereas pressure-resistant domestic owners increase unrelated diversification; the greater the firm’s free cash flow, the greater the negative effect of pressure-sensitive Anglo-American owners on unrelated diversification. Research limitations/implications We contribute to corporate governance and strategy research by bringing in owners’ institutional origin as a shaper of owner preferences in particular with regards to unrelated diversification. Future research may expand our investigation to more than one home institutional context, and theorize on institutional origin effects beyond the dichotomy between Anglo-American and non-Anglo-American (not oriented toward shareholder value maximization) owners. Practical implications Policy makers, financial analysts, owners, and managers may want to reflect about the implications of ownership structure, as well as promoting or joining corporations with particular ownership configurations. Social implications A shareholder value-destroying strategy, such as unrelated diversification has adverse consequences for society at large, in terms of opportunity costs, that is, resources could be allocated to value-creating activities instead. Promoting an ownership configuration that creates value should contribute to social welfare. Originality/value Owners may not be exclusively driven by shareholder value maximization, but can be influenced by normative beliefs (biases) stemming from the institutional context they originate from.

Automobile Corporate Networks in Europe : Sectoral Specialization of Central and Eastern European Cities

The global automobile industry is made up of very large corporations and their various subsidiaries containing different functions that create complex locational structures. The networks formed by the 19 largest automobile transnational corporations constitute an automobile "oligopoly" representing more than 90% (OICA, 2012) of the world's production. Since the mid-1990s, Central and Eastern European cities have become attractive for transnational corporations and particularly for the production functions in the automobile sector. This leads to a crucial question. Are strategic functions (such as R&D) within these networks also located in Central and Eastern Europe, or is the region still manufacturing-oriented in the automobile industry? This paper focuses on the patterns and the main factors influencing the role of some of these new central and Eastern European cities that have become integrated in the global value chain of the automobile industry. By analysing the various locations of the specialized functions within the corporations, this study aims to extend the research on global value chains (Gereffi and Korzeniewicz; 1994, Sturgeon, 2000; Krätke, 2014). The spatial patterns of the various functions and the ownerships networks of the automobile industry are constructed in order to identify the cities supporting it. In particular, the way that national metropolises bring their national territories into the globalization of the automobile industry is addressed. For example, are there some specific advantages of capital cities compared to cities that have less integration in globalization terms?