The future of stakeholder management theory: a temporal perspective

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

Plant variety protection in developing countries: A view from the private seed industry in India

Many developing countries are currently engaged in designing and implementing plant variety protection systems. Encouraging private investment in plant breeding is the key rationale for extending intellectual property rights to plant varieties. However, the design of plant variety protection systems in developing countries has been dominated by concerns regarding the inequities of a plant variety protection system, especially the imbalance in the reward structure between plant breeders and farmers. The private seed industry, a key stakeholder in plant variety protection, appears to be playing only a peripheral role in the design of the intellectual property rights regime. This paper explores the potential response of the private seed industry in India to plant variety protection legislation based on a survey of major plant breeding companies. The survey finds that the private seed industry in India is generally unenthusiastic about the legislation and plant variety protection is likely to have only a very limited impact on their research profile and expenditures on plant breeding. Measures designed to curb the 'excessive' profits of breeders, farmers' rights provisions and poor prospects for enforcement of rights are seen to be seriously diluting breeders' rights, leaving few incentives for innovation. If the fundamental objective of plant variety protection is to stimulate private investment in plant breeding, then developing countries need to seriously address the question of improving appropriability of returns from investment.

The determinants of competitive success in the interwar British radio industry

This article discusses the sources of competitive advantage in the interwar British radio industry. Specifically, it examines why sections of the industry that reaped substantial monopoly rents from the downstream value chain failed to dominate the industry. During the 1920s Marconi (which controlled the fundamental UK patents) had a key cost advantage, as had other members of the ‘Big Six’ electrical engineering firms which formed the BBC and were granted preferential royalties. Meanwhile the valve manufacturers' cartel was also able to extract high rents from set manufacturers. The vertical integration literature suggests that input monopolists have incentives to control downstream production. Yet—in contrast to the gramophone industry, which became concentrated into two huge companies following market saturation in the 1930s—radio retained a much more competitive structure. The Big Six failed to capitalize fully on their initial cost advantages owing to logistical weaknesses in supplying markets subject to rapid technical and design obsolescence. Subsequently, during the 1930s, marketing innovations are shown to have played a key role in allowing several independents to establish successful brands. This gave them sufficient scale to provide strong bargaining positions with input suppliers, negating most of their initial cost disadvantage.