Business level strategy and performance: the moderating effects of environment and structure

Purpose – This study aims to examine the moderating effects of external environment and organisational structure in the relationship between business-level strategy and organisational performance. Design/methodology/approach – The focus of the study is on manufacturing firms in the UK belonging to the electrical and mechanical engineering sectors, and respondents were CEOs. Both objective and subjective measures were used to assess performance. Non-response bias was assessed statistically and appropriate measures taken to minimise the impact of common method variance (CMV). Findings – The results indicate that environmental dynamism and hostility act as moderators in the relationship between business-level strategy and relative competitive performance. In low-hostility environments a cost-leadership strategy and in high-hostility environments a differentiation strategy lead to better performance compared with competitors. In highly dynamic environments a cost-leadership strategy and in low dynamism environments a differentiation strategy are more helpful in improving financial performance. Organisational structure moderates the relationship of both the strategic types with ROS. However, in the case of ROA, the moderating effect of structure was found only in its relationship with cost-leadership strategy. A mechanistic structure is helpful in improving the financial performance of organisations adopting either a cost-leadership or a differentiation strategy. Originality/value – Unlike many other empirical studies, the study makes an important contribution to the literature by examining the moderating effects of both environment and structure on the relationship between business-level strategy and performance in a detailed manner, using moderated regression analysis.

An experiment on energy-saving competition with socially responsible consumers: opening the black box

We present results from experimental price-setting oligopolies in which green firms undertake different levels of energy-saving investments motivated by public subsidies and demand-side advantages. We find that consumers reveal higher willingness to pay for greener sellers’ products. This observation in conjunction to the fact that greener sellers set higher prices is compatible with the use and interpretation of energy-saving behaviour as a differentiation strategy. However, sellers do not exploit the resulting advantage through sufficiently high price-cost margins, because they seem trapped into “run to stay still” competition. Regarding the use of public subsidies to energy-saving sellers we uncover an undesirable crowding-out effect of consumers’ intrinsic tendency to support green manufacturers. Namely, consumers may be less willing to support a green seller whose energy-saving strategy yields a direct financial benefit. Finally, we disentangle two alternative motivations for consumer’s attractions to pro-social firms; first, the self-interested recognition of the firm’s contribution to the public and private welfare and, second, the need to compensate a firm for the cost entailed in each pro-social action. Our results show the prevalence of the former over the latter.

Cooperative R&D with endogenous technology differentiation

We study a nontournament R&D duopoly. Before the standard R&D investment and quantity-setting stages, we consider a stage in which firms choose their R&D technologies. Spillovers negatively depend on R&D technology differentiation. We show that, in equilibrium, firms will choose identical or very similar R&D processes. Such equilibria may entail less differentiation than would be dictated by social welfare maximization.