Privatisation and sustainable competitive advantage in the emerging economies of Central Europe

Extant research on the impact of privatization in the Central Europe (CE) region has focused on improvements in efficiency and the nature of cost-based advantages. This study argues that the development of a vibrant privatized sector requires attention to the broader resource configurations of domestic enterprises. Empirical research was conducted on a large sample of firms in Poland, Hungary and Slovenia. Foreign investment was found to significantly impact on resource accumulation with implications for the development of strategic capabilities and competitive advantage. Foreign direct investment is an effective vehicle for the transfer of financial resources, reputation and new brands but not organizational capabilities. In terms of practice, this study demonstrates the important role of outside investment in the development of a firm's resource base (Frydman et al. 1999). Companies can gain a competitive advantage in their domestic markets through gaining access to the resources of foreign investors.

Technology transfer and sustainable industrial development for developing countries

This paper reports on a part of work for the UNIDO initiative on technology transfer for sustainable industrial development. The proposed technology transfer framework, adapted from the East Asian late industrialisers model, identifies two categories of countries requiring support for enhancing their technological capabilities: (a) very late industrialisers (“low income” developing countries), and (b) slow industrialisers (countries with sizeable manufacturing sectors but limited success in gaining international competitiveness) and three technology transfer routes: (a) through trade and aid to strengthen indigenous production for domestic markets (Route 1); (b) through FDI and contracting to develop export oriented firms (Route 2), and (c) through the supply chain of capital equipment and materials to develop local subcontracting capacity (Route 3). Very late industrialisers need support to start with Route 1 in selected sectors and upgrade through imported mature technologies. Appropriate product innovations are also possible. The slow industrialisers have more scope for increased technology transfer through Routes 2 and 3.

Explicating dynamic capabilities for corporate sustainability

Purpose – Differences in corporate commitments to sustainability have attracted increasing attentions of both researchers and practitioners. However, reasons behind such differences still lack a generic theorization. We propose that one source of these differences lies in the development and application of what we refer to as dynamic capabilities for corporate sustainability within the firm. Drawing on the dynamic capabilities view, the objective of this paper is to examine the fundamental role of dynamic capabilities in corporate sustainable development. Design/methodology/approach – The research developed a framework of dynamic capabilities for corporate sustainability and used the approach of content analysis to verify the framework based on the CSR reports of UK leading companies. Findings – The research demonstrates that the dynamic capabilities for corporate sustainability enable firms to monitor the emerging sustainability needs of various stakeholders, seize sustainable development opportunities from the rapidly changing stakeholders’ expectations, and reconfigure existing functional capabilities for corporate sustainability. Practical implications – The framework of dynamic capabilities for corporate sustainability developed in this paper may be used by practitioners to better understand firms’ status in the corporate sustainable development, identify areas of improvement, and more effectively overcome emerging sustainability challenges. Originality/value – This study makes an early attempt to extend the dynamic capabilities perspective to the area of corporate sustainable development.