Frithjof Pils Diversification, Relatedness, and Performance
GABLER EDITION WISSENSCHAFT
Frithjof Pils
Diversificat...
42 downloads
983 Views
799KB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
Frithjof Pils Diversification, Relatedness, and Performance
GABLER EDITION WISSENSCHAFT
Frithjof Pils
Diversification, Relatedness, and Performance With a Foreword by Prof. Dr. Andreas Bausch
GABLER EDITION WISSENSCHAFT
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
Dissertation Jacobs University Bremen, 2008
1st Edition 2009 All rights reserved © Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2009 Editorial Office: Frauke Schindler / Anita Wilke Gabler is part of the specialist publishing group Springer Science+Business Media. www.gabler.de No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Registered and/or industrial names, trade names, trade descriptions etc. cited in this publication are part of the law for trade-mark protection and may not be used free in any form or by any means even if this is not specifically marked. Cover design: Regine Zimmer, Dipl.-Designerin, Frankfurt/Main Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany ISBN 978-3-8349-1404-0
Foreword A large body of business strategy literature examines the relationship between (product) diversification and firm performance. From a conceptual point of view, increasing levels of diversification should have positive effects on firm performance, particularly due to economies of scope and scale, market power influence, and risk reduction. At the same time, diversifiers have to cope with substantial negative effects associated with increasing complexity. Unsurprisingly, the results of extensive empirical analyses of diversification effects on performance are somewhat contradictory. Against this background, Frithjof Pils answers two central research questions: First, what overall relationship exists between diversification strategies and firm performance? Secondly, what newly developed indicators of business relatedness can add to the understanding of the performance implications of diversification strategies? Frithjof Pils chooses a topic which is of high practical relevance since the decision in which businesses a firm wants to be in is at the core of corporate strategy. His research objectives are well developed based on a sound description of the current research status. The empirical approaches applied reflect a suitable research design in order to answer the research questions at hand. The combination of narrative review, metaanalysis and primary empirical research indicates the wide range of the author‘s methodological knowledge. Overall, the author significantly contributes with this thesis to a comprehensive understanding of the drivers that influence the success of diversification strategies – and of those that are of less relevance. The different empirical studies are based on sound theoretical analyses and argumentations. Furthermore, the conclusions the author draws add perceptibly to the existing body of knowledge in the research field of corporate strategy. Thereby, the study does not only inform a broad readership about a central topic but also offers the expert new insights. The results may thus have important implications for future research and theory building.
Prof. Dr. Andreas Bausch
Preface The dissertation at hand results from the research that I have done as a doctoral student at the Department of Strategic Management and Controlling at Jacobs University Bremen. The dissertation is of cumulative nature. It comprises three consecutive papers all of which were accepted for presentation at the Annual International Conference of the Strategic Management Society (SMS) during the period 2006-2008. The 2008 paper has been nominated for the SMS Best Conference Paper Award.
I would like to use the occasion and express my gratitude to a number of people who have supported me throughout the process of completing this work.
My thesis supervisor and academic mentor, Professor Andreas Bausch, created a peerless environment for developing academic talent at Jacobs University. I appreciate the mix of guidance and empowerment that characterizes his leadership. I thank him for his personal support and how he paved the way for what is yet to come.
Also, I would like to thank Professor Adalbert FX Wilhelm and Professor Hans H. Hinterhuber for very fruitful discussions and for reviewing the dissertation. At the same time, I am indebted to my colleagues and fellow Ph.D. students at Jacobs University. Not least, I owe thanks to Professor Birgitta Wolff and Professor Rulzion Rattray for shaping my initial academic work.
Finally, special thanks go to my family who facilitated this education in the first place and to Duc Linh Van Tri for her invaluable support. I dedicate my dissertation to Gretchen and Margret.
Frithjof Pils
Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................. XI List of Figures ............................................................................................................ XIII List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................. XV 1
Research Problems, Objectives, and Structure................................................ 1
2
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance .............................................................................................. 9 2.1
The Construct “Product Diversification (Strategy)” ....................................... 9
2.2
Empirical Measures of Product Diversification (Strategy) ........................... 11
2.3
The Construct “Performance” ....................................................................... 20
2.4
Theory on Product Diversification as a Cause of Performance .................... 22
2.5
Evidence on Product Diversification as a Cause of Performance................. 25
2.6
Overall Meta-Analytic Proceeding................................................................ 37 2.6.1
Meta-Analytic Methods.................................................................... 38
2.6.2
Testing Contingency Variables: Hedges/Olkin versus Hunter/Schmidt................................................................................. 38
2.6.3
Technical Integration Model ............................................................ 40
2.6.4
Sampling........................................................................................... 42
2.6.5
Coding .............................................................................................. 46
2.7
Meta-Analytic Results ................................................................................... 47
2.8
Discussion...................................................................................................... 57
2.9
Intermediate Conclusion................................................................................ 60
X
Table of Contents
3
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance................................................................................................... 63 3.1
Theory and Hypotheses ................................................................................. 65
3.2
Methods ......................................................................................................... 71 3.2.1
Sample .............................................................................................. 72
3.2.2
Variables ........................................................................................... 73
3.3
Regression and T-Test Results....................................................................... 81
3.4
Discussion...................................................................................................... 97
3.5
Intermediate Conclusion.............................................................................. 105
4
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness ................................................................................... 107
5
4.1
Theory and Hypotheses ............................................................................... 109
4.2
Methods ....................................................................................................... 118 4.2.1
Structural Equation Modeling ........................................................ 118
4.2.2
Variables ......................................................................................... 119
4.3
Structural Equations Results........................................................................ 124
4.4
Discussion.................................................................................................... 136
4.5
Intermediate Conclusion.............................................................................. 143 Summary...................................................................................................... 145
Limitations and Some ex post Remarks on Meta-Analysis........................................ 157 Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 161 Appendices.................................................................................................................. 193
List of Tables Table 2.1
Studies included in the Meta-Analyses…………………………...
Table 2.2
Hedges/Olkin-based Weighted Regression of Accounting-based Correlations onto Contingency-Variables…….
Table 2.3
50
Hedges/Olkin-based Weighted Regression of Market-based Correlations onto Contingency-Variables……………………...…
Table 2.4
45
51
Hunter/Schmidt-based Weighted Integration of DiversificationPerformance Correlations and Hierarchical Breakdown………….
55
Table 3.1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix: Pooled Sample…...
84
Table 3.2
Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Pooled Sample…………………………
Table 3.3
Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Food Industry………………………….
Table 3.4
88
Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Pharmaceuticals Industry………………
Table 3.6
87
Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Chemicals Industry…………………….
Table 3.5
86
89
Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Personal Care Industry………………...
90
XII
Table 3.7
List of Tables
Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Computers Industry……………………
Table 3.8
Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Electronics Industry……………………
Table 3.9
91
92
Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Automotive Industry…………………..
93
Table 3.10
Absolute Excess Values in Seven Core Business Industries……...
96
Table 3.11
Empirical Results in Comparison: Linkage between Types of Relatedness and between Types of Relatedness and Performance..
99
Table 4.1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Structural Equations…..
126
Table 4.2
Factor Loadings: Measurement Model and Final Model…………
127
Table 4.3
Model Statistics…………………………………………………...
131
Table 4.4
Testing Sequence and Model Difference Tests…………………...
132
Table 4.5
Structural Modeling Results Comparing Hypotheses Tests for the Theoretical and Final Model……………………………………...
135
List of Figures Figure 2.1
Diversification Strategies defined in terms of the Specialization Ratio and the Related Ratio……………………………………….
Figure 2.2
15
Heuristic Logic of the Overall Goal of Diversification Strategy…........................................................................................
22
Figure 2.3
Classification of Empirical Evidence from Individual Studies…...
26
Figure 2.4
Empirical Evidence on the Linkage between Degree and Type of Diversification and Performance – Level 1 and 2………………..
Figure 2.5
Empirical Evidence on the Linkage between Degree and Type of Diversification and Performance – Level 3……………………….
Figure 2.6
31
The Inverted-U Association between Diversification and Performance……………………………………………………….
Figure 2.7
30
36
Decomposing a Curvilinear Association via Sample Range Restriction………………………………………………………...
41
Figure 4.1
Theoretical Model………………………………………………...
123
Figure 4.2
Final Model……………………………………………………….
133
List of Abbreviations BSD
Broad Spectrum Diversity
CAPX
Capital Expenditures
CFI
Comparative Fit Index
CMIN
Chi-square Statistic
cf.
confer; compare
DC
Concentric Index of Diversification
DH
Herfindahl Index of Diversification
DR
Diversity Related (Entropy)
DU
Diversity Unrelated (Entropy)
DT
Diversity Total (Entropy)
DW
Weighted Index of Diversification
ed.
editor
eds.
editors
e.g.
exempli gratia; for example
et al.
et alia; and others
et sqq.
et sequens; and the following
EV
Excess Value
GFI
Goodness of Fit Index
H
Hypothesis
i.e.
id est; that is to say
MNSD
Mean Narrow Spectrum Diversity
MSA
Measure of Sampling Adequacy
n
number of subjects, sample size
NFI
Normed Fit Index
NSD
Narrow Spectrum Diversity
OES
Organizational Employment Survey (U.S. Department of Labor)
p.
page
XVI
List of Abbreviations
PCFI
Parsimony Comparative Fit Index
Q
Tobins’s Q
R&D
Research & Development
RDX
Research & Development Expenses
RMSEA
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
ROA
Return on Assets
ROS
Return on Sales
R2
Multiple Regression Coefficient squared
S.D.
Standard Deviation
SIC
Standard Industrial Classification
STX
Staff and related Expenses
1 Research Problems, Objectives, and Structure Product diversification strategy determines which businesses a corporation should be in. It defines the scope of the firm’s activities, is the cornerstone of corporate strategy, and, according to prevailing theory, is of paramount relevance for performance (e.g., Hofer and Schendel, 1978; Markides and Williamson, 1994; Porter, 1987). Consequentially, few topics in corporate strategy research have attracted as much attention as the relationship between product diversification strategy and performance (Bowen and Wiersema, 2005; Chatterjee and Wernerfelt, 1991; Miller, 2004).
Narrative summaries of this line of research suggest that this literature is not only characterized by the use of a variety of theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches but also by the production of most often contradictory results (e.g., Datta, Rajagopalan, and Rasheed, 1991; Denis, Denis, and Sarin, 1997; Hoskisson and Hitt, 1990; Matsusaka, 1993; Ramanujam and Varadarajan, 1989). The impression conveyed is that the most generalizable conclusion as regards the nature of the linkage between diversification strategy and performance is that there is very few to generalize, in fact.
However, in contrast to narrative reviews, a recent meta-analysis on the diversification-performance linkage – that quantitatively integrates the results of 55 empirical studies – suggests something very different. Palich, Cardinal, and Miller (2000) report evidence for an inverted-U association between diversification and performance and argue that related diversification has positive and that unrelated diversification has negative performance effects.
The rationale advanced for the performance-superiority of firms with related business portfolios is that exclusively related diversifiers may realize benefits, most notably economies of scope, from transferring and exploiting across businesses capabilities,
2
Research Problems, Objectives, and Structure
know-how, and other valuable assets (Markides and Williamson, 1996; Penrose, 1959; Rumelt, 1974; Salter and Weinhold, 1979; Teece, 1980). At the same time, unrelated diversifiers had to cope with substantial costs of organizing complex operations (Jones and Hill, 1988; Markides, 1992; Nayyar, 1992).
In the meantime, these meta-analytic findings have become standard strategic management textbook knowledge (e.g., Johnson, Scholes, and Whittington, 2006). The Palich et al. study seems to be deemed the current edge in integrative research on the diversification-performance linkage. This may be due to the fact that, in contrast to narrative reviews, effect-size meta-analysis can generate results of superior validity as regards the actual nature of relationships between variables of interest. Most importantly, meta-analysis allows correcting for effect-size variation caused by study artifacts such as sampling error (Hedges and Olkin 1985; Hunter and Schmidt, 2004).
Nonetheless, the generalizability of Palich et al.’s findings appears problematic for methodological and substantive reasons. Palich et al.’s analysis integrates the results of research published by 1998. Since then the number of empirical studies published on the diversification-performance linkage has roughly doubled, however. Thus, it is not clear whether their findings still hold if a substantially enlarged sample of empirical analyses is used that includes also most recent research. Moreover, as meta-analysis methodology is relatively new to the management discipline, we have little knowledge of the reliability of associated methods. Specifically, it is not clear whether Palich et al.’s findings can be confirmed if alternative meta-analytic techniques are applied.
Moreover, in substantive terms, Palich et al.’s findings would suggest that management practitioners, in order to make diversification succeed, are well-advised to compose portfolios of a multibusiness firm in such a way that they comprise only related or similar businesses. However, simply following the maxim that relatedness of businesses – no matter in which respect – makes diversification succeed, will most likely be misleading. This is because there is selected empirical evidence that relatedness constitutes a multidimensional construct, and that type of relatedness matters to per-
Research Problems, Objectives, and Structure
3
formance (Farjoun, 1994; Markides and Williamson, 1994; Pehrsson, 2006; Robins and Wiersema, 1995; Stimpert and Duhaime, 1997; St. John and Harrison, 1999; Tanriverdi and Venkatraman, 2005).
In fact, the dimensions along which businesses may relate have long been neglected by diversification research. For more than two decades, particularly objective measures of diversification strategy have heavily relied on the hierarchy inherent in the standard industrial classification system (SIC) and, thus, exclusively on types of tangible-, physical-, product-based relatedness. This also implies that any meta-analysis summarizing this literature is necessarily limited.
More recently, selected authors who have questioned the content validity of commonly applied indicators of diversification for research on resource-based theories of the firm, have developed alternative measures of relatedness (e.g., Markides and Williamson, 1994; Robins and Wiersema, 1995). Robins and Wiersema (1995), for instance, model business interrelationships on the basis of technology flows among industries, and Farjoun (1994; 1998) models business interrelationships on the basis of human resource profiles of industries, to name but two examples. Evidence from these studies suggests that relatedness comprises not only tangible but also intangible dimensions.
And, particularly intangible relatedness is increasingly pointed at as being conducive to superior multi-business firm performance (e.g., Farjoun, 1998; Robins and Wiersema, 1995; Szeless, Wiersema, and Müller-Stewens, 2003; Tanriverdi and Venkatraman, 2005). In this line of research, authors argue that intangible assets are both valuable and, in contrast to physical assets, difficult to copy for competitors. Therefore, intangible relatedness could nurture competitive advantages and was more important to diversification success than tangible relatedness (e.g., Barney, 1997; Robins and Wiersema, 1995).
And yet, as this line of research is getting increasingly multi-faceted, one may observe that the majority of empirical studies has emphasized relatedness and synergy at the
4
Research Problems, Objectives, and Structure
operational level (cf. Datta, Rajagopalan, and Rasheed, 1991). This has happened at the expense of synergy that may be associated with aspects of dominant logic, distinctive competence, and effective management at the corporate, strategic level.
However, effective corporate management and leveraging distinct corporate-level competences – considered to be possible in portfolios with strategically related businesses rather than with operationally related businesses – may matter as much to multibusiness firm success as economies of the scope at the operational level (Grant, 1988; Hitt and Ireland, 1985; Prahalad and Bettis, 1986). Also, strategic relatedness may interact with operational relatedness to determine the ultimate nature of the performance implications of diversification strategy (D’Aveni, Ravenscraft, and Anderson, 2004; Grant, 1988; Hill, 1994; Harrison, Hall, and Nargundkar, 1993).
Moreover, ever since, there has been anecdotal evidence suggesting that effective corporate management may be the factor that reasons the success of specific types of multibusiness firms – namely those occasionally described as premium conglomerates (e.g., Shulman, 1999). Adding to this discussion, Michael Goold and colleagues have repeatedly used case-based research to emphasize that corporate parents require having “sufficient feel” for the critical success factors of single businesses if a portfolio is to be managed successfully (e.g., Goold, Campbell, and Alexander, 1994).
Accordingly, theory suggests that research on the diversification strategy and performance linkage may be informed by approaches that account for both aspects of economies of scope at the operational level as well as aspects of dominant management logic and effective corporate management at the strategic level. And yet, empirical research available on the dimensionality of the relatedness construct and respective associations with performance has not followed any explicit distinction of operational relatedness from strategic relatedness. Accordingly, it has not been established yet how precisely operational relatedness and strategic relatedness interact, and how they matter to diversification success.
Research Problems, Objectives, and Structure
5
In fact, to date, the diversification-performance literature as a whole offers sporadic empirical evidence only on how diversification strategy in terms of different types of relatedness impacts firm financial performance. As a consequence, there is still a considerable need for management advice on what business relatedness to strive for in order to make diversification not only succeed but also to maximize corporate performance (cf. Pehrsson, 2006).
It is against this background, that the overall purpose of this study is to examine a) what the current body of empirical research truly suggests about the linkage between diversification strategy and performance, and, b) if and what newly developed indicators of business relatedness can add to our understanding of the performance implications of diversification strategy. In order to answer these and a number of related questions of detail, I proceed as follows.
In the first part of the study, I elaborate on why Palich et al.’s results cannot put an end to the diversification-performance debate. I replicate Palich et al.’s meta-analysis and subsequently use a substantially extended sample of correlational estimates empirically observed between diversification and performance that includes also most recent research. This means that I offer a quantitative integration of the relevant empirical literature of unprecedented scope. I accumulate empirical findings from studies published between 1971 and 2005. Altogether, these studies draw on 52,116 empirical observations on the nature of the diversification-performance relationship that were made between 1940 and 2000.
In addition, I employ both the techniques suggested by Hedges and Olkin (1985) and the techniques suggested by Hunter and Schmidt (2004) for meta-analytically testing the impact of contingency variables on the diversification-performance association. This proceeding allows me to examine the stability of findings across meta-analytic methods. Ultimately, I use this part of the study to tease out the nature of the linkages between product diversification strategies (as indicated by traditional measurement
6
Research Problems, Objectives, and Structure
schemes) and accounting-, market-, and growth-based performance that is truly suggested by the body of empirical research.
In the second part of this study, I pay particular attention to the performance effects of different types of business relatedness at the operational level as indicated by recently developed indices – an issue that has to be neglected in the meta-analysis due to the lack of respective empirical research. For this purpose, I study a total of 350 large multibusiness firms active in seven manufacturing industries over the period 2004-2006.
Specifically, I test whether physical-, product-based relatedness (Palepu, 1985), resource-based, technological relatedness (Robins and Wiersema, 1995), and skill-based relatedness (Farjoun, 1998) relate differently to performance. Amongst others, this allows me to verify if indeed intangible relatedness matters more to diversification success than tangible relatedness.
Moreover, next to measures of performance conventionally used in strategy research, I employ the excess value measure methodology suggested by Berger and Ofek (1995). The excess value measure originates from the finance literature and can be used to examine whether diversified firms trade at a discount or premium relative to imputed values of portfolios of stand-alone firms. Thus, it promises high content validity in terms of capturing whether corporate wholes may indeed add up to more than the sum of their parts, i.e. if net synergies are realized. If I am not mistaken, this also means that this study is the first to test the associations between a variety of indicators of different types of relatedness, i.e. synergy potentials, and the excess value measure as the best possible indicator of actual synergy realization.
In addition, I explore in this context if the nature of the performance impact of specific types of relatedness is a function of industry. This is important as industry is variously pointed at as a key contingency variable in diversification-performance research. Furthermore, as rules of competition, success factors, and the value of assets vary across industries (e.g., Markides and Williamson, 1996; Porter, 1985), it is possible that also
Research Problems, Objectives, and Structure
7
the nature of the performance impact of specific types of relatedness and types of scope economies is a function of industry.
Finally, I examine in this part of the study the association between operational relatedness and absolute values of the excess value measure (1995). This is because, to date, empirical research has not provided evidence in fact that operational relatedness can be exploited by multibusiness firms in ways that allow them to turn the frequently reported diversification discount (e.g., Berger and Ofek, 1995; Comment and Jarrell, 1995; Lamont and Polk, 2002; Lang and Stulz, 1994; Mackey and Barney, 2006) into a premium. However, if relatedness is considered a proxy for potential economies of scope (e.g., Robins and Wiersema, 2003), and if, according to resource-based theory, synergies by means of scope economies is the major justification for multibusiness firms to exist (e.g., Kanter, 1989; Mahoney and Pandian, 1992; Penrose, 1959; Porter, 1985), then some at least of the diversified firms that show the highest levels of business relatedness should not trade at a diversification discount but at a premium.
In the third part of this study, I use structural equation modeling in order to be able to first test the validity of Grant’s (1988) two-factor conceptualization of the relatedness construct that distinguishes relatedness at the operational level from relatedness at the strategic level. In response to Prahalad and Bettis’ (1986) award-winning paper on the dominant general management logic, Grant was the first to suggest that there are merely two but fundamental dimensions of relatedness – namely operational and strategic relatedness. Operational relatedness referred to similarities at the process-level and, amongst others, to product-based and technological similarities. Contrarily, strategic relatedness referred to similarities at the corporate-level and described if businesses were similar to manage in terms of functions such as resource allocation (Grant, 1988).
In the third part of the analysis, I also test associations between factors of strategic relatedness, operational relatedness, and performance. Thus, this analysis is the first in the field to examine the performance effects of strategic relatedness vis-à-vis opera-
8
Research Problems, Objectives, and Structure
tional relatedness in a single, integrative model using a multitude of objective indicators for each factor. Also, the sample used is considerably larger than the samples used in prior research in this domain.
The overall structure of the study is as follows. Chapter 2 presents narrative review elements as well as setup and results of the quantitative meta-analyses on the diversification-performance linkage. Chapter 3 comprises cross-industry and industry-specific regressions and t-tests that I use to examine the linkage between objective indicators of operational relatedness and multibusiness firm performance. Chapter 4 presents the structural equation modeling examining the two-factor structure of the relatedness construct as suggested by Grant and the performance implications of strategic relatedness vis-à-vis the effects of operational relatedness. I offer a discussion of respective findings in each of chapters 2-4 and summarize results and implications of the three analyses in chapter 5. Ultimately, in the limitations section I close with some remarks on the use of meta-analytic methods in strategic management research.
2 Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
2.1 The Construct “Product Diversification (Strategy)” Product diversification strategy determines which businesses a corporation should be in. As it defines the scope of a firm’s activities, it is considered a cornerstone of corporate strategy (e.g., Hofer and Schendel, 1978; Markides and Williamson, 1994; Porter, 1987). While there is a great deal of variation in the way product diversification is defined in the literature (Datta, Rajagopalan, and Rasheed, 1991; Ramanujam and Varadarajan, 1989), traditional understandings of the term have a common denominator. To enumerate but some examples, Berry (1971, p. 380) defines product diversification as an increase in the number of industries in which firms are active. Pitts and Hopkins (1982, p. 620) consider corporations product-diversified if they simultaneously operate multiple different businesses. And, Ramanujam and Varadarajan (1989, p. 525) define diversification as the entry of a firm into new lines of activity.
These and the majority of other definitions draw on a notion of diversification that has somewhat been inspired by the early work of Ansoff (1957) in which he used the term “diversification” to describe a growth strategy that involves entering new markets with new product lines (p. 114). Following Ansoff, a product line is described by the physical and functional characteristics of individual products and a market is described in terms of specific customer needs (p. 113). It is this logic that underlies the traditional understanding of diversification as product-market diversification (Salter and Weinhold, 1979, p. 5). If definitions draw on terms such as industries, businesses, (strategic) business units, or lines of activity to describe corporate diversification, they essentially refer to the idea of product-markets.
10
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
Moreover, the term diversification has at its root the word “diverse” which literally means “different, unlike, distinct, and separate” (Pitts and Hopkins, 1982, p. 620). Accordingly, product-diversified firms are understood to be active in multiple, distinct product-markets. This is the traditional understanding of product diversification, a general perspective that I adopt also in this research: Product diversification refers to the spreading of firm activities across a number of distinct product-markets.
In practice, however, firms use different logics to compose portfolios; they are said to pursue different product diversification strategies. Rumelt, for instance, defines a firm‘s product diversification strategy as its “[…] commitment to diversity per se, together with the strengths and skills or purposes that span this diversity, shown by the way in which business activities are related one to another“ (1974, p. 29). In line with this definition, scholars in this field of research usually consider product diversification strategies and the inherent logic of business linkage being characterized by type of business relatedness. Accordingly, I understand the term product diversification strategy as follows: Product diversification strategy refers to the spreading of firm activities across a number of distinct product-markets that are more or less related on to be specified dimensions.
Please note that – in line with the vast majority of diversification-performance research – I do not distinguish the terms diversity (a state) and diversification (a process) in the analyses to come. In addition, I abstract from mode of diversification in terms of internal development versus acquisitions.
The Construct “Product Diversification (Strategy)”
11
In order to understand the central construct of this work in-depth, I provide in the following a brief overview of traditional empirical measures of product diversification (strategy) and how they developed over time. 2.2 Empirical Measures of Product Diversification (Strategy) The most popular empirical measures of product diversification (strategy) are (a) the simple business count approach, (b) weighted business count approaches, (c) Caves et al.’s concentric index and weighted index of diversification, (d) the Rumelt classification scheme, (e) the entropy measure of diversification strategy, (f) the broad and mean narrow spectrum diversity measure, and, more recently, (g) various relatedness indices. (a) Simple Business Counts This approach measures diversification by numerically counting the number of businesses, i.e. most commonly the number of four-digit standard industrial classification (SIC) industries (Bowen and Wiersema, 2005; Ciscel and Evans, 1984; Carter, 1977). While the business count method is one of the earliest measures of diversification (Keats, 1990) and enjoys limited popularity in strategic management research nowadays, it is still frequently applied in the finance literature. Here, researchers measure diversification by means of comparing single- to multiple four-digit SIC segment firms (Clarke, 2004; Singh, Mathur, and Gleason, 2004; Mansi and Reeb, 2002). However, this simple business count measure is insensitive to the size distribution and importance of businesses, a weakness that is overcome by weighted business count methods. (b) Weighted Business Counts Weighted business count measures take into account the number of businesses as well as the share Pi of each business within the firm in terms of sales, assets, employees, or income. Most popular are the inverse of the Herfindahl index and the Entropy index. The Herfindahl index of diversification DH takes the functional form:
12
DH
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance n
1 ¦ Pi * Pi i 1
where Pi is the share of the ith business within the firm which is weighted by itself, and n is the number of businesses (e.g., Berry, 1975). The Entropy index DT is similar; however, each business’ share is weighted by the logarithm of 1/Pi and the sum of the weighted shares is not deducted from unity (Jacquemin and Berry, 1979):
DT
n
¦ P * 1 / P i
i
i 1
Both simple and weighted business count methods originate from measures of industrial structure (Jacquemin and Berry, 1979). Distinguishing firms merely on the basis of the number of businesses and the degree of activity distribution, these measures fail to account for the logic, i.e. the strategies, underlying diversification, however (Keats, 1990). (c) Concentric and Weighted Index of Diversification Another continuous measure of diversification initially developed for research on industrial organization is the Caves et al. (1980) concentric index of diversification. Next to the number of businesses and the extent of activity distribution, it factors in the nature of relations between businesses in a portfolio (Caves et al., 1980, p. 199). The concentric index of diversification DC takes the form:
DC
¦ p *¦ p j
j
i
* d ij
i
where pj is the proportion of a company’s total employment in four-digit SIC business j, and dij is a weight whose value is a function of the relations between four-digit
Empirical Measures of Product Diversification (Strategy)
13
businesses i and j in the SIC-system. d takes a value of zero if i and j are four-digit businesses within the same three-digit industry, one if they are in different three-digit industries but the same two-digit industry group, and a value of two if they are in different two-digit industries (Caves et al., 1980, p. 199).
In addition to the concentric index, Caves et al. have also suggested the weighted index of diversification. While the concentric index accounts for the relations between all secondary businesses in a portfolio, the weighted index assigns particular significance to a firm’s primary business and diversification away from the base activity (Caves et al., 1980, p. 200). The weighted index of diversification DW takes the functional form:
DW
¦p
i
* d ih
i
where pi is the proportion of a company’s total employment in four-digit SIC business i, and dih is a weight whose value equals zero if the four-digit business i is included within the three-digit base (i.e. largest) industry, one if it is in a different three-digit industry within the same two-digit industry group, and two if it lies within a different two-digit industry group (Caves et al., 1980, p. 200).
In corporate strategy research, both indices have been applied with sales-based instead of employment-based weights. The concentric index has been used by Robins and Wiersema (1995) and Montgomery and Hariharan (1991), for instance. And the weighted index has been employed in Wan and Hoskisson (2003) and Gedajlovic and Shapiro (2003), to name but two studies. (d) The Rumelt Classification Scheme Rumelt’s measurement scheme of diversification strategy was largely developed in response to weaknesses inherent in the SIC system (Montgomery, 1982). Following
14
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
Rumelt (1982, p. 360) “the varying degrees of breadth in the SIC classes and the implicit assumption of equal dissimilarity between distinct SIC classes” is the most serious shortcoming of SIC based measures. For this reason, drawing on work by Wrigley (1970), Rumelt developed an alternative, categorical measurement scheme of diversification strategy that involves subjective assessments.
Specifically, it is the specialization ratio, the related ratio, and the vertical ratio that are suggested for classifying firms into up to nine categories of diversification strategy (cf. Rumelt, 1974, p. 30). However, in empirical studies, the vast majority of researchers employing the Rumelt scheme limit their examination to measuring the specialization ratio and the related ratio and to classifying firms into four major groups of diversification strategy: single business, dominant business, related business, and unrelated business. The ratio-specific threshold levels suggested by Rumelt for classifying firms into these four classes of diversification strategy are shown in figure 2.1.
The specialization ratio is defined as the “proportion of a firm’s revenues derived from its largest single business” and the related ratio as the “proportion of a firm’s revenues derived from its largest single group of related businesses” (Rumelt, 1974, p. 31). Using Rumelt’s original terms, the specialization ratio is to reflect a firm’s commitment to diversity per se, while the related ratio is to indicate the relatedness between businesses. These ratios, in turn, are based on a discrete business being defined as one that is strategically independent of the firm’s other businesses, and businesses being by definition related when a common skill, resource, market, or purpose applies to each (Rumelt, 1974, p. 29).
It is at researchers’ discretion to identify discrete businesses and relatedness. As this introduces a considerable amount of subjectivity into the Rumelt scheme of diversification strategies, the scheme has been criticised by many for low reliability. Nonetheless, Datta, Rajagopalan, and Rasheed (1991) describe the Rumelt scheme as the most widely used diversification measure, and Bergh (2001) and Mayer and Whittington (2003) label it the “gold standard” in the field.
Empirical Measures of Product Diversification (Strategy)
15
0.0
Unrelated Business 0.7 Related Ratio
Related Business
DominantUnrelated
Dominant Business
Single Business
1.0 0.7
0.95
0.0
Specialization Ratio
Figure 2.1
Diversification Strategies defined in terms of the Specialization Ratio and the Related Ratio (Source: Rumelt (1974, p.31))
In this context, it is important to note that a cursory look at the diversification literature indicates that the specialization ratio is also used as a stand-alone, continuous measure of concentration (Chu, 2004; Picard and Rimmer, 1999; Hill and Snell, 1988) and its complement as a measure of diversification (Skaggs and Droege, 2004; Hall and Lee, 1999). Moreover, the specialization ratio is often applied in conjunction with identifying a firm’s major or primary business on the basis of SIC industries. Similarly, the related ratio is used in isolation from the Rumelt scheme and as a continuous indicator of the level of business relatedness (Bethel and Liebeskind, 1993; Hill and Snell, 1988; Michel and Shaked, 1984).
16
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
(e) The Entropy Measure of Diversification Strategy The entropy measure of diversification strategy belongs to the group of weighted business count measures as described above. Originally proposed by Jacquemin and Berry (1979), the entropy measure has gained popularity in strategic management research with the publication by Palepu (1985). In the light of Rumelt’s categorical measurement scheme being of subjective nature and time-consuming, Palepu suggested the use of the entropy measure. It enabled researchers to combine the objectivity and ease of computation of business count approaches with “[…] the essential richness of Rumelt’s approach”, [i.e.] […] the degree of relatedness among the various product segments” (Palepu, 1985, p. 244).
In this respect, it is again the SIC system that is used to define related and unrelated businesses within a portfolio. Different four-digit SIC industries within the same twodigit industry group are treated as related businesses, and businesses from different two-digit SIC industry groups are classified as unrelated. By this means, a firm’s total diversity is decomposable into an unrelated component indexing the degree to which a firm’s activity is distributed across unrelated industry groups and a related component indexing the degree of activity distribution among related businesses within industry groups. The entropy index of unrelated diversification DU takes the functional form:
DU
m
1 ¦ P j * ln 1 / P j j 1
where Pj is the share of the jth two-digit industry group’s sales in the total sales of the firm, and m is the number of two-digit industry groups (Palepu, 1985, p. 253). In contrast, the entropy index of related diversification DR is calculated from:
DR j
¦H P i j
j
i
* ln 1 / P j i
Empirical Measures of Product Diversification (Strategy)
17
where DRj is the related diversification arising out of operating in several businesses within an industry group j, and Pji is the share of the segment i of group j in the total sales of the group. As a firm may operate in several industry groups, its total related diversification DR equals:
DR
M
¦ DR
j
*Pj
j 1
where Pj is the share of the jth group’s sales in the total sales of the firm. Finally a firm’s total diversification DT is the sum of its unrelated diversification and its total related diversification:
DT
DU DT
As shown in the section on weighted business counts, a firm’s total diversification DT takes the functional form:
DT
n
1 ¦ Pi * ln 1 / Pi i 1
where Pi is the share of the ith four-digit business within the firm, and n is the number of four-digit businesses.
Palepu in his seminal paper (1985) uses the continuous entropy indices and classifies firms as “predominantly related diversifiers” and “predominantly unrelated diversifiers”. Firms with above median related diversification and below median unrelated diversification are identified as related diversifiers. And firms with above median unrelated diversification and below median related diversification are identi-fied as unrelated diversifiers. In contrast to Palepu, the vast majority of strategy researchers apply
18
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
the component indices of the entropy measure of diversification strategy in purely continuous fashion, however. (f) Broad and Mean Narrow Spectrum Diversity In response to Palepu (1985), Varadarajan and Ramanujam (1987) proposed the use of simpler measure of diversification strategy that does not require detailed business level data as does the entropy index and that can nonetheless capture degree and nature of diversification. Building on Wood (1971), the two dimensions broad spectrum diversity (BSD), i.e. the number of two-digit SIC industries, and mean narrow spectrum diversity (MNSD), i.e. the average number of four-digit SIC codes within two-digit SIC codes, are employed to categorize firm into groups of diversification strategy. Using sample-specific, average values of BSD and MNSD firms are classified as “firms with very low diversity”, “predominantly related diversifiers”, “predominantly unrelated diversifiers”, and “firms with very high diversity” (Varadarajan and Ramanujam, 1987, p. 383).
In the diversification literature the BSD/MNSD indices are used, on the one hand, indeed for classifying firms into diversification strategies (e.g., Palich, Carini, and Seaman, 2000; Qian, 1997) but, on the other hand, also as separate, continuous measures of related diversification (MNSD; e.g., Lubatkin et al., 1993), unrelated diversification (BSD; e.g., Sambharya, 2000), and total diversification (NSD), i.e. the total number of four-digit industries in a portfolio (e.g., Kim and Hoskisson, 2004). (g) Various Relatedness Indices Except for the Rumelt scheme, all of the above measures of diversification strategy focus exclusively on relatedness in terms of tangible, physical, product-based similarities between businesses in a portfolio. This is due to the fact that these measurement schemes build on the SIC system to assess business relatedness.
Empirical Measures of Product Diversification (Strategy)
19
This approach has been strongly criticized in the literature more recently. It has been argued that SIC-based measures largely lack content validity for research on resourcebased theories of the firm (e.g., Robins and Wiersema, 2003; Markides and Williamson, 1994). At least, any unidimensional understanding of the relatedness construct in terms of product-based similarities is seriously questioned and deemed falling short of grasping the complexity of potential (resource-based) linkages between businesses in a portfolio.
As a consequence, alternative, archival data-based measures of diversification have been proposed and applied that emphasize aspects of diverse types of business similarity. Robins and Wiersema (1995) model business interrelationships on the basis of technology flows among industries and Farjoun (1994; 1998) on the basis of human resource profiles of industries, to name but two examples. To date, there is very little empirical research available that uses these measures, however. Amongst others this may due to the complexity of calculating these relatedness indices for larger samples.
In addition to measures of relatedness based on archival data, relatedness is also increasingly measured on the basis of manager self-report data. It is argued that managers’ conceptualizations of relatedness may significantly differ from the relatedness that is measured from outside the corporation by drawing on objective measures of diversification strategy (Stimpert and Duhaime, 1997). For this reason, stressing the perceptual, behavioral perspective, questionnaire surveys are used in which managers are asked to signify the importance of a set of relatedness dimensions that are subsequently usually factor-analyzed to identify relatedness dimensions relevant to managerial practice (e.g., Pehrsson, 2006; Stimpert and Duhaime, 1997). However, again very few empirical research and almost none replication studies is available in this domain of research.
I will elaborate in detail on new measurement schemes of business relatedness in the course of part two and part three of this study in which I examine closer the associations between dimensions of relatedness and performance. For the meta-analyses they
20
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
do play a minor role as there are hardly any empirical studies available using these indices that could be integrated. 2.3 The Construct “Performance” In the subsequent analyses I follow the construct conceptualization of “financial performance” that was initially suggested by Venkatraman and Ramanujam (1986) and later meta-analytically verified by Combs, Crook, and Shook (2005).
Combs et al. use the label “organizational performance” to describe the idea of “financial performance” and in order to delimit it from “operational performance”. The authors define organizational performance as to be indicated by all “measures that depict [economic] outcomes attributable to the interaction among all value creation activities and the organization’s environment” (p. 267). Contrarily, indicators of operational performance are understood to reflect outcomes that can be tied to a specific value chain activity, such as indicators of product quality or innovation. Combs and colleagues meta-analytically derive that the construct of organizational performance comprises the three distinct dimensions accounting-based performance, (capital) market-based performance, and growth-based performance. Building on their quantitative concept validation, I limit my analyses to investigating the relationships between diversification and these three dimensions of organizational performance.
With a view to the empirical studies located and deemed relevant for the meta-analyses to follow this means that return on assets, return on equity, return on investment, return on sales, net income, and cash flow per sales or per assets are classified as accountingbased measures of performance. Tobin’s q, market-to-book ratios, the Sharpe ratio, the Treynor index, Jensen’s alpha, and stock returns are classified as market-based measures of performance. Eventually, sales growth, market share growth, asset growth, and earnings per share growth are considered measures of growth-based performance.
The Construct “Performance”
21
In addition, I limit my analyses to organizational performance at the corporate level. This is because I am particularly interested in the economic justification of multibusiness firms and diversification per se. Accordingly, I seek to answer the overall question whether diversified firms can make the corporate whole add up to more than the sum of its standalone parts (Collis and Montgomery, 2004; Goold and Luchs, 1993; Porter, 1987) rather than understanding the performance of individual business units.
Following this logic, I adopt a perspective in this research that is based on a key proposition in strategic management research: In order to make the corporate whole add up to more than the sum of its parts, multibusiness firms must achieve (positive net) synergy (cf. Kanter, 1989; Porter, 1985; Tanriverdi and Venkatraman, 2005; Teece, 1982). The word synergy is derived from the Greek word synergos and literally means “working together”. “In business usage, synergy refers to the ability of two or more units or companies to generate greater value working together than they could working apart” (Goold and Campbell, 1999, p. 133). More precisely, diversification and institutionalizing a multibusiness firm is considered economically reasonable only if synergistic effects between formerly distinct businesses exceed the costs of multibusiness organization. As a consequence, the idea of achieving and maximizing (positive net) synergy as the overall objective of diversification strategies, i.e. the goal to make 1 + 1 = 3 or better 4, will guide my work and be recurring throughout the analyses.
In the literature, a multibusiness firm that excels at realizing positive net synergy is sometimes considered to have a “corporate advantage” or “parenting advantage” over alternative parents (e.g., Collis and Montgomery, 2004). Theoretically, a multibusiness firm maximizes its value if it is active only in those businesses in which it can draw on a corporate advantage to add value. This general heuristic logic that guides my work is illustrated in figure 2.2.
22
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
Value Corporate Advantage
Benefits/ Gross Synergies Standalone
Net Synergies
Net Synergies
Costs
Standalone
Sum of the Parts
Sum of the Parts
(Businesses A, B, and C)
(Businesses A, B, and C)
Multibusiness Firm A
Multibusiness Firm B
Standalone
Single Business A
Figure 2.2
Single Business B
Single Business C
Multibusiness Firm A
Multibusiness Firm A
Heuristic Logic of the Overall Goal of Diversification Strategy (Source: Adapted from Hungenberg (2003, p. 10)
2.4 Theory on Product Diversification as a Cause of Performance The ultimate impact that product diversification strategy will have on performance results as a function of benefits associated with diversification net of costs associated with diversification. In particular in terms of benefits, different fields of research suggest alternative foci.
Industrial organization theory has traditionally emphasized potential benefits of diversification arising from market power. Diversification may lead to increased market power that is exercisable through cross-subsidization, predatory pricing, reciprocity in buying and selling, and the creation of entry barriers (Caves, 1981; Markham, 1973; Saloner, 1987).
Theory on Product Diversification as a Cause of Performance
23
Scholars from institutional and financial economics have highlighted benefits from internal factor market efficiencies. Internal markets for capital, human-, and other resources may be more efficient in terms of allocation than external markets if they build on superior information flows and controls (Lang and Stulz, 1994; Servaes, 1996; Williamson, 1975).
The finance literature has also variously pointed at benefits associated with riskreduction. By combining businesses that are not perfectly correlated in terms of cash streams, stability of earnings may be achieved (Higgins and Schall, 1975; Lewellen, 1971). This coinsurance effect would facilitate greater debt capacity and create value through an increased tax shield and the smoothing out of gains and losses (Singh, Mathur, and Gleason, 2004).
Moreover, studies from strategic management have emphasized the potential for synergies. In this literature, the term synergy has often been used synonymously with the term economies of scope (Tanriverdi and Venkatraman, 2005). Economies of scope may accrue from transferring, sharing, and leveraging valuable resources (Barney, 1997; Markides and Williamson, 1994; Penrose, 1959; Rumelt, 1982; Salter and Weinhold, 1979; Teece, 1982). Economies of scope refer to the sub-additivity of production costs (Baumol et al., 1982) and arise when an imperfectly divisible asset with excess capacity can be used to produce several outputs (Hill, 1994). If two or more businesses share such factors of production their joint production costs may be less than the sum of their stand-alone production costs. This presupposes that the structure of the diversified firm is used to economize on transaction costs as otherwise the usage of excess capacity could be sold to other companies (Teece, 1982). If this applies, scope economies are achieved that can improve the performance of each business in a portfolio and the performance of the corporation as a whole (D’Aveni, Ravenscraft, and Anderson, 2004) – provided the corporation and relatedness is properly managed (Hill, 1994; Nayyar, 1992).
24
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
Synergy, however, may not only be attained by means of scope economies or subadditivities of production costs. Instead, if businesses in a portfolio can jointly draw on resources that are complementary, synergies in the form of super-additivities may arise (Milgrom and Roberts, 1995). A recent example from empirical research is that types of knowledge can be complementary for instance (Tanriverdi and Venkatraman, 2005).
Finally, the work by Prahalad and Bettis (1986) on “dominant management logic” suggests that effective corporate management in terms of fulfilling functions such as coordination, monitoring, and control can become a distinct corporate skill that adds value to the multibusiness firm. Effective corporate management is suggested to be feasible if businesses share strategic similarities and can be managed with a common paradigm, similar systems, and on the basis of routines developed though past experiences in a dominant business (Grant, 1988; Prahalad and Bettis, 1986). In other words, value may be added if a corporate parent identifies a parenting opportunity to improve the performance of a stand-alone business and draws on its own strengths, such as top management skills and management processes, to realize this opportunity (Goold, Campbell, Alexander, 1994).
Nonetheless, the option of realizing the benefits of diversification comes at costs. Diversification is variously assumed to impose substantial costs of coordination and motivation due to increased information asymmetries and interest divergences (Coase, 1937; Jones and Hill, 1988; Markides, 1992; Nayyar, 1992; Porter, 1985). Moreover, increasing portfolio diversity may entail inefficiencies due to growing strains on top management, a lack of adaptability to environmental change, and politicization of decision-making (Grant, Jammine, and Thomas, 1988; McDougall and Round, 1984). Particularly, strategic variety and conflicting management styles may create tensions and problems between headquarters and businesses and lead to wrong management decisions in the end (Goold and Luchs, 1993; Prahalad and Bettis, 1986).
Evidence on Product Diversification as a Cause of Performance
25
2.5 Evidence on Product Diversification as a Cause of Performance The question whether and how product diversification actually impacts firm performance has been researched in a vast number of individual empirical studies over the past 40 years. Qualitative summaries of this literature suggest that this line of research is characterized by the use of a variety of theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches as well as by the production of different and often contradictory results (e.g., Datta, Rajagopalan, and Rasheed, 1991; Denis, Denis, and Sarin, 1997; Hoskisson and Hitt,1990; Matsusaka, 1993; Ramanujam and Varadarajan, 1989). The impression conveyed by these narrative reviews is that the most generalizable conclusion as regards the nature of the diversification-performance linkage is that there is very few to generalize, in fact.
At the same time, these narrative reviews suggest that the multitude and variety of individual studies should be dealt with by drawing on some framework to meaningfully structure the research on the diversification-performance linkage. Accordingly, and with a view to the prime focus of this analysis, I follow Datta, Rajagopalan, and Rasheed’s (1991) suggestion and distinguish in a first step those studies that examine empirically the linkage between diversification in terms of degree and performance from those studies that examine the linkage between diversification in terms of type and performance.
Subsequently, I distinguish studies that offer overall empirical evidence for the thesis that diversification degree or type matter to performance from studies that find that diversification does not matter to performance as well as from studies that suggest that the (true) linkage between diversification (strategy) and performance emerges under contingencies only. Finally, I examine closer the studies that suggest that diversification matters to performance and highlight how diversification matters, i.e. here I focus on the nature of the association that is suggested by prior research. Figure 2.3 summarizes this logic and structure.
26
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
Empirical Evidence on the Diversification-Performance Linkage
Degree of Diversification and Performance
Type of Diversification and Performance
What do studies suggest as regards the linkage between diversification in terms of number of businesses and activity distribution and performance?
What do studies suggest as regards the linkage between diversification strategy in terms of relatedness and performance?
Degree matters
Degree does not matter
Positive Association
Negative Association
Figure 2.3
Contingencies Impact Linkage
Quadratic Association
Type matters
Related Diversification is Superior
Type does not matter
Contingencies Impact Linkage
Unrelated Diversification is Superior
Classification of Empirical Evidence from Individual Studies
The initial distinction of degree of diversification from type of diversification draws on conceptual as well as methodological aspects. Degree of diversification refers to the number of businesses and the extent of activity distribution that characterize multibusiness firms’ portfolios. Contrarily, type of diversification refers to type of diversification strategy and involves some kind of element of assessing the relatedness or similarity between businesses in empirical measurements. In other words, degree of diversification generally refers to diversification or diversity per se, i.e. without further specifying this diversity, while type of diversification (also) refers to the logic of business linkage in portfolios. Traditionally, measures of the degree of diversification have been employed by researchers using an industrial organization perspective (e.g., Bass, Cattin, and Wittunk, 1977; Gort, 1962; Ravenscraft, 1983) and measurement schemes of the type of diversification strategy have been applied by researchers from the area
Evidence on Product Diversification as a Cause of Performance
27
of strategic management (e.g., Bettis and Hall, 1982; Grant, Jammine, and Thomas, 1988; Palepu, 1985; Robins and Wiersema, 1995; Rumelt, 1974). In the literature, the degree of diversification is usually measured by drawing on continuous indicators of diversification, such as (weighted) business counts, while type of diversification strategy is usually operationalized by means of drawing on categorical measurement schemes, such as the Rumelt typology. However, while it is common in the literature to conceptually distinguish degree of diversification from type of diversification, it is to be mentioned at this stage that it is also common among empirical researchers to use continuous measures of diversification to establish categories of diversification strategy (e.g., Ciscel and Evans, 1984; Palepu, 1985; Varadarajan, 1986) and to convert categorical measurements into continuous scales indicating degree (e.g., Hoskisson et al., 1993; Keats and Hitt, 1988; Lubatkin, Merchant, and Srinivasan, 1993). As a consequence, the classification of research that I use here draws more strongly on the distinction of the concepts of degree and type than on the distinction of the methods of measuring degree on continuous scales or on categorical schemes.
Put differently, primary studies classified here as offering evidence on the diversification degree-performance association are not exclusively based on “pure” continuous measurements. Next to empirical observations using the traditional continuous scales such as simple and weighted business counts (e.g., Chen and Kim, 2004; Ciscel and Evans, 1984; Nachum, 2004) or the Caves’ indices (e.g., Gedaijlovic et al., 2003; Wan and Hoskisson, 2003), also studies that use the Rumelt typology and code it in ascending order on an ordinal scale (e.g., Lubatkin and Chatterjee, 1994; Keats and Hitt, 1988) are assigned to the group of studies examining the degree-performance linkage.
Similarly, primary studies classified as offering evidence on the diversification typeperformance association are not exclusively based on “pure” categorical measurements. Next to studies employing the Wrigley or Rumelt typology to distinguish categories of diversification strategy (e.g., Hoskisson, 1987; Mayer and Whittington, 2003; Rumelt, 1974), also studies forming categories from continuous measures by drawing
28
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
on the schemes of broad and mean narrow spectrum diversity (e.g., Palich, Carini, and Seaman, 2000; Ramirez-Aleson and Escuer, 2002) or the entropy measure of diversification strategy (e.g., Hall and St. Jon, 1994; Palepu, 1985), for instance, are categorized as studies testing the type-performance relationship.
Apart from this particularity, studies making use of the complement of the specialization ratio (e.g., Gort, 1962, Hall Jr. and Lee, 1999; Jones et al., 1977) are classified as studies examining the degree-performance association. Contrarily, studies employing newly developed relatedness indices (e.g., Farjoun, 1998; Robins and Wiersema, 1995; Szeless, Wiersema, and Müller-Stewens, 2003) that are explicitly designed to measure differences between types of portfolios independent of the number of businesses are assigned to the group of analyses that offer evidence on the linkage between type of diversification and performance.
Please note that for the qualitative review, I list only those studies the explicit focus of which is to illuminate the diversification (strategy)-performance association. The goal of this section is to show what major studies suggest in terms of the nature of the diversification-performance linkage. That is to say that in this section I limit the overview to studies that the uninformed reader would normally consult to understand more about the focal relationship. In the quantitative meta-analysis to follow later, I am going to include – for methodological reasons – as well studies that offer evidence on the diversification-performance linkage despite these studies’ focus being on other topics. In these studies diversification is used as a control variable, for instance. Please be also aware that a few studies are classified as such that report evidence on whether diversification matters or not and simultaneously as such that offer evidence on specific contingency factors impacting the diversification-performance linkage.
Figure 2.4 shows an overview of major studies that offer empirical evidence on the relationship between diversification in terms of degree and performance vis-à-vis major studies that offer empirical evidence on the relationship between diversification in
Evidence on Product Diversification as a Cause of Performance
29
terms of type and performance. A brief glimpse suffices already to understand that both types of diversification-performance linkages have been extensively researched.
The overview also indicates that the question whether degree and type of diversification are related to performance has not been answered unequivocally. Nonetheless, in both cases (degree and type), studies that suggest that diversification matters to performance seem to exceed in number the studies that suggest that diversification is not related to performance. Moreover, in terms of both the linkage between degree of diversification and performance and between type of diversification and performance a great deal of studies suggests that the nature of the linkage largely emerges under contingencies.
In figure 2.5 I break down further those studies that suggest that there are significant effects of degree and type of diversification on performance. With a view to degree of diversification, I distinguish studies suggesting a positive association from studies that suggest a negative association and from studies proposing a quadratic relationship. With a view to type of diversification, I distinguish those studies that suggest that related diversifiers outperform unrelated diversifiers from those ones that suggest the opposite.
It is evident that among the studies arguing for significant performance effects of diversification there are again no unequivocal answers to the question how precisely degree and type of diversification relate to performance.
Figure 2.4
Type matters to Performance Barton (1988) Bass et al. (1977) Bettis (1981) Bettis and Mahajan (1985) Capon et al. (1988) Chatterjee (1986) Chatterjee and Blocher (1992) Ciscel and Evans (1984) Dubofsky and Varadarajan (1987) Farjoun (1998) Elgers and Clark (1980) Hall Jr. and St. John (1994) Holzmann et al. (1975) Hoskisson (1987) Lecraw (1984) Lubatkin and Rogers (1989) Luffman and Reed (1982) Markides and Williamson (1994) Mayer and Whittington (2003) Melicher and Rush (1974) Michel and Shaked (1984) Palepu (1985) Ravenscraft (1983) Qian (1997) Ramirez-Aleson and Escuer (2002) Robins and Wiersema (1995) Rumelt (1974) Rumelt (1982) Szeless et al. (2003) Varadarajan (1986) Varadarajan and Ramanujam (1987) Weston et al. (1972) Zhao and Luo (2002)
Contingencies Impact Linkage Bergh (1995a) Chen and Kim (2000) Gassenheimer and Keep (1995) Gedaijlovic et al. (1993) Geiger and Hoffman (1998) Geringer et al. (2000) Hall Jr. and Lee (1999) Hill et al. (1992) Jones et al. (1977) Lee et al. (2003) Lins and Servaes (2002) Nachum (2004) Narasimhan and Kim (2002) Park (2002) Servaes (1996) Tallman and Li (1996) Wan and Hoskisson (2003) Wernerfelt and Montgomery (1986)
Degree does not matter Beattie (1980) Carter (1977) Chang and Thomas (1989) Delios and Beamish (1999) Gort (1962) Grinyer et al. (1980) Li and Wong (2003) Lubatkin et al. (1993) Sharma and Kesner (1996) Singh, Mathur, and Gleason (2004)
Bettis and Hall (1982) Bishara (1980) Busija et al. (1997) Hill (1983) Hill and Snell (1988) Kaul (2003) Lim and Teck (1995) Melicher and Rush (1973) Smith and Weston (1977)
Type does not matter
Type of Diversification
Busija et al. (1997) Christensen and Montgomery (1981) Chu (2001) Ciscel and Evan (1984) Gomez-Mejia (1992) Grant and Jammine (1988) Hamilton and Shergill (1992) Hill et al. (1992) Hoskisson (1987) Kaul (2003) Lecraw (1984) Lubatkin and Chatterjee (1991) Markides and Williamson (1996) Mayer and Whittington (2003) Montgomery (1985) Nathanson and Cassano (1982) Palich et al. (2000)
Contingencies Impact Linkage
Empirical Evidence on the Linkage between Degree and Type of Diversification and Performance – Level 1 and 2
Amit and Livnat (1988a, b) Bengtsson (2000) Bühner (1983) Chang and Choi (1988) Comment and Jarrell (1995) Gedaijlovic et al. (1993) Geiger and Hoffman (1998) Grant et al. (1988) Hill and Snell (1988) Hoskisson et al. (1993) Imel and Helmberger (1971) Jose et al. (1986) Keats and Hitt (1988a) Kim et al. (2004) Lang and Stulz (1994) Lins and Servaes (2002) Lubatkin and Chatterjee (1994) Markham (1974) Miller (2004) Montgomery and Wernerfelt (1988) Nachum (2004) Nguyen et al. (1990) Pandya and Rao (1998) Picard and Rimmer (1999) Qian (2002) Sambharya (2000) Servaes (1996) Skaggs and Droege (2004) Tallman and Li (1996) Wan (1998)
Degree matters to Performance
Degree of Diversification
Empirical Evidence on the Diversification-Performance Linkage
30 Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
Figure 2.5
Amit and Livnat (1988b) Bühner (1983) Comment and Jarrell (1995) Gedaijlovic et al. (1993) Hill and Snell (1988) Hoskisson et al. (1993) Imel and Helmberger (1971) Kim et al. (2004) Lang and Stulz (1994) Lins and Servaes (2002) Lubatkin and Chatterjee (1994) Markham (1974) Miller (2004) Montgomery and Wernerfelt (1988) Servaes (1996) Wan (1998)
Negative Association Grant et al. (1988) Nachum (2004) Qian (2002) Tallman and Li (1996)
Quadratic Association Barton (1988) Bettis (1981) Bettis and Mahajan (1985) Capon et al. (1988) Ciscel and Evans (1984) Dubofsky and Varadarajan (1987) Farjoun (1998) Hall Jr. and St. John (1994) Hoskisson (1987) Lecraw (1984) Lubatkin and Rogers (1989) Markides and Williamson (1994) Mayer and Whittington (2003) Palepu (1985) Qian (1997) Ramirez-Aleson and Escuer (2002) Robins and Wiersema (1995) Rumelt (1974) Rumelt (1982) Szeless et al. (2003) Varadarajan (1986) Varadarajan and Ramanujam (1987) Zhao and Luo (2002)
Related Diversification is Superior
Bass et al. (1977) Chatterjee (1986) Elgers and Clark (1980) Luffman and Reed (1982) Michel and Shaked (1984) Ravenscraft (1983) Weston et al. (1972)
Unrelated Diversification is Superior
How does Type Matter?
Empirical Evidence on the Linkage between Degree and Type of Diversification and Performance – Level 3
Chang and Choi (1988) Jose et al. (1986) Keats and Hitt (1988) Pandya and Rao (1998) Picard and Rimmer (1999) Skaggs and Droege (2004)
Positive Association
How does Degree Matter?
Empirical Evidence suggesting that Diversification Matters to Performance
Evidence on Product Diversification as a Cause of Performance 31
32
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
With a view to the linkage between diversification in terms of degree and performance authors such as Chang and Choi (1988), Jose et al. (1986), and Keats and Hitt (1988) suggest that increasing the number of businesses entails positive performance implications. Contrarily, author such as Comment and Jarrell (1995), Hill and Snell (1988) and Lubatkin and Chatterjee (1994) suggest a negative association between degree of diversification and performance. Moreover, a third group of studies among which, for instance, Grant, Jammine, and Thomas (1988), Nachum (2004), and Tallman and Li (1996) suggest that the focal linkage is not of linear but of quadratic nature. Quadratic nature means here that these studies found evidence that increasing diversification in terms of degree pays off for firms up to a point at which the costs of diversification start to exceed the benefits and thus lead to performance declines at levels of diversification that lie beyond this point.
Nonetheless, overall, the overview of studies reporting evidence on the relationship between degree of diversification and performance suggests that the majority of studies report negative performance implications of increasing the number of businesses and the degree of activity distribution (cf. Figure 2.5).
With a view to the linkage between diversification in terms of type and performance authors such as, for instance, Barton (1988), Palepu (1985), and Rumelt (1974, 1982) suggest that related diversifiers systematically outperform unrelated diversifiers. Contrarily, the studies conducted by Chatterjee (1986), Michel and Shaked (1984), and Weston, Smith, Shrieves (1972), for instance, argue and present evidence in favour of unrelated diversification. What is striking in this context is that these and other studies that found unrelated diversification to be superior to related diversification in terms of performance were all conducted some time ago already, i.e. in the present case between 1972 and 1986. This may suggest that specific types of benefits associable with unrelated diversification, such as internal market efficiencies or market power, possibly were to a greater extent realizable in less efficient and less munificent environments than is the case nowadays.
Evidence on Product Diversification as a Cause of Performance
33
However, overall, the overview of studies reporting evidence on the relationship between type of diversification and performance shows that the majority of studies seems to report evidence that related diversification is superior to unrelated diversification (cf. Figure 2.5).
Finally, a great deal of diversification-performance research suggests that the nature of the relationship between degree and type of diversification and performance is ultimately determined by contingency factors. Most of this evidence either relates to contingency factors that pertain to industry structure characteristics or to organizational structure characteristics. In addition, in selected studies also other contingency factors impacting the focal linkage were elicited.
Gassenheimer and Keep (1995), Grant and Jammine (1988), and Jones et al. (1977), for instance, find that the nature of the linkage between degree of diversification and performance is moderated by type of industry. Park (2002) and Wernerfelt and Montgomery (1986) specifically point at industry profitability and its effects on both diversification and performance. And, Christensen and Montgomery (1981), Kaul (2003), and Montgomery (1985) suggest even that it is industry profitability alone – and not diversification strategy – that explains the performance differentials of multibusiness firms. Across these studies, most often industry structure characteristics such as concentration, growth, and market entry barriers are examined in terms of their relation to industry profitability, diversification, and firm performance.
With a view to characteristics of organizational structure, Hoskisson (1987), for instance, suggests that the implementation of the M-Form versus the U-Form structure, i.e. a multidivisional form versus a unitarian form, results in performance increases for unrelated diversifiers. Hill, Hitt, and Hoskisson (1992) suggest that related diversifiers seeking to realize economies of scope perform better if they centralize and integrate certain specific activities and, thus, stress cooperation between business units. Contrarily, unrelated diversifiers striving to benefit from internal market and governance efficiencies perform better if their organizational structures are decentralized to a greater
34
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
extent and support competition between business units. Similar results are reported in Chu (2001), Nathanson and Cassano (1982), and Hamilton and Shergill (1992). While these studies suggest the performance implications of a so-called strategy-structure fit, there are other studies that suggest that organizational structure type does not matter to the diversification-performance relationship (e.g., Grinyer et al. 1980, Rumelt, 1974).
In terms of organizational structure, other studies find that the diversificationperformance association is influenced in nature by ownership structure (Gedaijlovic, Shapiro, and Buduru, 2003; Lins and Servaes, 2002; Chen and Kim, 2000), compensation strategy (Gomez-Mejia, 1992), and supply chain strategy (Narasimhan and Kim, 2002).
Finally, other studies report that the diversification-performance linkage is moderated by degree of international diversification (Palich, Carini, and Seaman, 2000; Tallman and Li, 1996), time period (Geringer, Tallman, and Olsen, 2000; Servaes, 1996), economic climate (Ciscel and Evans, 1984; Busija O’Neill, and Zeithaml, 1997), country, and degree of development and munificence (Lee, Hall Jr., and Rutherford, 2003; Mayer and Whittington, 2003; Nachum 2004; Wan and Hoskisson, 2003).
Ultimately, having a look at the diversification-performance literature as a whole, it becomes also apparent that the vast majority of research examines US-based multibusiness firms. Except for some very few earlier studies, this has begun to change roughly by the end of the nineties only. Since then also studies investigating the diversification-performance association for Asian and European firms have successively become available.
At least equally important is the observation that an increasing number of scholar acknowledges the necessity to investigate multiple dimensions of the performance construct. And yet, the lion’s share of empirical evidence available today is based on accounting-based performance assessments. The question if and how the multidimensionality of the performance construct contributes to the variance of the findings on the
Evidence on Product Diversification as a Cause of Performance
35
diversification-performance association will be comprehensively tested and discussed in the course of the quantitative integration of the literature that is yet to follow.
Overall, the above overview of the literature reaffirms that – despite some observable tendencies – there is mixed evidence on if and how diversification precisely relates to performance. However, narrative literature reviews suffer some limitations that potentially lead to drawing wrong conclusions. These limitations, in turn, may be overcome by quantitative reviews and, in particular, by effect-size meta-analysis.
In contrast to narrative reviews and vote-counting methods, effect-size meta-analysis can generate results of superior validity as regards the true relationships between variables of interest. Most importantly, meta-analysis allows correcting for effect-size variation caused by study artifacts such as sampling error, for instance (Hedges and Olkin 1985; Hunter and Schmidt, 2004). With a view to the diversificationperformance relationship, it is Palich, Cardinal, and Miller (2000) who offer such an analysis.
For the purpose of quantitatively integrating largest possible parts of the diversification-performance literature, Palich et al. make a critical assumption that underlies their analysis: The degree of diversification (low, moderate, high) corresponds to type of diversification (single, related, unrelated).
This assumption seems warranted as Chatterjee and Blocher (1992), Hoskisson et al. (1993), and Montgomery (1982) offer empirical evidence in support of this assertion. Moreover, as alluded to in earlier sections, researchers frequently convert measures of types of diversification, such as the Rumelt scheme, into continuous measures of the level of diversification (e.g., Hoskisson et al., 1993; Keats and Hitt, 1988; Lubatkin, Merchant, and Srinivasan, 1993) and vice versa (e.g., Ciscel and Evans, 1984; Palepu, 1985; Varadarajan, 1986).
36
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
Following this logic, Palich, Cardinal, and Miller (2000) managed to quantitatively summarize 55 empirical studies of the diversification-performance literature.
The results of their meta-analysis suggest that the association between diversification and performance is inverted-U-shaped, in fact. Palich et al. conclude that related diversification (a moderate level of diversification) has positive and that unrelated diversification (a high level of diversification) has negative performance effects. In other words, diversification seems to pay off for firms up to a certain level. Past this point, diversification seems to cause performance declines (Fig. 2.6).
Performance
Single/ Low
Related/ Moderate
Unrelated/ High Diversification
Figure 2.6
The Inverted-U Association between Diversification and Performance
It is important to understand that, as a consequence, in contrast to the qualitative literature reviews, the meta-analysis by Palich et al. suggests something very different in terms of the generalizability of findings on the diversification-performance relationship.
Evidence on Product Diversification as a Cause of Performance
37
What is most important about this is that, in the meantime, these meta-analytic findings have become standard strategic management textbook knowledge (e.g., Johnson, Scholes, and Whittington, 2006). The Palich et al. study (2000) seems to be deemed the current edge in integrative research on the diversification-performance linkage.
It is exactly against this background that I examine in this study and the meta-analyses to follow whether Palich et al.’s finding (2000) can be confirmed if a) a substantially enlarged sample of empirical analyses is used that includes also most recent research, b) particular attention is drawn to the multidimensionality of the performance construct, and c) alternative meta-analytic techniques are applied.
Accordingly, I test exactly the hypothesis for which Palich, Cardinal, and Miller (2000, p. 161) report strong support when using accounting-based measures of performance and weak evidence when using market-based measures of performance. Recall that this hypothesis rests on the argument that exclusively related diversifiers may realize economies of scope, while unrelated diversifiers, at the same time, have to cope with substantial costs of organizing complex operations. H1: Diversification exhibits an inverted-U relationship with corporate performance: diversification is positively related to performance across the low to moderate range of diversification (from single business to related diversifier) and is negatively related to performance across the moderate to high range of diversification (from related diversifier to unrelated diversifier). 2.6 Overall Meta-Analytic Proceeding The correlational meta-analysis to follow is multi-level. I will first replicate the analysis by Palich, Cardinal, and Miller (2000). Subsequently, I will use a substantially extended sample that includes most recent research. In both cases I will use the metaanalytic techniques suggested by Hedges and Olkin (1985). In addition, I apply alternative meta-analytic techniques suggested by Hunter and Schmidt (2004) to the ex-
38
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
tended sample. This proceeding allows me to maintain comparability to prior research and to verify the stability of findings across meta-analytic techniques. As I shall demonstrate later, the use of both types of meta-analytic methods is complementary in a number of respects. 2.6.1
Meta-Analytic Methods
Meta-analysis is an analysis of analyses (Glass, 1976). Integrating potentially conflicting findings on focal relationships from a multitude of primary studies, the goal of meta-analysis is to elicit true relationships between variables of interest. In contrast to narrative reviews and vote-counting methods, effect-size meta-analysis can generate results of greater validity. Most importantly, it allows correcting for effect-size variation caused by study artifacts such as sampling and measurement error (Hunter and Schmidt, 2004). Sampling error, for instance, causes observed correlations to vary randomly from the true score correlation (Koslowsky and Sagie, 1994).
In strategic management research the Hunter/Schmidt and the Hedges/Olkin procedures are the two most widely used methods of correlational meta-analysis. Next to the Hedges/Olkin procedures, I employ the meta-analytic techniques suggested by Hunter and Schmidt (2004) as applied in Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes (2003). Main focus will be on testing the impact of the contingency variable type of diversification strategy on the nature of the diversification-performance linkage, while allowing for effects of type of diversification operationalization and type of performance operationalization. In fact, it is in the analysis of contingency variables causing effect size variation rather than in the calculation of mean effect sizes that there are the greatest procedural differences between Hedges/Olkin and Hunter/Schmidt. 2.6.2
Testing Contingency Variables: Hedges/Olkin versus Hunter/Schmidt
Hedges and Olkin’s approach (1985) involves regressing correlations onto hypothesized contingency variables. Correlations are used as dependent variables, while individual study and sample characteristics, such as type of method applied or type of firm studied, are used as predictors in the regression equation. In this context, often dummy
Overall Meta-Analytic Proceeding
39
variables are used to represent these predictors. Moreover, in the regressions, a weight of n-3 is assigned to each case to account for unequal sample sizes underlying individual studies (1985, p. 241). Finally, the Hedges and Olkin procedures involve transforming the distribution of individual correlations into a Fisher-z distribution to approximate normal distribution and to stabilize variance prior to any effect-size integration or any regression of effect-sizes onto contingency variables.
Practical applications of the Hedges/Olkin procedures on (strategic) management topics may be found, for instance, in Palich et al. (2000), in Miller and Cardinal (1994), and in Huber, Miller, and Glick (1990), further also in Kirca (2005) and in Shoham (2002).
In contrast to Hedges/Olkin, Hunter/Schmidt advocate a hierarchical breakdown of superordinate sets of correlations into subsets that represent “parameter values“ or categories of contingency variables, such as type of method applied or type of firm studied. Specific contingency variables are confirmed to cause effects size variation if true score correlations differ meaningfully across meta-analytic subsets and if, on average, a higher percentage of variance is accounted for by artifacts in subsets than in superordinate sets. If statistical artifacts account for 75% or more of the variance of observed correlations, the remaining variance is assumed to be likely due to artifacts not corrected for (Hunter and Schmidt, 2004). In this case, the population of correlations can be considered homogenous. It is unlikely that methodological or substantive contingency variables have caused variation in the correlations, and results are generalizable across studies. Hunter and Schmidt do not suggest any distributional transformation of effects sizes before aggregation.
Given that Hunter and Schmidt strongly advocate correcting effect sizes for various artifacts next to sampling error – either before integration or via artifact distributions after integration – I will correct effects sizes also for measurement error.
40
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
Specifically, I use an artifact distribution and an average attenuation factor for this purpose (Hunter and Schmidt, 2004; Hunter, Schmidt, and Jackson, 1982; Schmidt and Hunter, 1977). This is necessary as primary studies relevant to my hypothesis in the majority of cases do not report reliabilities that could be used to correct correlations individually and prior to the integration. Following Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes (2003), I approximate reliabilities by interpreting the correlations between alternative measures of diversification and performance as (conservative) coefficients of generalizability. The inter-measure correlations used for this purpose are reported in appendices 1 and 2 in the form of sample-size weighted mean correlations. In addition, appendix 3 reports intra- and inter-group, sample size-weighted correlations validating the applicability of Combs et al.’s conceptualization of the performance construct to the diversification domain (cf. section 2.3).
Practical applications of the Hunter/Schmidt procedures on (strategic) management topics may be found, for instance, in Dalton, Daily, Ellstrand, and Johnson (1998), in Dalton, Daily, Certo, and Roengpitya (2003), in Ketchen et al. (1997), and in Tihanyi, Griffith, and Russell (2000). 2.6.3
Technical Integration Model
In the meta-analyses, attention is drawn to examining a contingency variable that corresponds to restriction of range in the samples of firms studied in the individual empirical analyses (cf. Palich, Cardinal, and Miller, 2000). This is necessary as otherwise the hypothesized curvilinear relationship between diversification and performance cannot be meaningfully tested in a meta-analytic framework. I draw on type of range restriction to capture the effects of type of diversification strategy. This allows me to decompose a curvilinear association into two linear associations (cf. figure 2.7).
Correlations empirically observed between diversification and performance on samples of firms comprising exclusively single business firms and related diversifiers are understood to represent associations between related diversification and performance. Such samples are, following the terminology used by Palich et al. (2000), denoted “re-
Overall Meta-Analytic Proceeding
41
stricted away from the high end of diversification”. In theory, this sample corresponds to the portion of the curvilinear relationship where the slope of the function is positive.
Correlations empirically observed between diversification and performance on samples of firms comprising exclusively related diversifiers and unrelated diversifiers are understood to represent associations between unrelated diversification and performance. Such samples are denoted “restricted away from the low end of diversification” In theory, this sample corresponds to the portion of the curvilinear relationship where the slope of the function is negative.
Finally, correlations observed between diversification and performance on samples of firms comprising all three types of firms (single business firms, related diversifiers, and unrelated diversifiers) are denoted “unrestricted samples”. In theory, this sample includes both the positive and negative portions of the function, in turn, resulting in indicators of linear association being close to zero.
Performance Samples restricted away from the high end of diversification
Samples restricted away from the low end of diversification
Related Diversification
Unrelated Diversification
Single/ Low
Related/ Moderate
Unrelated/ High Diversification
Figure 2.7
Decomposing a Curvilinear Association via Sample Range Restriction
42
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
In the regression-based meta-analysis, a three category dummy variable is used to indicate restriction of range. If a sample of firms studied in individual analyses comprises only single business firms and related diversifiers it is coded as 1-0-0 to indicate restriction away from the high end of diversification. If a sample has only related and unrelated diversifiers it is coded 0-0-1 to indicate restriction away from the low end of diversification. And if a sample comprises all three types of firms, it is coded as 0-1-0. The correlations from unrestricted samples are used as the benchmark category in the Hedges/Olkin-based regressions against which correlations from restricted samples are compared (cf. Palich et al., p. 161). That is to say they will represent “the omitted category” in the dummy-regressions.
In the Hunter/Schmidt-based analysis, restriction of range will be represented by classifying samples and corresponding correlations into one of three subsets denoted “restricted away from high end of diversification”, “restricted away from low end of diversification”, and “unrestricted samples”.
To maintain greatest possible comparability, I decided to use the terminology introduced by Palich et al. also in this work despite the fact that they may not always be intuitive. Please note again therefore that “restricted away from the high end of diversification” refers to “related diversification”, while “restricted away from the low end of diversification” refers to “unrelated diversification” (cf. figure 2.7). 2.6.4
Sampling
I started by replicating the Palich et al. (2000) sample. The authors list in their paper a number of 82 studies that they found to be relevant. 55 of these studies reported usable effect size statistics and were used in their quantitative synthesis. Unfortunately, this subset of studies is not identifiable in the paper. I contacted the authors on this issue; they could not provide the relevant information, however. Thus, I necessarily browsed all 82 studies to identify the ones relevant.
Overall Meta-Analytic Proceeding
43
Following Palich et al.’s conceptual integration model outlined above, I identified merely 50 usable studies (instead of 55), a number of 61 samples (instead of 71), and 78 usable correlations (instead of 96). Among the latter I found 58 correlations between diversification and accounting-based performance (instead of 71) and 20 correlations between diversification and market-based performance (instead of 25). Thus, if one considers samples the unit of analysis, I managed to replicate the Palich sample to 86%. If one considers correlations the unit of analysis, I replicated the Palich sample to 81%.
The primary studies included in the extended sample were identified in the database reported by Palich, Cardinal and Miller (2000), by means of electronic keyword searches using a combination of “diversi*”, “performance”, and “empiri*” in Business Source Premier, ABI/Inform, JSTOR, WISO I, and in the literature lists of relevant studies, including qualitative reviews of the field (e.g., Datta, Rajagopalan, and Rasheed, 1991; Denis, Denis, and Sarin, 1997; Ramanujam and Varadarajan, 1989). Overall, I screened almost 1,000 articles using my criteria for inclusion.
Studies had to report product-moment correlations (or effect sizes convertible to correlations such as d-, t-, F-, Z-, or associated p-values) between the variables of interest. Respective conversion formula may be found in Hunter and Schmidt (1990) and Rosenthal and DiMatteo (2001). The formulae used in this analysis are reported in appendix 4. In one case a complete raw data set was reported that I used to calculate Pearson correlations (Bengtsson, 2000). The analyses comprise English- and Germanlanguage literature and were limited to material published by 2005.
To be included in the analysis, it was not necessary for the diversification-performance relationship to be the main focus of the analysis; in this way I sought to reduce potential problems of availability bias. Following Hunter and Schmidt (2004), there is evidence that availability bias is relatively unimportant in meta-analyses that integrate empirical results on the nature of relationships that are not the major focus in primary studies.
44
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
An array of studies that analyzed samples already used in other studies was not considered for the meta-analytic integration in order to avoid dependencies (Amit and Livnat, 1989; Amit and Livnat 1988b; Amit and Livnat 1988c; Bergh and Lawless, 1998; Bettis, 1981; Bettis and Mahanjan, 1985; Dubofsky and Varadarajan, 1987; Gassenheimer and Keep, 1998; Hitt and Ireland, 1986; Keats, 1990; Varadarajan and Ramanujam, 1987). The extended sample of correlations comes from 99 studies published between 1971 and 2005 and comprises data from 122 samples. I gathered 168 diversificationperformance correlations, among which 124 between diversification and accountingbased performance (in the language of Combs et al.: Accounting-based and growthbased performance) and 44 between diversification and market-based performance. Thus, the extended sample is roughly twice as large as the sample used in Palich et al. (2000). The studies included in the meta-analyses are shown in table 2.1.
Overall Meta-Analytic Proceeding Table 2.1
45
Studies included in the Meta-Analyses
Author(s)
Year
Author(s)
Year
Amit and Livnat Barton Bass, Cattin, and Wittunk Beattie Bengtsson Bergh Bergh Bergh and Holbein Bethel and Liebeskind Bettis and Hall Bishara Boeker Bowen and Wiersema Bühner Busija, O’Neil, and Zeithaml Capon et al. Chatterjee and Blocher Chatterjee and Wernerfelt Chen and Kim Chu Ciscel and Evans Clarke, Fee, and Thomas Daellenbach et al. Dawley, Hoffman, and Brockman Delios and Beamish Farjoun Fauver, Houston, and Naranjo Gassenheimer and Keep Gedajlovic, Shapiro, and Buduru Geringer, Tallman, and Olsen Gomez-Mejia Grant, Jammine, and Thomas Hadlock, Ryngaert, and Thomas Hall Jr. and Lee Hall Jr. and St. John Hill and Snell Hill, Hitt, and Hoskisson Hitt, Hoskisson, and Kim Holzmann, Copeland, and Hayya Hoskisson Hoskisson et al. Hoskisson and Johnson Jensen and Zajac Johnson, Hoskisson, and Hitt Kaul Keats and Hitt Kim, Hoskisson, and Wan Lane, Cannella, and Lubatkin Lang and Stulz Lee and Habte-Giorgis
1988a 1988 1977 1980 2000 1995a 1995b 1997 1993 1982 1980 1997 2005 1983 1997 1988 1992 1991 2000 2004 1984 2004 1999 2003 1999 1998 2004 1995 2003 2000 1992 1988 2001 1999 1994 1988 1992 1997 1975 1987 1993 1992 2004 1993 2003 1988 2004 1998 1994 2004
Lee, Hall Jr., and Rutherford Li and Wong Lim and Teck Lins and Servaes Low and Chen Lu and Beamish Lu and Beamish Lubatkin and Chatterjee Lubatkin et al. Lubatkin and Rogers Markides and Williamson, Mayer and Whittington Melicher and Rush Melicher and Rush Michel and Shaked Miller Montgomery Mosakowski Nachum Narasimhan and Kim Palepu Palich, Carini, and Seaman Palmer, Jennings, and Zhou Pandya and Rao Park Picard and Rimmer Qian Qian Qian and Li Raju and Dhar Ramaswamy, Li, and Veliyath Ramirez-Aleson and Escuer Riahi-Belkaoui and Pavlik Robins and Wiersema Sambharya Servaes Singh, Davidson, and Suchard Singh, Mathur, and Gleason Singh, Mathur, and Gleason Skaggs and Droege Smith and Weston Szeless et al. Tallman and Li Tongli, Ping, and Chiu Varadarajan Vermeulen and Barkema Wan Wan and Hoskisson Weston and Mansinghka
2003 2003 1995 2002 2004 2001 2004 1994 1993 1989 1994 2003 1973 1974 1984 2004 1985 1997 2004 2002 1985 2000 1993 1998 2002 1999 1997 2002 2003 1999 2002 2002 1993 1995 2000 1996 2003 2001 2004 2004 1977 2003 1996 2005 1986 2001 1998 2003 1971
46
2.6.5
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
Coding
Whenever more than one correlation was reported between the same type of rangerestricted sample and multiple operationalizations of performance within the same performance dimension (accounting-based, market-based, growth-based), I averaged the correlations to reduce dependencies (Hunter and Schmidt, 2004). However, whenever more than one type of range-restricted sample was investigated within the same study, I treated respective correlations as if coming from different studies. This introduces some non-independence into the data, but facilitates testing the hypothesis.
For replication purposes, following Palich et al., I subsequently pooled the correlations observed on profitability and the correlations observed on growth-based performance into the group accounting-based performance. I analyzed this set of correlations separately from the set of correlations based on market-returns. In addition, in the regression-based analysis that tested the correlations between diversification and accountingbased performance, I used the dummy variable “profitability or not” to control for the effects of type of performance operationalization. Profitability-based performance was coded with the value of 1 and growth-based performance with the value of 0.
This overall integration model also led me to break up selected unrestricted samples into range-restricted samples. If means and standard deviations for performance measures were reported for all three types of range-restriction (e.g., in Lubatkin and Rogers, 1989), I could calculate a standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) and subsequently convert it into Pearson correlations.
In addition to effect-size estimates, I collected from the studies sample sizes, operationalization of diversification, and operationalization of performance. Sample sizes were coded as the number of firms and not as the number of observations (CamisónZornosa, Lapiedra-Alcami, Segarra-Ciprés, and Boronat-Navarro, 2004). Proceeding in this manner is particularly important when pooled time-series data with multiple observations per firm is included in meta-analysis. Pooled time-series data nonetheless tends to overstate correlations; however, I included the studies of this type of analysis
Overall Meta-Analytic Proceeding
47
in my meta-analysis since a later countercheck indicated that their exclusion would have changed results marginally only.
Moreover, operationalization of diversification was, following Palich, Cardinal, and Miller (2000), coded into the four dimensions Herfindahl, Entropy, Count, and Rumelt (cf. section 2.2). In the regression-based analysis, Rumelt was used as the omitted, benchmark category. That is to say it was coded with the value 0 while all other diversification operationalizations were coded with the value 1 in the dummy variables “Herfindahl or not”, “Entropy or not”, and “Count or not”.
Throughout the coding process, I used a coding form that specified the information to be extracted from primary studies in order to reduce coding error (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001). The form was developed by reading a random subset of 10 studies. 2.7 Meta-Analytic Results Tables 2.2 and 2.3 show the results of the Hedges/Olkin-based meta-analysis. Regression models 1-4 are tested for the set of correlations between diversification and accounting-based performance. Regression models 5-8 are tested for the set of correlations observed between diversification and market-based performance. Table 2.4 shows the results of the Hunter/Schmidt-based meta-analysis involving separately both accounting- and market-based measures of performance. In the Hunter/Schmidt analysis I use the extended sample only.
Results in table 2.2 indicate that model 1 in which correlations between diversification and accounting-based performance are regressed onto restriction of range for the Palich et al. sample is not significant and, thus, cannot explain variation in the empirically observed correlations. At the same time, model 2 which regresses this sample of correlations onto restriction of range as well as onto type of diversification and performance operationalization is overall significant. However, here, the regression coefficients of the range restriction dummy variables are not significant. Thus, model 1 and 2 suggest that restriction of range in the samples of firms studied in individual empiri-
48
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
cal analyses does not significantly influence the nature of the association observed between diversification and accounting-based performance.
Nonetheless, model 2 provides some evidence that correlations between diversification and performance in terms of profitability are more negative than correlations observed between diversification and growth-based performance. Recall that the variable “profitability or not” is a dummy variable that takes the value of 1 if a correlation is observed between diversification and profitability and the value of zero if a correlations is observed between diversification and growth-based performance. Accordingly, the negative sign of the regression coefficient means that the dependent variable, i.e. the diversification-performance correlation, takes a more negative value if the contingency variable “profitability or not” takes the value of 1 than when it takes a value of 0.
Moreover, model 3 and 4 (table 2.2) test the same models examined in model 1 and 2; here the extended sample of diversification-performance correlations is used, however. As both model 3 and 4 lack overall significance, results suggest again that neither the nature of the correlations observed for samples with firms restricted away from the high end of diversification (including single business firms and related diversifiers) nor the nature of the correlations observed for samples with firms restricted from the low end of diversification (including related diversifiers and unrelated diversifiers) do differ from the nature of the correlations observed for unrestricted samples (including single business firms, related diversifiers, and unrelated diversifiers).
Thus, in sum, regression results in table 2.2 indicate that correlations between related diversification and accounting-based performance and correlations between unrelated diversification and accounting-based performance are not significantly different from correlations observed between diversification and accounting-based performance for firms in samples that are unrestricted in terms of diversification strategy. And this applies to both the replicated and the extended sample.
Meta-Analytic Results
49
Table 2.3 reports the results of regressing the correlations observed between diversification and market-based performance onto restriction of range and choice of diversification operationalization. Model 5 and 6 are tested for the Palich et al. sample and model 7 and 8 are tested for the extended sample. Results indicate that neither models 5 and 6 nor models 7 and 8 show adequate model fit. As a consequence, similar to models 1-4, models 5-8 suggest that type of diversification strategy as indicated by restriction of range in the samples of firms studied cannot explain variation in the empirically observed diversification-performance correlations. Specifically, correlations between related diversification and market-based performance and correlations between unrelated diversification and market-based performance are not significantly different from correlations observed between diversification and market-based performance for firms in samples that are unrestricted in terms of diversification strategy.
Intermediate result is that replicating and extending the Palich et al. sample and using the Hedges/Olkin-procedures, I have no evidence in support of hypothesis 1 suggesting an inverted-U relationship between diversification and performance. Diversification is neither found to be positively related to performance across the low to moderate range of diversification nor to be negatively related to performance across the moderate to high range of diversification.
-.132
-.536***
.115
-.038
.026
-.010
.733
Count or not
Profitability or not
Constant R2 Adjusted R2 F statistic
3.442**
.207
1.189
.003
.019
-.026
.137
1.355
.017
.065
-.008
-.165*
.059
.144
.131
.203**
.032
Model 4 (n=124)
Model 3 (n=124) .031
Extended sample accounting-based performance
Extended sample accounting-based performance
Standardized regression coefficients reported; b Palich sample 81% replicated; n: number of correlation coefficients meta-analyzed; * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01
a
-.005
Entropy or not
.292
.068
-.184
Herfindahl or not
-.157
Restriction of range (restricted away from low and or not)
.093
Model 2 (n=58)
Model 1 (n=58) .034
Palich et al. sample b accounting-based performance
Palich et al. sample b accounting-based performance
Hedges/Olkin-based Weighted Regression of Accounting-based Correlations onto Contingency-Variablesa
Restriction of range (restricted away from high and or not)
Table 2.2
50 Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
-.701**
.003
-.115
.054
-.058
.482
Count or not
Constant R2 Adjusted R2 F statistic
1.954
.209
1.502
.023
.068
-.056
.072
1.447
.049
.160
-.046
-.146
.208
.045
.054
.261*
Model 8 (n=44)
Model 7 (n=44) .253
Extended sample market-based performance
Extended sample market-based performance
Standardized regression coefficients reported; b Palich sample 81% replicated; n: number of correlation coefficients meta-analyzed; * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01
a
.062
Entropy or not
.411
-.164
-.212
Herfindahl or not
-.030
Restriction of range (restricted away from low and or not)
.133
Model 6 (n=20)
Model 5 (n=20) .229
Palich et al. sample b market-based performance
Palich et al. sample b market-based performance
Hedges/Olkin-based Weighted Regression of Market-based Correlations onto Contingency-Variablesa
Restriction of range (restricted away from high and or not)
Table 2.3
Meta-Analytic Results 51
52
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
Table 2.4 shows the results from employing the Hunter/Schmidt techniques to metaanalytically test hypothesis 1. Here, I used the extended sample of correlations only (see bold print n). Note that I start from the entire set of diversification-performance correlations (line 1 in table 2.4) and subsequently break it down hierarchically into subsets. This also means that I break down the entire set of correlations into two groups representing those correlations empirically observed between diversification and accounting-based performance (line 2 in table 2.4) and those correlations empirically observed between diversification and market-based performance (line 3 in table 2.4) before I get to testing the contingency variable of prime interest “type of diversification strategy”. Recall that type of diversification strategy is again indicated by type of range restriction of the sample of firms studied in individual empirical analyses.
Results in table 2.4 indicate that the absolute values of mean observed correlation and true score correlation between diversification and accounting-based performance observed for samples of firms restricted away from the high end of diversification (single businesses and related diversifiers) are as close to zero as they can be. This is also confirmed by the 95% confidence interval which includes zero. Exactly, the same applies to the mean observed correlation and true score correlation between diversification and accounting-based performance observed for samples of firms restricted away from the low end of diversification (related diversifiers and unrelated diversifiers). As a consequence, results in table 2.4 suggest that related diversification and unrelated diversification as indicated by range restriction in the samples of firms empirically examined are not significantly associated with accounting-based performance. This confirms the findings on associations between diversification strategy and accounting-based performance found when using the Hedges/Olkin procedures.
Thus, using the Hunter/Schmidt techniques, hypothesis 1 is rejected for the subset of correlations observed between diversification and accounting-based performance. Diversification does neither seem to be positively related to performance across the low to moderate range of diversification (from single business to related diversifier) nor to be negatively related to performance across the moderate to high range of diversifica-
Meta-Analytic Results
53
tion (from related diversifier to unrelated diversifier). The inverted-U relationship of diversification with performance seems not to prevail.
Nonetheless, it is to be pointed out that the weighted mean correlations observed between diversification and accounting-based performance for firms in unrestricted samples, which is by far the largest of the three range restriction subgroups, are significant and negative on average, though at trivial levels.
Due to very small subset sizes there is no point in breaking up further into performance dimensions the set of correlations observed for firms in samples restricted away from the high end of diversification (single businesses and related diversifiers) and accounting-based returns. Moreover, further breaking down the subset of correlations between diversification and accounting-based performance observed for firms in samples restricted away from the low end of diversification (related diversifiers and unrelated diversifiers) into the performance dimensions profitability and growth does not elicit any significant associations. In both cases the confidence intervals include zero, indicating that the true score correlations are not significantly different from zero.
Table 2.4 also shows the weighted mean correlations observed between diversification and market-based performance. Firms in samples restricted away from the high end of diversification (single business firms and related diversifiers) are found to exhibit on average a significant and positive association between diversification and marketbased performance. At the same time, firms in samples restricted away from the low end of diversification (related diversifiers and unrelated diversifiers) are found to exhibit on average a significant and negative but also trivial association between diversification and market-based performance. Interestingly, the mean observed and mean true score correlations observed between diversification and performance for firms in unrestricted samples are again significant and negative.
Thus, for the sample of correlations observed between diversification and marketbased performance, type of diversification strategy as indicated by type of sample
54
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
range restriction can be confirmed as a contingency variable that causes effect size variation. True score correlations differ across subsets and, on average, a higher percentage of variance is accounted for by artifacts in subsets than in superordinate sets (Hunter and Schmidt, 2004).
As a consequence, using the Hunter/Schmidt techniques, hypothesis 1 is confirmed for the subset of correlations observed between diversification and market-based performance. Diversification seems to exhibit an inverted-U relationship with performance. It is positively related to performance across the low to moderate range of diversification (from single business to related diversifier) and is negatively related to performance across the moderate to high range of diversification (from related diversifier to unrelated diversifier).
However, the findings as regards the linkage between diversification strategy and market-based performance suffer a number of limitations – the most severe of which is sample size – which I shall detail in the discussion section.
124
44
5
26
93
Diversification and accounting-based performance
Diversification and market-based performance
Restriction of range (restricted away from high end) and accounting-based performance
Restriction of range (restricted away from low end) and accounting-based performance
Restriction of range (unrestricted samples) and accounting-based performance
20
6
Restriction of range (restricted away from low end) and accounting-based performance in terms of profitability
Restriction of range (restricted away from low end) and accounting-based performance in terms of growth
…
168
n
451
4,057
30,311
4,508
656
15,028
37,088
52,116
K
.072
-.009
-.026
-.001
.001
-.036
-.025
-.027
robs
.025
.012
.012
.014
.022
.015
.012
.012
sr 2
.015
.005
.003
.006
.009
.003
.003
.003
s e2
.0015
.0000
.0002
.0000
.0000
.0004
.0002
.0002
sm 2
.671
.423
.280
.423
.423
.211
.299
.265
explained
% of sr2
.177
-.021
-.064*
-.001
.002
-.088*
-.057*
-.066*
.050
.043
.052
.050
.076
.071
.051
.057
sU 2 C.I
-.003 : .357
-.112 : .070
-.111 : -.018
-.087 : .084
-.240 : .244
-.167 : -.009
-.096 : -.017
-.102 : -.030
Hunter/Schmidt-based Weighted Integration of Diversification-Performance Correlations and Hierarchical Breakdown
Diversification and performance (entire set of correlations)
Table 2.4
Meta-Analytic Results 55
9
32
Restriction of range (restricted away from low end) and market-based performance
Restriction of range (unrestricted samples) and market-based performance 14,098
792
138
K
-.055
-.019
.252
robs
.013
.012
.015
sr 2
.002
.013
.028
s e2
.0009
.0001
.0183
sm 2
% of sr2
.256
1.000
1.000
explained
-.163*
-.046*
.624*
.057
.000
.000
sU 2
a
n: number of correlation coefficients meta-analyzed; K: total sample size; robs: sample size-weighted mean observed correlation; sr2: observed variance; se2: sampling error variance; sm2: measurement error variance; : mean true score r (corrected); sU2: true score variance; C.I.: Confidence Interval; * p < 0.05
…
3
Restriction of range (restricted away from high end) and market-based performance
…
n
-.218 : -.053
-.046 : -.046
.624 : .624
C.I
56 Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
Discussion
57
2.8 Discussion The meta-analyses strongly challenge major conclusions drawn from an earlier metaanalytic synthesis of the literature.
Related diversification is not found to be positively associated with accounting-based performance. Similarly, unrelated diversification is not found to be negatively related to accounting-based performance. This finding is stable across samples and across meta-analytic techniques applied. Thus, I have strong evidence that the inverted-U curve association between diversification and accounting-based performance suggested in the meta-analysis by Palich et al. (2000) does not exist.
In addition, the Hedges/Olkin-based analysis suggests that neither related diversification nor unrelated diversification is significantly associated with market-based performance. This applies to both the replicated and the extended sample. Again, this is in contrast to what Palich, Cardinal, and Miller report.
However, the Hunter/Schmidt-based analysis suggests a positive association between related diversification and market-based performance and a negative association between unrelated diversification and market-based performance. Thus, I have mixed evidence on the existence of the inverted-U association between diversification and market-based performance reported in Palich et al. (2000).
Noteworthy is that the Hunter/Schmidt analysis points out that across methods the meta-analyses in some respects draw on very few correlations to derive results. This applies particularly to associations between related diversification and performance dimensions. Accordingly, one may question the validity of parts of the meta-analytic results (Dalton and Dalton, 2005).
The lack of pertinent, empirically observed correlations is on the one hand due to the use of a specific technical integration model in this analysis and on the other hand due
58
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
to the neglect of tests of specific variable linkages in empirical research. In strategic management studies, for instance, the focus has traditionally been on investigating the performance differentials of related diversifiers versus unrelated diversifiers (which corresponds to restriction away from low end of diversification in my analysis) at the expense of investigating related diversification relative to single business strategies.
Nonetheless, if one considers the Hunter/Schmidt-based findings on the association between diversification and market-based performance viable, one may argue that the performance effects of diversification strategy materialize in the long- rather than in the short term (Bergh, 1995a; Wan, 1998). Market-based measures may reflect shareholders’ longer-term expectations of future accounting-performance, while accountingbased measures reflect historical, shorter-term performance.
Many scholars consider market-based measures of performance more pertinent to diversification research than accounting-based measures. This is due to market-based performance indicators being considered forward-looking, of higher internal consistency, and less prone to managerial manipulation (Barney, 1997; Hoskisson et al., 1993; Palich, Cardinal, and Miller, 2000). Moreover, indicators of market-based performance incorporate risk aspects, while measurements of accounting-returns usually do not. If increasing diversification is paralleled by decreases in overall risk due to joining within a portfolio businesses with less than perfectly correlated financial flows (Berger and Ofek, 1995; Lewellen, 1971), which is suggested by some authors (Amit and Livnat, 1988; Michel and Shaked, 1984) and disputed by others (Bettis and Hall, 1982; Chang and Thomas, 1989; Lubatkin and Chatterjee, 1994), the use of accounting returns not adjusted for risk may mislead interpretations of the performance effects of diversification (Bettis and Mahanjan, 1985; Jahera, Oswald, and McMillan, 1993). Adding to these lines of argumentation, also my results suggest that if there is a performance dimension that is worth further study in terms of its linkage with diversification strategy it is market-based performance.
Discussion
59
In terms of performance dimensions, meta-analytic results also suggest that the use of growth-based performance measures may be misleading in diversification performance research, especially the use of measures such as sales-growth and asset-growth. I found that growth-based performance indicators are generally more positively related to diversification than profitability-based measures. This comes as no surprise, however. Sales- and asset-growth are standard indicators of absolute company size growth in the empirical management literature, and it has variously been shown that diversification is positively related to company size (e.g., Haines, 1970; Palich, Carini, and Seaman, 2000). Thus, if growth-based measures have to be examined at all, they should be distinguished from profitability-based measures at least. The finding reported in other empirical studies that company size per se is not related to accountingand market-based performance speaks against the use of such measures in diversification-performance research, however (Bausch, Pils, and Van Tri, 2007; Gooding and Wagner, 1985).
Another issue to be emphasized is that in the majority of cases in which significant associations were found between diversification strategy and performance in my analyses, effect sizes reached trivial to small strength, if at all (Cohen, 1988). This finding is in line with Palich, Cardinal, and Miller’s earlier meta-analytic results and can be considered another indication that diversification strategy per se is less important to performance than may have been imagined by many.
Methodologically, the meta-analyses suggest that choice of meta-analytic technique in research practice may influence the nature of results. This finding raises some serious questions – especially in the light of the fact that I am not aware of any meta-analytic paper in strategic management research that uses multiple methods to strengthen the validity of findings. One may have assumed that meta-analysis is a remedy to the problem that results reported in individual empirical studies are affected by choice of research method used. However, my analysis suggests that results of meta-analysis as well may be prone to be distorted by type of method used.
60
Meta-Analysis on the Relationship between Diversification and Performance
In addition, my study suggests that – in research practice – meta-analysis appears far from being “[…] the perfect vehicle for disclosure and replicability” that it is supposed to be (Dalton and Dalton, 2005, p. 49). This is certainly due to reporting practices and journal space constraints. At the same time, however, it is in some cases due to the difficulty of fully comprehending construct conceptualizations and of reproducing one-toone coding approaches correspondingly used by other authors. 2.9 Intermediate Conclusion Replicating and extending the sample used by Palich, Cardinal, and Miller (2000), I present evidence that strategies of related and unrelated diversification per se are not significantly associated with accounting-based performance. In addition, I have mixed evidence on the inverted-U association between diversification strategy and marketbased performance.
As a consequence, the meta-analysis casts some doubt on what has become standard theory in strategic management – the performance effects of product diversification strategy (Palich, Cardinal, and Miller, 2000; Rumelt, 1974). Put differently, the metaanalysis as a whole suggests that diversification strategy – as measured in the majority of cases to date – per se is far less important to performance than may have been expected by some.
Key implication for further research is that alternative and richer approaches to measuring diversification strategy seem needed. In addition, focus must be shifted towards testing the diversification strategy-performance linkage under specific contingencies rather than examining linkages at levels of aggregation that may seem superficial. Finally, market-based assessments seem most pertinent in capturing the performance effects of diversification, while the use of growth-based measures may be misleading. Methodologically, the analyses suggest that choice of meta-analytic technique may influence the nature of results. This problem seems to aggravate with the use of decreasing sample sizes in meta-analysis. As this issue has been ignored in research prac-
Intermediate Conclusion
61
tice to date, the validity of some meta-analytic findings in the domain of strategic management may be questioned.
3 Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance In the second major analysis of this study, I pay particular attention to two issues that are important to a more comprehensive understanding of the diversificationperformance linkage. These issues had to be neglected in the meta-analyses given the lack of respective empirical material that could be used for contingency variable analysis: effects of types of relatedness and effects of industry. In addition, I add to the analysis a market-based performance measure that promises greatest possible content validity in terms of capturing synergy realization: Berger and Ofek’s excess value measure which can indicate whether a multibusiness firm trades at the so-called diversification discount.
I seek to find out whether performance differentials of multibusiness firms can better be explained if diversification strategies and the logic of business linkages are substantiated in content to a greater extent than is the case when drawing on traditional measurement schemes (as was the case in the meta-analysis). In addition, I want to examine if and how core business industry may matter to the performance implications of diversification strategy.
Recall that business relatedness generally refers to the logic of business linkages within corporate portfolios and is usually considered to proxy potential economies of scope (Robins and Wiersema, 2003). Following resource-based theory, synergies by means of scope economies provide the economic foundation for the existence of the multibusiness firm (Mahoney and Pandian, 1992; Penrose, 1959). In this context, I identify three major problems with the diversification-performance literature.
First, theory clearly suggests that the construct of relatedness is multidimensional in nature (e.g., Stimpert and Duhaime, 1997). However, only sporadic empirical evidence
64
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
is available on how different types of relatedness impact firm financial performance (e.g., Farjoun, 1998; Robins and Wiersema, 1995). As a consequence, there is still a considerable need for management advice on what business relatedness to strive for in order to maximize corporate performance (e.g., Pehrsson, 2006).
Second, although it is sufficiently clear in theory that type of industry, industry structure characteristics, and industry profitability may strongly influence the nature of the diversification-performance linkage observed in empirical research (cf. section 2.5), models tested are often not sufficiently specified to account for these contingency issues (cf. Datta, Rajagopalan, and Rasheed, 1991). Also the use of (multiple) single industry samples that could prevent any confounding effects from the outset is the exception rather than the rule in this line of research. Moreover, while it is generally acknowledged that industry matters to the diversification-performance relationship through industry profitability, the idea that specific types of relatedness and specific types of scope economies may relate differently to performance in different industries remains largely undiscussed. Taking up this idea, however, appears worthwhile, given that rules of competition, success factors, and the value of assets are usually understood to vary across industries (e.g., Markides and Williamson, 1996; Porter, 1985).
And, third, to date, empirical research in strategic management has not provided evidence in fact that business interrelatedness can be exploited by multibusiness firms in ways that allow them to turn the frequently reported diversification discount (e.g., Berger and Ofek, 1995; Comment and Jarrell, 1995; Lamont and Polk, 2002; Lang and Stulz, 1994; Mackey and Barney, 2006) into a premium. However, if synergies by means of scope economies is the major justification for multibusiness firms to exist (e.g., Kanter, 1989; Porter, 1985), then some at least of the diversified firms that show the highest levels of business relatedness and, thus, the highest potential for scope economies, should not only outperform less related multibusiness firms but also trade at a diversification premium.
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
65
It is for these reasons that I explore for a total of 350 large manufacturing multibusiness firms with 50 firms each in seven core business industry samples the nature of the effects of three alternative types of relatedness on accounting- and market-based performance. For this purpose, I apply next to a “standard” measure of product-based, tangible relatedness, two only recently developed, objective measures of intangible types of relatedness: Robins and Wiersema’s “resource-based relatedness” that is based on patterns of technology flows among industries as indicated by patent usage data and Farjoun’s “skill-based relatedness” that is based on profiles of type and extent of human skills required in specific industries as indicated by occupational distributions. In addition, I explore whether relatedness can be used to turn the diversification discount into a premium, and whether the level of the diversification discount itself is a function of core business industry.
Please be aware that in this part of the analysis I focus the attention exclusively on types of operational relatedness. The vast majority of research in the field has defined relatedness at the operational level and, thus, suggest that it is operational economies of scope that are critical to the performance implications of diversification strategy (cf. Datta, Rajagopalan, and Rasheed, 1991, p. 532). Issues pertaining to performance consequences of relatedness at the strategic or management level as suggested by Prahalad and Bettis (1986) are going to be tested and discussed in the third major part of this work. 3.1
Theory and Hypotheses
The interest in the linkage between the logic of portfolio composition and financial performance was largely triggered by Rumelt’s (1974) landmark study on strategy/structure combinations of large firms in which he found that, independent of structure choice, firms with interrelated portfolios outperform firms with unrelated portfolios. Theory quite strongly suggests that related diversification has positive and that unrelated diversification has negative performance effects (Palich, Cardinal, and Miller, 2000; Rumelt, 1974). Recall that the rationale advanced for the performancesuperiority of firms with related business portfolios is that exclusively related diversifiers may realize benefits from transferring and exploiting across businesses capabili-
66
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
ties, know-how and other valuable assets (Markides and Williamson, 1996; Penrose, 1959; Rumelt, 1982; Salter and Weinhold, 1979; St. John and Harrison, 1999; Teece, 1980), while unrelated diversifiers, at the same time, have to cope with substantial costs of organizing complex operations (Jones and Hill, 1988; Markides, 1992; Nayyar, 1992).
Since Rumelt’s study, the relationship between product diversification strategy and financial performance has been extensively researched. While product diversification strategy notionally refers to the distribution of firm activities across a number of distinct businesses that are more or less related (Palepu, 1985; Pitts and Hopkins, 1982; Rumelt, 1974), the dimensions along which businesses may relate have largely been neglected by traditional diversification research, however. For more than two decades, particularly objective measures of diversification strategy have heavily relied on the hierarchy inherent in the standard industrial classification-system (SIC) and, thus, exclusively on types of tangible-, physical-, product-based relatedness. Alternative types of business linkages and similarities have not been distinguished.
More recently, however, selected authors have questioned the content validity of commonly applied indicators of diversification for research on resource-based theories of the firm, and alternative measures of diversification strategy and relatedness have been proposed (e.g., Markides and Williamson, 1994; Robins and Wiersema, 2003).
Robins and Wiersema (1995), for instance, model business interrelationships on the basis of technology flows among industries. Farjoun (1994; 1998) models business interrelationships on the basis of human resource profiles of industries. Markides and Williamson (1994) model business interrelationships on the basis of various types of intangible assets. And, St. John and Harrison (1999) develop a judgment-based system for describing “manufacturing relatedness”. Moreover, in addition to measures of relatedness based on archival data, relatedness is also increasingly measured on the basis of manager self-report data (Pehrsson, 2006; Stimpert and Duhaime, 1997).
Theory and Hypotheses
67
The theme that emerges across this line of research is that relatedness itself is a multidimensional construct that comprises not only tangible but also intangible assetlinkage dimensions. Of similar importance is that the studies enumerated above present initial empirical evidence that specific relatedness dimensions differ in terms of their relationship with corporate financial performance. As a consequence, it is no longer sufficient to merely distinguish between related and unrelated diversification, i.e. between spreading activities into similar or into dissimilar businesses.
In other words, simply following the maxim that the potential for economies of scope is a function of the similarity of a firm’s businesses – no matter in which respect – will most likely be misleading. To make this point clear again: the more recent diversification-performance literature suggests that relatedness constitutes a multidimensional construct, and that type of relatedness matters to performance. In this respect, it is particularly intangible relatedness that is increasingly pointed at as being conducive to superior multi-business firm performance (e.g., Farjoun, 1998; Robins and Wiersema, 1995; Szeless, Wiersema, and Müller-Stewens, 2003). It is argued that intangible assets are both valuable and, in contrast to physical assets, difficult to copy for competitors. Therefore, intangible assets could nurture competitive advantages and were strategically more important than tangible assets (e.g., Barney, 1997; Robins and Wiersema, 1995).
In addition, prior research has shown that industry effects play a major role in explaining variability in the performance of multibusiness firms (cf. section 2.5). If not properly controlled for, they may seriously influence the performance effects attributed to diversification strategies (Bettis and Hall, 1982; Christensen and Montgomery 1981; Montgomery, 1985). In this context, though, it appears that the idea that specific types of relatedness may relate differently to performance in different industries has neither been discussed nor empirically tested. As there are only a very limited number of studies available that examine the performance effect of alternative types of relatedness this is not a surprise, however.
68
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
Nonetheless, one may argue that the combination of businesses in a portfolio should be used to gain preferential access to the types of strategic assets that support a firm’s cost or differentiation advantage in order to achieve superior performance (Markides and Williamson, 1996; St. John and Harrison, 1999). Hence, it is, from a theoretical perspective, unlikely that the same types of relatedness will pay equally across all industries. Success factors and rules of competition differ across industries and so may the benefits realizable from types of scope economies (e.g., Markides and Williamson, 1996; Porter, 1985).
Thus, in addition to the more traditional argument of the confounding effects of industry structure and industry profitability, this argument of “industry-specificity” underscores the importance of examining single industry samples and/or of verifying if effects detected in pooled samples possibly recruit themselves from effects prevailing in single industries only (cf. Bass, Cattin, and Wittunk, 1977; Bettis, 1981; Bettis and Hall, 1982).
Against this background, I seek to explore in this part of the study whether different types of operational relatedness are more or less valuable to the multibusiness firm, and whether the nature of these linkages is a function of core business industry. Accordingly, I test the following hypotheses: H2: The nature of the relationship between operational relatedness and performance is a function of type of operational relatedness H3: The nature of the relationship between (types of) operational relatedness and performance is a function of core business industry
So far, I would limit the analysis to studying the performance differentials of diversified firms. However, theoretical arguments on the benefits of related diversification do not only suggest that related diversifiers should outperform unrelated diversifiers but
Theory and Hypotheses
69
go as far as proposing that related diversification can be superior in terms of performance to staying focused. Recall that some authors argue that business relatedness can result in tangible and intangible synergies that make the corporate whole add up to more than the sum of its parts (e.g., Porter, 1987; St. John and Harrison, 1999).
In this respect, Palich, Cardinal, and Miller (2000) report meta-analytic evidence suggesting that related diversifiers on average indeed outperform single business firms; a finding that I have shown to be questionable, however. Noteworthy is that both metaanalytic studies (have to) limit the quantitative integration of research results largely to studies from the field of strategic management and, thus, base it on measurement approaches commonly used in strategy research.
However, in terms of testing whether corporate wholes may indeed add up to more than the sum of their parts, it is in fact the finance literature that offers a measurement approach that promises greatest content validity. The excess value measure methodology can be used to examine whether diversified firms trade at a discount or premium relative to imputed values of portfolios of stand-alone firms (Berger and Ofek, 1995).
In contrast to strategy research that in the majority of cases has studied the performance differences of related vis-à-vis unrelated diversifiers, scholars in finance have traditionally questioned the value of diversification per se, i.e. in relation to staying focused. Both literatures are voluminous. Martin and Sayrak (2003) offer a review of the finance literature on the topic and point out that the prevailing wisdom among financial economists throughout much of the 1990s has been that diversified firms sell at a discount.
In terms of reasons for the existence of the diversification discount the research usually points at inefficient capital allocation and other agency problems (e.g., Denis, Denis, and Sarin, 1997; Shin and Stulz, 1998). Empirical results on whether corporate diversification actually creates or destroys shareholder value are inconsistent, however. The discount initially found (Berger and Ofek, 1995; Comment and Jarrell, 1995; La-
70
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
mont and Polk, 2002; Lang and Stulz, 1994), later was refuted and reported to be a premium (Campa and Kedia, 2002; Miller, 2004; Villalonga, 2004), while most recently its existence was re-confirmed (Mackey and Barney, 2006).
Please note at this stage that meta-analysis can hardly be applied to reconcile this line of research and associated conflicting results as all of these studies essentially draw on the same sample of firms, namely the entire Compustat Database. Quantitative integration of multiple results generated from the same sample of firms would violate the independency assumption that is crucial to meta-analysis.
Furthermore, unlike the majority of research on the diversification discount, it is not my ambition to test in this study whether all multibusiness firms in the Compustat Database do on average trade at a discount relative to their single segment firm counterparts or not. Instead, I am interested in expressing the excess value measure of performance used in the finance literature as a function of the level of different types of operational relatedness as indicated by more recently developed measures from strategic management research. I am guided by the assertion that if the rationale for the multibusiness firm to exist is synergies by means of scope economies, then those diversified firms that show the highest levels of business relatedness, and, thus, the highest potential for scope economies, should not trade at a discount.
In terms of content validity, the excess value measure is the most suitable approach to capture whether multibusiness firms can realize benefits from inter-relating their businesses in the way they do. For these reasons, I express the diversification discount/premium as indicated by the excess value measure as a function of operational relatedness using core business industry-specific samples. I test the hypothesis that: H4: Multibusiness firms with comparatively high levels of (types of) operational relatedness trade at a diversification premium, while firms with comparatively low levels of (types of) operational relatedness trade at a discount.
Methods
3.2
71
Methods
In order to answer hypothesis 2 and 3, the effects of portfolio characteristics on corporate accounting- and market-based performance were tested using multiple least squares regression. The analyses were conducted for a pooled sample as well as separately for 7 core business manufacturing industries over the period 2004-2006. The general model tested specifies multibusiness firm financial performance in relation to three objectively measurable types of operational relatedness (tangible and intangible) and controls for vertical relatedness, the level of product diversification, and the level of international diversification: Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance = + 1 (Product-based Relatedness) + 2 (Technological Relatedness) + 3 (Skill-based Relatedness) + 4 (Vertical Relatedness) + 5 (Level of Product Diversification) + 6 (Level of International Diversification) +
72
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
In addition, in the pooled, cross-industry regressions, I used (core business) industry dummy variables to control for potential effects of industry structure on performance (Dess, Ireland, and Hitt, 1990; Grant and Jammine, 1988).
In order to answer hypothesis 4, regressions were complemented by independentsamples t-tests and one-sample t-tests to compare absolute average excess values of firms with comparatively high levels of relatedness (fourth quartile of firms) to the excess values of firms with comparatively low levels of business relatedness (first quartile of firms). Conducting these analyses with industry-specific samples allowed to exploring, in addition, if the nature of the diversification discount is a function of core business industry. 3.2.1
Sample
The overall sample totals 350 firms. It consists of the 50 largest multibusiness firms in terms of total sales for the year 2005 in each of a number of 7 core business manufacturing industries as indicated by Compustat Global Vantage.
I included the food and kindred products industry (SIC 20; henceforth denoted food industry) as well as the drugs industry (SIC 283; henceforth denoted pharmaceuticals industry) as both industries played a major role in landmark studies that were used to build diversification theory (Rumelt, 1974; Bettis and Hall, 1982; Palepu, 1985). In addition, I examined the industries plastics materials and synthetic resins (SIC 282; henceforth denoted chemicals industry), soap, detergents, and cleaning preparations (SIC 284; henceforth denoted personal care and household goods industry), computer and office equipment (SIC 357; henceforth denoted computers industry), electronic and other electrical equipment (SIC 36; henceforth denoted electronics industry), and motor vehicles and equipment (SIC 371; henceforth denoted automotive industry).
The analysis, accordingly, comprises samples of firms that offer durable consumer goods, non-durable consumer goods as well as producer’s goods. Moreover, the
Methods
73
industries examined cover a large part of the activity-spectrum of the manufacturing firms in the Global Fortune 500. Thus, this sample compares well with prior research in diversification-performance domain. Next to the points just enumerated, the choice of industries studied was to some extent also driven by data availability.
Business segment data was drawn from Datastream Worldscope, and financial data was drawn from Compustat. All data was corrected for outliers (2.5 standard deviations above/below mean), and sample composition was adjusted correspondingly. An industry-specific breakdown of the firms studied is reported in appendix 5. 3.2.2
Variables
Relatedness Variables Prior research suggests multiple dimensions along which businesses may be interlinked within corporate portfolios. I use three objective measurement schemes of business interrelatedness, i.e. product-based relatedness (Palepu, 1985), resource-based/ technological relatedness (Robins and Wiersema, 1995), and skill-based relatedness (Farjoun, 1994). Most importantly, these indices identify similarity of businesses at the operational level using alternative bases. The two latter types represent types of intangible relatedness, while the former type refers to more tangible relatedness. As relatedness is to proxy potential for economies of scope, type of relatedness serves as an indicator of the potential for economies of scope in particular areas, or, put differently, for types of economies of scope.
Palepu’s (entropy) measure of physical, product-based relatedness (1985) builds on the hierarchy inherent in the SIC system that focuses on similarities in products, raw materials, facilities and physical production processes, end uses and distribution, and other more tangible business characteristics. Different four-digit SIC industry groups within the same two-digit major industry group are treated as related businesses, and businesses from different two-digit major SIC industry groups are classified as unrelated. The SIC manual and hierarchy including division-, major group-, and industry
74
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
group structure is available, for instance, from the U.S. Department of Labor. For illustration purposes an excerpt is provided in appendix 6.
A firm’s total diversity is decomposable into an unrelated component indexing the degree to which a firm’s activity is distributed across unrelated industry groups and a related component indexing the degree of activity distribution among related businesses within major industry groups. I deduct the index of unrelated diversity from the index of total diversity to arrive at the index of related diversity. Subsequently, I use the ratio of related-to-total diversity to capture product-based relatedness independent of the number of businesses within corporate portfolios (Farjoun, 1998). Recall that, according to resource-based theory, the relatedness among businesses within a portfolio should have an effect on financial performance that is independent of the degree of diversification (Peteraf, 1993; Robins and Wiersema, 1995; Teece, 1982).
The entropy indices of unrelated (DU) and total diversity (DT) take the functional form
DU
m
1 ¦ P j * ln 1 / P j j 1
DT
n
1 ¦ Pi * ln 1 / Pi i 1
where Pj is the share of the jth two-digit industry group sales in the total sales of the firm, m is the number of two-digit industry groups, Pi is the share of the ith four-digit business within the firm, and n is the number of four-digit businesses (Jacquemin and Berry, 1979; Palepu, 1985). Product-based relatedness is then expressed by the ratio of related-to-total diversity:
Product-based Relatedness
DT DU / DT
Robins and Wiersema’s index of “resource-based relatedness” (1995) is based on patterns of technology flows among industries that are identified by drawing on patent
Methods
75
usage data and industry input-output table data (Scherer, 1982). Specifically, two industries are considered related or similar to the extent that they import a similar mix of technology from other industries. For the purpose of delimitation from other indices in this work, I use the label “technological relatedness” henceforth. Robins and Wiersema (1995) propose their measure as indirect indicator of the transferability of intangible capabilities and know-how among industries. In other words, the index is to proxy the potential for scope economies that arise due to shared underlying technological capabilities within a portfolio (p. 283). The measure takes the form
Mk
¦R ¦r ij
ij
* ( Pki Pkj )
where Mk is an aggregate index of business interrelatedness in firm k, Rij is a salesweighted measure of interrelationship for each combination of two different industry categories i and j in the portfolio, rij is a similarity coefficient of i and j in terms of technology flows, Pi is the percentage of sales in industry category i, and Pj is the percentage of sales in industry category j. Mk is subsequently divided by the absolute value of n industries minus one to form an adjusted index ranging from -1.0 to +1.0 (Robins and Wiersema, 1995, p. 299):
Technological Relatedness
M k /( n 1)
The data necessary to calculate this index – among which the coefficients of technological similarity between each possible pair of two industries - is reported in the appendix to Robins and Wiersema (1995). Moreover, the original technology flow data between specific industries can be found in Scherer (1982, p. 232 et sqq.). I report in appendices 7 and 8 the categorization of industries that is underlying this measurement scheme as well as, for illustration purposes, an excerpt of the table of inter-category technological similarity coefficients.
76
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
In contrast to Robins and Wiersema, Farjoun (1998) uses profiles of type and extent of human skills required in specific industries as indicated by occupational distributions derived from the Occupational Employment Survey (OES) conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics. Industries with similar profiles, i.e. similar skill combinations (41 types of occupations from the 6 major groups: management and management support, professionals, marketing and related, administration, service, and production, cf. Farjoun, 1994, p. 190), are clustered to form skill-related industry groups. These skill-related industry groups, in turn, are used instead of SIC hierarchy-based industry groups in calculating entropy-based indices of diversification. The calculation is analogous to the measure of product-based relatedness as described above except that industry groups are not defined by 2-digit SIC codes but by the identified groups of similar skills. The data on the skill-based industry grouping is reported in the appendix to Farjoun (1994). I report the 41 types of occupations and expertise underlying this measurement scheme in appendix 9.
The entropy indices of unrelated (DU) and total diversity (DT) take the functional form
DU
m
1 ¦ P j * ln 1 / P j j 1
DT
n
1 ¦ Pi * ln 1 / Pi i 1
where Pj is the share of the jth skill-related industry group sales in the total sales of the firm, m is the number of skill-related industry groups, Pi is the share of the ith four-digit business within the firm, and n is the number of four-digit businesses. Skill-based relatedness is then expressed by the ratio of related-to-total diversity:
Skill-based Relatedness
DT DU / DT
In terms of the discriminating validity of the three major measures just detailed, Robins and Wiersema (1995) present evidence that technological relatedness is distinct
Methods
77
from product-based relatedness. They report that the two measures are insignificantly correlated (p. 289 and p. 291). Also, Szeless, Wiersema, and Müller-Stewens (2003, p. 154-156) find that the two indices are insignificantly associated except for a sample in which they pool time-series data. Moreover, Farjoun (1998, p. 624) reports that skillbased relatedness discriminates sufficiently from product-based relatedness (correlation of .167 at the 5% significance level). As regards the linkage between technological and skill-based relatedness, both of which are indicators of intangible relatedness, this work is the first that can offer evidence on its empirical relation. It is expected that both measures overlap to an extent that is, however, negligible as they identify relatedness on bases that are conceptually different. The index of technological relatedness is to capture similarities of businesses merely in terms of technological know-how and capabilities required. Contrarily, the measure of skill-based relatedness is more broadly defined and to capture similarities of businesses in terms of diverse types of know-how and expertise required (cf. appendix 9). Performance Variables Accounting for meta-analytic evidence on the multidimensionality of the financial performance construct (Combs, Crook, and Shook, 2005), both indicators of accountingand market-based performance were used in the analyses.
Accounting-based measures of corporate financial performance reflect historical performance, whereas market-based measures reflect shareholders’ expectations of future performance. Moreover, while past performance may be a good predictor of future expected performance, and diversification may indirectly – through accounting-based performance – impact market-based performance (Hoskisson et al., 1993), the market may well have a different view of the performance effects of diversification (e.g., Berger and Ofek, 1995; Lang and Stulz, 1994).
Return on assets (ROA) and return on sales (ROS) were used to reflect accountingreturns and a Tobin’s Q approximation (Chung and Pruitt, 1994) was used to indicate market-based performance. This choice of measures allows for greatest possible com-
78
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
parability with prior research. Growth-based performance measures were not used because of the reasons elaborated on in the meta-analysis (cf. section 2.7). The measures employed are defined as follows: ROA = Earnings before Interest and after Tax / Total Assets ROS = Earnings before Interest and after Tax / Total Sales Tobin’s Q = (Market Value of Equity + Book Value of Debt) / Total Assets
In addition, I calculated sales-based excess values. Following Berger and Ofek (1995), I compared multibusiness firms’ total value to the sum of imputed stand-alone values of the segments they are active in. The sum of the imputed values of a company’s segments estimates the value of the firm if all of its segments are operated as stand-alone entities. Excess value is the natural log of the ratio of a firm’s actual value to its imputed value and measures the gain or loss in value from diversification. Equation 1 and 2 illustrate the approach:
(1)
I (V )
n
¦ AI
i
( Indi (V AI ) mf )
i 1
(2)
EV
ln(V I (V ))
where I(V) is the imputed value of the sum of a firm’s segments as stand-alone firms, AIi is segment i’s sales, Indi(V/AI)mf is the multiple of market value of equity plus book value of debt per sales for the median single segment firm in segment i’s industry, EV is the firm’s excess value, V is the diversified firm’s (total) market value of equity plus book value of debt, and n is the total number of segments in segment i’s firm. For an illustration of the calculation of this measure please refer to appendix 11.
Methods
79
As Worldscope does not provide the revenues generated within each segment but lists them in order of importance, I used imputed segment-weights. Following Gedaijlovic and Shapiro (1998, p. 545), I imputed these weights from a geometric series. For instance, if a multibusiness firm operates in two businesses, the revenues are assumed to be distributed in a ratio of 2:1, that is to say a 2/3 weight is attributed to the first fourdigit SIC and a 1/3 weight to the second four-digit SIC code. If the firm is active in three businesses, the weights would be 4/7, 2/7 and 1/7.
Moreover, in order to prevent outliers from distorting the results and choice of beginning and ending years not to be unduly influential (Grant, Jammine, and Thomas, 1988), the accounting-based measures of performance were measured as 3-year averages around 2005, the year in which the relatedness indices were measured. The market-based measures of performance were measured concurrent to the relatedness measurements, i.e. data from the year 2005 was used. Control Variables Industry structure is an important if not the most important determinant of the variability of firm performance (Bettis and Hall, 1982; Christensen and Montgomery, 1981; Montgomery, 1985; Schmalensee, 1985). Therefore, I use (core business) industry dummy variables in the pooled analyses to control for potential effects of industry structure on performance (Dess, Ireland, and Hitt, 1990; Farjoun, 1998; Grant and Jammine, 1988).
In addition, I control for performance effects of vertical relatedness. For this purpose, I employ Fan and Lang’s (2000) measure that is based on commodity flow data from U.S. input-output tables. The authors find that vertical relatedness, on average, is associated with poor performance. In contrast to other measures of relatedness, the measure of vertical relatedness does not proxy the potential for a type of economy of scope in the sense of asset amortization and leverage. Rather, Fan and Lang’s measure refers to potential gains that firms may realize by using vertical integration to mitigate the costs of market transactions (e.g., Williamson, 1979).
80
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
Another reason for controlling for vertical relatedness is that SIC based measures may misleadingly classify businesses as unrelated according to the two-digit code classifications when in fact they are vertically related (Fan and Lang, 2000). Moreover, originally, vertical relatedness had been recognized as an important dimension of diversification (Rumelt, 1974); since then it has largely been neglected in diversificationperformance research, however. Also, Lemelin (1982) uses the dimension of vertical relatedness to strengthen the predictive power of overall relatedness.
Fan and Lang (2000) draw on inter-industry relatedness coefficients that equal the average of the bilateral input requirements, i.e. the mean of the dollar value of one industry’s output required to produce one dollar’s worth of another industry’s output and vice versa (cf. Fan and Lang 2000, p. 633-634). The measures of vertical relatedness V takes the form
V
¦ (w
j
* Vij )
j
where wj is a sales weight that is equal to the ratio of the jth secondary business’ sales to the total sales of all secondary businesses within a portfolio, Vij are inter-industry relatedness coefficients of the two industries from the input-output tables to which the primary business i (defined as the largest business in terms of sales) and the jth secondary businesses belong (Fan and Lang, 2000, p. 640).
Diversification-performance research also usually controls for firm size in the belief of an association with both diversification and performance because of economies of scale and market power (Grant, Jammine, and Thomas, 1988; Sheperd, 1975). There is meta-analytic evidence, however, that firm size does not cause accounting-returns and/or market-based performance (Bausch, Pils, and Van Tri, 2007; Gooding and Wagner, 1985). Therefore, I do not use firm size as a control in the analyses.
Methods
81
As the three relatedness measures employed are explicitly designed not to rise with the number of businesses within corporate portfolios, I use the entropy index of the total level of product diversification (Jacquemin and Berry, 1979; Palepu, 1985) to control for the degree of sales distribution. Excessive sales spread may entail substantial costs of organization that impact financial performance (Jones and Hill, 1988; Markides, 1992; Nayyar, 1992).
In addition, I use the foreign- to total sales ratio to control for the level of international diversification (Bowen and Wiersema, 2007; Denis, Denis, and Yost, 2002). Prior research suggests that firms may derive benefits from international diversification such as scale and scope economies (e.g., Caves, 1971), learning effects (e.g., Barkema and Vermeulen, 2001), market power (e.g., Kogut, 1985), and operational risk reduction (e.g., Kim, Hwang, and Burgers 1993). At the same time, higher levels of international diversification may, similar to higher levels of product diversification, result in complexity and coordination requirements that entail substantial costs of organization (e.g., Hymer, 1976; Tallman and Li, 1996).
In the light of this research’s focus and in order not to unnecessarily reduce the number of degrees of freedom in the analyses, I do not add squared terms of the level of product- and international diversification and assess potential curvilinearity in the relationships with performance (e.g., Palich, Cardinal, and Miller, 2000; Gomes and Ramaswamy, 1999). For the same reason, I do not use interaction terms of the level of product- and international diversification and test any moderating effects (e.g., Geringer, Tallman, and Olsen, 2000). 3.3 Regression and T-Test Results Table 3.1 presents means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations for all variables used in the analysis.
82
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
Most importantly, correlations indicate that the three major independent variables are strongly associated with each other. In sharp contrast to prior research, the measures of product-, technological-, and skill-based relatedness appear to have limited discriminating validity. This pattern applies to the pooled sample as well as to each of the seven core business industry samples.
For this reason, I conducted multiple regressions of the three explanatory variables onto each other and examined variance inflation factors in the performance models. As both analyses pointed at severe problems of multicollinearity, a factor analysis was conducted for the three relatedness indices. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) was .72 for the pooled sample and suggested middling adequacy of the correlation matrix for factor analysis (Kaiser and Rice, 1974). By way of principal component analysis and using the Eigenvalue criterion a single factor was identified that explained 74% of the variance in the three relatedness measures. All three measures loaded high on this factor with loadings > 0.85.
This means that hypothesis 2, suggesting that type of operational relatedness (as measured in this part of the study) matters to the nature of the relatedness-performance linkage, is to be rejected. As the three indices of product-, technological-, and skill-based relatedness do not discriminate sufficiently, they cannot have associations with performance that are different in meaningful ways.
This also means that the empirical, statistical reality does not allow using the three indicators of relatedness separately in the regressions. Thus, I run all models using the factor and corresponding component values generated from factor analysis in order not to have multicollinearity distorting regression estimation results. In consideration of the content of the factor identified, I assigned it the label operational relatedness.
Regression and T-Test Results
83
Apart from this point, inspection of scatterplots and residual statistics did not indicate any problems of violating regression model assumptions in terms of normality, nonlinearity, or heteroscedasticity.
-.09
10. Excess Value .64
1.14
.07
.05
29.0
.26
.04
.32
.34
.33
S.D.
.031
-.066
.003
-.024
.048
.084
.213***
.602***
.647***
1.000
1
.037
-.011
.016
.051
.044
-.095*
.282***
.597***
1.000
2
.048
-.041
-.028
-.025
.166**
.062
.116**
1.000
3
4
-.132**
.067
.067
.053
-.005
-.358***
1.000
n = 350, * p < .10, ** p < .05, *** p < .01; for Clarity the Industry Dummy Variables are not shown.
1.86
.07
8. Return on Sales
9. Tonbin’s Q
.07
7. Return on Assets
40.4
.02
4. Vertical Relatedness
6. Level of International Diversification
.59
3. Skill-based Relatedness
1.12
.34
2. Technological Relatedness
5. Level of Product Diversification
.47
Mean
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix: Pooled Sample
1. Product-based Relatedness
Table 3.1
-.075
-.111**
-.138**
-.120**
-.006
1.000
5
.062
.022
.117**
.084
1.000
6
.355***
.690***
.774***
1.000
7
.471***
.566***
1.000
8
.479***
1.000
9
1.000
10
84 Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
Regression and T-Test Results
85
Pooled Sample Table 3.2 shows the results of regressing multibusiness firm ROA, ROS, Tobin’s Q, and excess value on portfolio characteristics using the pooled sample. All models are highly significant explaining between 13% and 28% of the variance in the performance measures (adjusted R2 between .10 and .26).
Operational relatedness is not significantly related to any of the performance measures used. Vertical relatedness is significantly and negatively related to the excess value measure. Moreover, the level of international diversification is positively associated with return on assets, return on sales, and excess value.
However, the variance in performance explained by the models is to a large part due to the use of the industry-dummies. Relative to the omitted dummy variable (electronics, SIC 36), measures of multibusiness firm accounting- and market-based performance are higher for firms with primary activities in the food-, the pharmaceuticals-, and the personal care and household goods-industry. Contrarily, firms with core businesses in the automotive industry suffer negative effects of industry structure on accountingand market-based performance. Finally, firms in the chemicals industry score weaker on Tobin’s Q and higher on excess value than the omitted industry.
.157
Constant
R2
5.721***
11.895***
.256
.280
.064
-.161**
-.073
.101
.435***
.008
.112*
.178***
-.065
-.015
-.029
2 Return on Sales
5.886***
.136
.164
1.809
-.174**
.016
.163**
.214**
-.155**
-.046
.046
-.018
.067
.035
3 Tobin’s Q
n = 350. Note: Standardized beta-weights reported. * p < .10, ** p < .05, *** p < .01; Omitted Industry Dummy: SIC 36 (Electronics)
F statistic
Adjusted R
.130
.060
Prime SIC 371 (Automotive)
2
.032 -.125*
Prime SIC 357 (Computers)
.245***
Prime SIC 284 (Personal Care)
.017
Prime SIC 282 (Chemicals) .254***
.132*
Prime SIC 20 (Food)
Prime SIC 283 (Pharma)
-.073 .150**
Level of International Diversification
.029
Vertical Relatedness
Level of Product Diversification
-.007
1 Return on Assets
4.542***
.103
.132
-.211
-.104
-.096
.220**
.047
.159**
.148**
.128**
-.018
-.125**
.046
4 Excess Value
Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Pooled Sample
Operational Relatedness (Factor of three Relatedness Indices)
Table 3.2
86 Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
Regression and T-Test Results
87
The Food Industry Table 3.3 shows the results of regressing multibusiness firm ROA, ROS, Tobin’s Q, and excess value on portfolio characteristics for the food industry sample (SIC 20). The models using return on assets, return on sales, and excess value as dependent variables are significant and explain between 22% and 38% of the variance in the performance measures (adjusted R2 between .14 and .32).
The slope coefficient of operational relatedness is positive and significant in the model using the excess value measure. Vertical relatedness is not significantly associated with any measure of performance. In terms of other controls, the level of product diversification is negatively related to return on assets, and the level of international diversification is positively related to return on sales.
Table 3.3
Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Food Industry (SIC 20) 1 Return on Assets
2 Return on Sales
3 Tobin’s Q
4 Excess Value
Operational Relatedness (Factor)
.241
.080
.309*
.383**
Vertical Relatedness
-.176
-.091
.001
-.113
Level of Product Diversification
-.306**
-.038
.016
.016
Level of International Diversification
.126
.560***
.211
.246
Constant
.119
.054
1.427
-.083
R2
.219
.379
.175
.273
Adjusted R2
.143
.316
.088
.196
F statistic
2.873**
6.093***
2.017
3.559**
n = 50. Note: Standardized beta-weights reported. * p < .10, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
88
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
The Chemicals Industry Table 3.4 shows the results of regressing multibusiness firm ROA, ROS, Tobin’s Q, and excess value on portfolio characteristics for the chemicals industry sample (SIC 282). None of the models is significant in explaining performance differentials of the multibusiness firms studied.
Table 3.4
Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Chemicals Industry (SIC 282)
1 Return on Assets
2 Return on Sales
3 Tobin’s Q
4 Excess Value
Operational Relatedness (Factor)
.050
.044
-.032
.098
Vertical Relatedness
-.111
-.216
-.198
-.187
Level of Product Diversification
-.051
.074
.107
.232
Level of International Diversification
.309**
.282*
.227
.213
Constant
.052
.039
1.036
-.427
R
.108
.129
.104
.154
Adjusted R2
.021
.044
.017
.072
F statistic
1.238
1.523
1.189
1.869
2
n = 50. Note: Standardized beta-weights reported. * p < .10, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
The Pharmaceuticals Industry Table 3.5 shows the results of regressing multibusiness firm ROA, ROS, Tobin’s Q, and excess value on portfolio characteristics for the pharmaceuticals industry sample (SIC 283). None of the models is significant in explaining performance differentials of the multibusiness firms studied.
Regression and T-Test Results Table 3.5
89
Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Pharmaceuticals Industry (SIC 283)
1 Return on Assets
2 Return on Sales
3 Tobin’s Q
4 Excess Value
Operational Relatedness (Factor)
.076
.026
.122
.403
Vertical Relatedness
-.113
.059
-.018
-.404
Level of Product Diversification
-.303
-.105
-.312
-.100
Level of International Diversification
.143
-.031
.021
-.088
Constant
.150
.174
4.327
.568
R2
.072
.022
.094
.067
Adjusted R2
-.021
-.076
-.002
-.031
F statistic
.774
.227
.983
.683
n = 50. Note: Standardized beta-weights reported. * p < .10, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
The Personal Care and Household Goods Industry Table 3.6 shows the results of regressing multibusiness firm ROA, ROS, Tobin’s Q, and excess value on portfolio characteristics for the personal care and household goods industry sample (SIC 284). None of the models is significant in explaining performance differentials of the multibusiness firms studied.
90 Table 3.6
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Personal Care and Household Goods Industry (SIC 284)
1 Return on Assets
2 Return on Sales
3 Tobin’s Q
4 Excess Value
Operational Relatedness (Factor)
-.208
-.276*
-.066
-.321**
Vertical Relatedness
.200
-.056
.245
-.164
Level of Product Diversification
.114
-.041
.370
-.140
Level of International Diversification
.211
.288*
-.013
.221
Constant
.032
.073
-.291
.447
R2
.133
.156
.078
.151
Adjusted R2
.037
.063
-.024
.056
F statistic
1.386
1.668
.765
1.597
n = 50. Note: Standardized beta-weights reported. * p < .10, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
The Computers Industry Table 3.7 shows the results of regressing multibusiness firm ROA, ROS, Tobin’s Q, and excess value on portfolio characteristics for the computers industry sample (SIC 357). None of the predictors is significant in explaining performance differentials of the multibusiness firms studied.
Regression and T-Test Results Table 3.7
91
Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Computers Industry (SIC 357)
1 Return on Assets
2 Return on Sales
3 Tobin’s Q
4 Excess Value
Operational Relatedness (Factor)
.069
.073
-.078
.093
Vertical Relatedness
.266
-.061
.332*
-.063
Level of Product Diversification
-.215
-.377**
-.038
-.231
Level of International Diversification
.120
.057
-.077
-.036
Constant
.093
.138
1.896
.483
R2
.215
.123
.127
.044
Adjusted R2
.140
.039
.048
-.043
F statistic
2.878**
1.470
1.607
.503
n = 50. Note: Standardized beta-weights reported. * p < .10, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
The Electronics Industry Table 3.8 shows the results of regressing multibusiness firm ROA, ROS, Tobin’s Q, and excess value on portfolio characteristics for the electronics industry sample (SIC 36). None of the models is significant in explaining performance differentials of the multibusiness firms studied.
92 Table 3.8
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Electronics Industry (SIC 36)
1 Return on Assets
2 Return on Sales
3 Tobin’s Q
4 Excess Value
Operational Relatedness (Factor)
.028
-.058
-.263
-.277*
Vertical Relatedness
-.053
-.005
-.199
.136
Level of Product Diversification
-.189
-.239
-.125
.032
Level of International Diversification
.189
.238
.185
.184
Constant
.119
.180
2.530
-.602
R2
.071
.137
.156
.116
Adjusted R2
-.024
.049
.067
.023
F statistic
.743
1.553
1.757
1.245
n = 50. Note: Standardized beta-weights reported. * p < .10, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
The Automotive Industry Table 3.9 shows the results of regressing multibusiness firm ROA, ROS, Tobin’s Q, and excess value on portfolio characteristics for the automotive industry sample (SIC 371). All four performance models are significant and explain between 19% and 26% of the variance in the performance measures (adjusted R2 between .11 and .19).
Operational relatedness is found to be positively related to excess value, and vertical relatedness to be negatively related to excess value. In terms of other controls, the level of product diversification is positively related to accounting-based measures of performance. In addition, the level of international diversification is found to be negatively related to Tobin’s Q and to be positively related to the excess value measure.
Regression and T-Test Results Table 3.9
93
Regression of Multibusiness Firm Financial Performance on Portfolio Characteristics: Automotive Industry (SIC 371)
1 Return on Assets
2 Return on Sales
3 Tobin’s Q
4 Excess Value
Operational Relatedness (Factor)
-.211
-.255
.154
.378**
Vertical Relatedness
.280
.165
-.284
-.381**
Level of Product Diversification
.509**
.451**
.096
.022
Level of International Diversification
-.195
-.030
-.371**
.351**
Constant
-.074
-.046
1.408
-.597
R2
.220
.188
.204
.260
Adjusted R2
.149
.114
.129
.186
F statistic
3.095**
2.539*
2.699**
3.516**
N = 50. Note: Standardized beta-weights reported. * p < .10, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Thus, looking at the seven industry samples as a whole, there is mixed evidence as regards hypothesis 3. Results suggest that the nature of the association between operational relatedness and the excess value measure is a function of core business industry. Contrarily, with a view to the association between the factor of operational relatedness and performance in terms of ROA, ROS, and Tobin’s Q, results are stable across the seven industries studied: there are no significant associations. T-Test Results In order to assess whether firms in specific industries trade at a diversification discount or not and whether operational relatedness may allow turning the discount into a premium, absolute values of the excess value measure are examined. Recall that excess value is the natural log of the ratio of a firm’s actual value to its imputed value and measures the gain or loss in value from diversification (Berger and Ofek, 1995).
94
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
Table 3.10 shows the absolute average excess values of the firms in the pooled sample and in the seven core business industry samples. In addition, the absolute average excess values of the first and fourth quartile in terms of operational relatedness are reported for each sample.
Figures indicate that the 350 multibusiness firms examined in the analysis on average do trade at a statistically significant diversification discount. This finding is in line with prior research reporting a diversification discount for firms in cross-industry samples (e.g., Berger and Ofek, 1995; Comment and Jarrell, 1995; Lamont and Polk, 2002; Lang and Stulz, 1994; Mackey and Barney, 2006).
However, the industry breakdown indicates that this discount does not necessarily apply to all types of firms. A significant discount prevails merely for firms active in specific core business industries – namely firms in the computers- and automotive industry. Contrarily, it is found that firms with their primary activity in the personal care and household goods industry do trade at a premium, in fact. Finally, neither a significant discount nor premium is evidenced for firms having diversified out of the food-, the pharmaceuticals-, the electronics-, and the chemicals industry.
Moreover, comparing the excess values of firms scoring comparatively high and firms scoring comparatively low on operational relatedness indicates that firms in the food industry apparently realize scope economies that allow them to achieve a diversification premium. Largely in line with regression results, no significant difference emerges when comparing the excess values of firms with low and high levels of operational relatedness with the remaining industries. For the automotive industry, however, findings suggest that although operational relatedness is positively related to the excess value measure, firms do not manage to avoid the diversification discount.
Thus, overall, hypothesis 4, suggesting that multibusiness firms with comparatively high levels of specific types of relatedness trade at a diversification premium, while firms with comparatively low levels of specific types of relatedness trade at a discount,
Regression and T-Test Results
95
is to be rejected. Only in the food industry, high levels of operational relatedness are associated with a premium. However, while firms in the food industry with low levels of operational relatedness suffer from inferior performance they do not trade at a significant diversification discount.
-.311 12 -.363 12 -.282 12 -.083 12 -.476** 12 -.116
350 .089 50 -.170 50 -.258** 50 -.123 50 -.365*** 50 .039 50 .183** 50
n
Food (SIC 20)
n
Pharmaceuticals (SIC 283)
n
Computers (SIC 357)
n
Electronics (SIC 371)
n
Automotive (SIC 371)
n
Chemicals (SIC 282)
n
Personal Care and Household Goods (SIC 284)
n
.539
.383
.416
.602
.717
.893
.591
87
.637
-.095**
Pooled Sample
12
.191
12
-.223**
Excess Value Standard Deviation
Excess Value 1st Quartile Operational Relatedness (Low)
Absolute Excess Values in Seven Core Business Industries
Excess Value Mean
Table 3.10
13
.075
13
-.015
13
-.385**
13
-.167
13
-.349*
13
-.118
13
.346*
88
-.138**
Excess Value 4th Quartile Operational Relatedness (High)
-.498
.675
.486
-.280
-.219
.498
2.556**
.771
Mean Difference t-value
96 Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
Discussion
97
3.4 Discussion A number of important findings emerge from the empirical analysis above. First, measures of product-, technological-, and skill-based types of relatedness are found to be highly correlated suggesting that relatedness at the operational level should be represented by a multidimensional factor rather than by separate indices of tangible and intangible types of operational relatedness. Second, a factor of operational relatedness may explain performance differentials of multibusiness firms in the minority of industries studied (here food and automotive) and only if specific measures of performance are used (here the excess value measure). Third, while diversified firms on average trade at a diversification discount, the prevalence of a discount/premium is a function of core business industry. And, fourth, in six of the seven industries examined, firms do not achieve a diversification premium by means of high levels of operational relatedness. Similarly, firms do not suffer from a discount that is due to low levels of operational relatedness. These findings have strong implications for both past and future research on the diversification-performance linkage as well as for business practice.
The finding that the objective measures of product-, technological-, and skill-based relatedness lack discriminating power is surprising in the light of recent research into corporate strategy and portfolio composition proposing the opposite (Farjoun, 1998; Robins and Wiersema, 1995; Szeless, Wiersema, Müller-Stewens, 2003; see also table 3.11). Nonetheless, the results of this study – especially given that I used a substantially larger sample size than prior studies – suggest that either the three measures are weak in capturing the information they are supposed to capture, or, that there is no necessity to distinguish tangible and intangible types of operational relatedness. If we assume that the three relatedness measures indicate the underlying constructs adequately, the high correlation between them suggests that, in empirical reality, higher levels of product-based relatedness are usually associated with higher levels of technological as well as skill-based relatedness and vice versa. In other words, in the majority of cases, if businesses in a portfolio are more similar in tangible respects at the operational level, they are also more similar in intangible respects at the operational level.
98
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
Specifically, this means that businesses that sell similar products and draw on similar raw materials, physical processes, and facilities are usually also similar in terms of the technologies they import from other industries as well as the type of human skills and expertise they require. Accordingly, the added-value of distinguishing types of tangible and intangible relatedness at the operational level has to be questioned – also in light of the fact that these measures are not easy to calculate.
Moreover, these findings suggest that some of the results of recent corporate strategy research may be in need of reevaluation. And this applies in particular to those studies that suggest that intangible relatedness (e.g., technological or skill-based relatedness) is distinct from tangible, product-based relatedness, and that intangible relatedness exclusively is conducive to superior multibusiness firm performance (cf. table 3.11). In this context, it is to be pointed out that, in line with Farjoun (1998), I measured all three indices independent of the number of businesses in corporate portfolios in order to stay close to resource-based theory (e.g., Peteraf, 1993 and Teece, 1982). This is because, according to resource-based theory, the relatedness among businesses within a portfolio should have an effect on financial performance that is independent of the degree of diversification (Peteraf, 1993; Robins and Wiersema, 1995; Teece, 1982). Robins and Wiersema (1995) and Szeless, Wiersema, and Müller-Stewens (2003), however, measure product-based relatedness by drawing on the standard definition of the related component of the entropy measure of diversification strategy (Palepu, 1985). This is surprising as Robins and Wiersema’s measure of technological relatedness has explicitly been formulated not to account for the degree of activity distribution. Nonetheless, this may explain in part the deviation of my results from the results reported in these two studies as regards measure inter-correlation.
Moreover, it is to be mentioned that the finding of limited unique information being captured by the three indices applies to the seven core business industries examined in this study and to the patterns in which incumbent firms diversify. However, it is up to
Discussion
99
further research to show whether the discriminating power of the relatedness indices is higher for other industries and corresponding diversification patterns. Table 3.11
Empirical Results in Comparison: Linkage between Types of Relatedness and between Types of Relatedness and Performance
Study
Sampl Size
Results: Linkage between Relatedness Indicators
Results: Linkage between Relatedness and Performance
Robins and Wiersema (1995)
n = 84
Correlation between physical- and technological relatedness at -.059 (not significant)
Technological relatedness positively related and physical relatedness negatively related to ROA
Szeless et al. (2003)
n = 33
Correlation between physical- and technological relatedness between .174 and .245 (not significant), and at .215 (5% significance) for pooled sample
Technological relatedness largely positively related to ROCE, ROS, Sharpe, and Treynor; physical relatedness not related to performance
Farjoun (1998)
n = 158
Correlation between physical- and skill-based relatedness at .167 (5% significance)
Physical- and skill-based relatedness alone not related to performance; when joined they are positively related to ROA and Market-to-Book Ratio
This study (2008)
n = 350
Correlation between physical- and technological relatedness at .647, between physical- and skill-based relatedness at .602, and between technologicaland skill-based relatedness at .597 (all 1% significance)
Factor of operational relatedness not significantly related to ROA, ROS, and Tobin’s Q; and significantly positively related to Excess Value in specific core business industries only
With a view to associations between relatedness and performance examined in the regressions, it was found that – in all seven industries studied – a factor of operational relatedness is not significantly associated with ROA, ROS, or Tobin’s Q. Moreover, it was found that operational relatedness is positively associated with the excess value measure in the food and automotive industry, while it is not associated with the excess value measure in the chemicals-, pharmaceuticals-, personal care and household goods-, computers-, and electronics industry.
100
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
This means that, in the majority of core business industries studied, diversification strategy in terms of the level of operational business relatedness per se appears not to have any performance effects.
At the same time, these findings suggest that indeed it seems to be the excess value measure that is most pertinent to capturing the performance effects of diversification strategy. Moreover, as the excess value measure is a market-based measure of performance that is influenced by investors’ expectations of the future, this may be an indication that, if at all, the performance effects of diversification strategy materialize in the longer term only. This suggests that more studies in strategic management research should draw on the methodology suggested by Berger and Ofek (1995) to capture synergy effects.
And, finally, this implies that core business industry can matter to the performance effects of diversification strategy. Specifically, multibusiness firms with their core business in food or automotive seem to systematically generate benefits from transferring, sharing, and leveraging resources at the operational level. However, this does not apply to firms in the remaining five industries examined.
It is difficult to argue why exactly the performance effects of operational relatedness materialize systematically in the food and automotive industries only. Theoretically, in these industries, the benefits of operational relatedness must systematically exceed the costs of diversifying into businesses that are similar at the operational level. Both industries are consumer goods industries. And yet, there are other industries, such as personal care and pharma, which are as well consumer goods industries and are not characterized by systematic performance effects of operational relatedness.
Nonetheless, it is an important finding that positive net effects of operational relatedness, i.e. operational synergies due to sharing and leveraging the similarity of products, processes, end-customers, technologies and related capabilities, and of types of production- and other functional skills, seem realizable to a greater extent in some indus-
Discussion
101
tries than in others. Either the value of operational scope economies must be systematically higher and/or the costs of running a multi-business firm with operationally similar businesses must be systematically lower for these firms than for firms diversifying out of other industries. At least, this is what capital market and investors expect. Further studies should take up this issue and detail those industry characteristics that may cause these effects.
In terms of control variables, vertical relatedness is found to exhibit a negative association with the excess value measure in the pooled analysis. These findings are in line with Fan and Lang (2000) who report a negative association between vertical relatedness and excess value for a large cross-industry sample. However, industry-specific analyses indicate that a significant negative association prevails in the automotive industry only. Contrarily, in the remaining industries, though the majority of slope coefficients are negative, I find no significant association of vertical relatedness with financial performance. Thus, also the nature of the relationships between vertical relatedness and measures of performance seems to be a function of core business industry. Generally, I have no evidence that strategies of vertical integration are a suitable means to elevate multibusiness firm financial performance. Consequentially, benefits associated with vertical relatedness should not be used as economic justification for the diversification decision.
With a view to other control variables, using the pooled sample, I find that the level of product diversification is not associated with performance and that the level of international diversification is positively associated with return on assets, return on sales, and excess value. In the food-industry, the level of product diversification is negatively associated with return on assets, and the level of international diversification is positively associated with return on sales. In the automotive industry, the level of product diversification is positively related to return on assets and return on sales, and the level of international diversification is negatively related to Tobin’s Q and positively related to excess value. No significant association is found between levels of product- and international diversification and performance in other core business industries. Thus, results suggest that next to the nature of the relationships between operational related-
102
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
ness and performance and vertical relatedness and performance, also the nature of the associations between levels of product- and international diversification and performance seem to be a function of core business industry.
Employing the excess value methodology and examining absolute values of this measure allowed shifting in focus from comparing the performance of multibusiness firms towards comparing multibusiness firm performance to single business firm performance, i.e. towards assessing the performance effects of diversification itself – in relation to the theoretical case of staying a single-business firm.
In this respect, results are in line with prior research in terms of finding an average diversification discount for multibusiness firms in cross-industry samples (e.g., Berger and Ofek, 1995; Comment and Jarrell, 1995; Lamont and Polk, 2002; Lang and Stulz, 1994; Mackey and Barney, 2006).
However, the industry-specific breakdown indicates that the discount does not necessarily prevail. The discount is found to be a function of core business industry. In fact, this finding suggests that nature and extent of net benefits – of whatever type – realizable from diversification are a function of core business industry. This finding somewhat parallels the observation made in terms of the food and automotive industry in the regressions.
Again, either the value of specific benefits of diversification must be systematically higher and/or the costs of running a multi-business firm must be systematically lower for these firms than for firms diversifying out of other industries. If I am not mistaken, this idea has not been taken up in any prior study on the diversification-performance linkage.
Findings further indicate that multibusiness firms in the food industry with comparatively high levels of business interrelatedness trade at a premium, while those firms
Discussion
103
that score comparatively low on operational relatedness do not. This suggests that firms in the food industry manage to achieve a diversification premium when pursuing operational scope economy strategies. This lends some support, at least, to resourcebased theory pointing at scope economies as the economic reason for being of multibusiness firms (Mahoney and Pandian, 1992; Penrose, 1959; Peteraf, 1993; Teece, 1982). In the food industry, firms pursuing operational scope economy strategies seem to manage to make the corporate whole add up to more than the sum of its parts (Porter, 1987; St. John and Harrison, 1999).
With a view to the automotive industry, regression results suggest that firms are in a position to realize operational scope economies and to increase the excess value measure by this means. However, t-test comparisons of absolute excess values suggest that these firms do not manage to turn the discount into a premium. In general, in the automotive industry, focused firms systematically outperform diversified firms, and diversification generally destroys shareholder value. In addition, the finding that the control variable level of product diversification is positively related to return on assets and return on sales of multibusiness firms suggests that multibusiness firm that have diversified away from the core business industry outperform those multibusiness firms that have not – at least in the short term.
While next to the automotive industry an average diversification discount is also evidenced for the sample of firms in the computers-industry, no average discount prevails in the food-, chemicals, pharmaceuticals- and electronics industries. Moreover, firms in the personal care and household goods industry are found to trade at a diversification premium even. In this core business industry, diversified firms apparently systematically outperform single business firms in the long run. However, this seems not being caused by the exploitation of synergies in terms of operational scope economies.
Taken together, these findings suggest that diversification by firms with their core business in the automotive- or computers-industry – as opposed to staying focused – is on average detrimental in the long term and destroys shareholder value. Contrarily, if
104
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
one interprets the absence of an average discount as the results of favorable and detrimental diversification endeavors cancelling out each other, diversification can be undertaken in ways that create value by firms from the food-, chemicals-, pharmaceuticals-, and electronics industries.
While firms from the food industry are well-advised to pursue operational scope economy strategies and, thus should inter-relate their businesses physically, technologically, and along skill-based lines, firms from the chemicals-, pharmaceuticals-, personal care and household goods- and electronics industries may well succeed without inter-relating their businesses operationally.
Apparently, types of benefits other than operational scope economies are realizable from multibusiness organization that compensate for the costs of diversification. Another possibility is of course that types of operational scope economies not measured in this analysis are realizable by multibusiness firms and can economically justify diversification, or, that the true performance effects of operational relatedness emerge only after controlling for contingency factors such as characteristics of organizational structure.
Finally, in six of the seven industries examined, the mean excess value of multibusiness firms that score high on operational relatedness relative to their industry peers does not significantly differ from the mean excess value of firms that score comparatively low on operational relatedness. In other words, except for the food industry, firms do not achieve a diversification premium by means of high levels of operational relatedness. Similarly, firms do not suffer from a discount that is due to low levels of operational relatedness.
If we assume proper measurement, this finding casts some doubt on the strength, at least, of a key proposition in strategic management research: the economic rationale for multibusiness firms to exist is economies of scope (e.g., Kanter, 1989; Porter, 1985). Recall that economies of scope are understood to be realizable in situations in
Discussion
105
which businesses in a portfolio are related (e.g., Robins and Wiersema, 1995). Despite making use of newly developed indices that were designed to overcome the limitations inherent in traditional measurement approaches, I am in the majority of industries not able to show that scoring high on these indices leads to making the corporate whole add up to more than the sum of its parts. 3.5 Intermediate Conclusion The study in this section is the first that examines multiple measure of accounting- and market-based performance, most notably the excess value measure, as a function of multiple, objectively measurable types of operational business relatedness in separate intra-industry samples. In this way, it links the state-of-the-art in empirically measuring operational business relatedness and the state-of-the-art in empirically measuring synergy realization.
Using a larger sample than prior research, I find that measures of product-, technological-, and skill-based relatedness do not sufficiently discriminate from each other to be used as separate predictors of multibusiness firm performance. These measures all load very high on a single factor suggesting that relatedness at the operational level should be represented by a multidimensional factor rather than by separate indices of tangible and intangible types of operational relatedness.
Moreover, this factor of operational relatedness is found to explain performance differentials of multibusiness firms active in specific core business industries only (here food and automotive) and only when specific measures of performance are used (here the excess value measure). However, in the majority of core business industries studied, diversification strategy in terms of lower or higher levels of operational business relatedness is found not to have any accounting-based or market-based performance effects.
Furthermore, the finding that an average diversification discount prevails for multibusiness firms in cross-industry samples suggests that diversification is in many
106
Types of Operational Relatedness, Core Business Industry, and Performance
cases detrimental to firm performance and often difficult to be accomplished successfully. Even more important, however, is that a discount does not necessarily prevail. It is found to be a function of core business industry suggesting that the extent of net benefits realizable from diversification systematically varies across industries. This issue and the reasons underlying should be taken up by future research.
Finally, in six of the seven industries examined, the mean excess value of multibusiness firms that score high on operational relatedness relative to their industry peers does not significantly differ from the mean excess value of firms that score comparatively low on operational relatedness. In other words, except for the food industry, firms do not achieve a diversification premium by means of high levels of operational relatedness. Similarly, firms do not suffer from a discount due to low levels of operational relatedness.
Overall, this empirical analysis indicates that diversification strategy defined in terms of levels of operational business relatedness and indicated by state-of-the-art, archival measures is per se not related to corporate performance in the vast majority of cases. In this respect, results from the empirical analysis seem to corroborate findings from the meta-analysis in the first part of the study that called into question already any over-arching, generalizable cause-and-effect relationship between diversification strategy and performance.
4 A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness Recall that current research on the performance implications of diversification strategy is characterized by an increasing interest to conceptualize the relatedness construct. New measurement schemes are proposed that indicate relatedness on alternative bases and along multiple dimensions in order to capture a broadest possible range of potentials for synergy (Farjoun, 1994; Markides and Williamson, 1994; Pehrsson, 2006; Robins and Wiersema, 1995; Stimpert and Duhaime, 1997; St. John and Harrison, 1999; Tanriverdi and Venkatraman, 2005). As this line of research is getting increasingly multi-faceted, one may observe that the majority of empirical studies emphasize synergy in terms of economies of scope at the operational level. This happens at the expense of synergy that may be associated with aspects of dominant logic, distinctive competence, and effective management at the corporate, strategic level (Grant, 1988; Prahalad and Bettis, 1986).
However, effective corporate management and leveraging distinct corporate-level competences – considered to be possible in portfolios with strategically similar businesses – may matter as much to multibusiness firm success as economies of the scope at the operational level. Also, it may interact with operational relatedness to determine the ultimate nature of the performance implications of diversification strategy (D’Aveni, Ravenscraft, and Anderson, 2004; Grant, 1988; Hill, 1994; Hitt and Ireland, 1985; Harrison, Hall, and Nargundkar, 1993).
Moreover, ever since, there has been anecdotal evidence suggesting that effective corporate management may be the factor that reasons the success of specific types of multibusiness firms – namely those occasionally described as premium conglomerates (e.g., Shulman, 1999). Adding to this discussion, Michael Goold and colleagues have repeatedly used case-based research to emphasize that corporate parents require having
108
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
“sufficient feel” for the critical success factors of single businesses if a portfolio is to be managed successfully (Goold, Campbell, and Alexander, 1994).
Accordingly, it is the strategic relatedness of businesses that deserves further study. I propose that research on the diversification strategy and performance linkage may be informed by approaches that take a holistic view of aspects of (operational) economies of scope, dominant management logic, and synergy. I suggest that Grant’s (1988) logic of a two-factor model of the relatedness construct distinguishing operational relatedness from strategic relatedness, may provide both some degree of structure to the literature and additional insight in terms of the performance differentials of multibusiness firms.
As I shall demonstrate in the course of the analysis to follow, this assertion follows directly from the results in the preceding analyses. First, the meta-analyses suggested that traditional measurements of diversification strategy can hardly evidence any performance effects. Second, the empirical analyses showed that different types of operational relatedness seem to load on a single factor. And, third, this analysis also suggested that core business industry, i.e. the dominant business of a firm, matters – in to be defined respects – to the performance implications of diversification strategy.
In response to Prahalad and Bettis’ (1986) award-winning paper on the dominant general management logic, Grant suggested that there are two fundamental dimensions of relatedness. Strategic relatedness referred to similarities at the corporate-level and described if businesses were similar to manage in terms of functions such as resource allocation. It allowed for effective management of a portfolio as “[…] strategically similar businesses can be managed using a single dominant general management logic” (Prahalad and Bettis, 1986, p. 490). Contrarily, operational relatedness referred to similarities rather at the process-level, among which are product-based and technological similarities, for instance (Grant, 1988).
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
109
Empirical research available on the dimensionality of the relatedness construct and associations with performance as outlined above has not followed the explicit distinction of strategic and operational relatedness. As a consequence, it has not been established how precisely strategic and operational relatedness interact and matter to diversification success. However, at the same time, the research in this domain appears to present – often implicitly – initial evidence that next to aspects of operational relatedness it is aspects of strategic relatedness that deserve further empirical study.
In this part of the study, therefore, I use structural equation modeling to validate Grant’s (1988) two-factor conceptualization of the relatedness construct and to subsequently test associations between strategic/management relatedness, operational relatedness, and performance. In this way, this study becomes the first to examine the performance effects of strategic relatedness vis-à-vis operational relatedness in a single, integrative model using a multitude of objective indicators.
Please note that, in the following section, I occasionally reiterate some of the arguments made in earlier sections in order to be able to make the full case for why indicators of strategic relatedness should be used to complement the traditional study of the linkage between diversification strategy in terms of operational relatedness and performance. 4.1 Theory and Hypotheses Diversification implies joining under one corporate roof two or more distinct businesses. This comes at costs. Thus, diversification makes sense economically only if costs incurred are at least recouped by synergies. If synergies exceed the costs of corporate organization, the value of the corporate whole should add up to more than the sum of its standalone parts (Collis and Montgomery, 2004; Goold and Luchs, 1993; Porter, 1987).
110
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
In terms of synergy, the literature in strategic management suggests that economies of scope are the fundamental success factor of diversification (Mahoney and Pandian, 1992; Peteraf, 1993; Teece, 1982). Economies of scope, by definition, refer to the subadditivity of production costs (Baumol et al., 1982) and can improve the performance of each business in a portfolio and, thus, the performance of the corporation as a whole (D’Aveni, Ravenscraft, and Anderson, 2004). Synergy, however, may not only be attained by means of sub-additivities of production costs. If businesses can jointly draw on resources that are complementary, synergies in the form of super-additivities may arise (Milgrom and Roberts, 1995). In other words, businesses being simultaneously related along multiple dimensions may then be a desirable scenario (Farjoun, 1998; Harrison et al., 2001; Nayyar, 1993; Tanriverdi and Venkatraman, 2005). Thus, making the corporate whole add up to more than the sum of its parts may be achieved by means of net sub-additivities and/or super-additivities.
Irrespective of type of additivity, necessary condition to benefit from some common pool of assets is that businesses in a portfolio have something in common, i.e. that they are somewhat interdependent or related. Therefore, the relatedness or similarity between businesses is usually considered a necessary condition for synergy realization (Robins and Wiersema, 2003; Tanriverdi and Venkatraman, 2005). Problematic is that the construct of relatedness is multidimensional in nature (e.g., Farjoun, 1998; Pehrsson, 2006; Robins and Wiersema, 1995; St. John and Harrison, 1999; Stimpert and Duhaime, 1997). Businesses related on one dimension may well be unrelated on another. And, although this stream of research is growing, there is little evidence available on how different types of relatedness relate to each other and how they – independently or jointly – impact financial performance. I have made this point clear earlier.
This literature is characterized by two major methodological approaches in terms of type of data used. The first group of studies relies on using manager self-report data and assesses relatedness dimensions from within a corporation. This measurement approach uses subjective assessments as a consequence. The second group of indicators relies on archival data and measures relatedness dimensions from outside the corpora-
Theory and Hypotheses
111
tion. In general, it is assumed that managers’ conceptualizations of relatedness may significantly differ from the relatedness that is measured objectively from outside the firm (Pehrsson, 2006; Stimpert and Duhaime, 1997).
In terms of managerial assessments of relatedness, Stimpert and Duhaime (1997) find support for a two-dimensional conceptualization of the relatedness construct. Managers in their sample of firms think of relatedness in terms of product-market similarities (businesses share customers, require similar raw materials, share manufacturing processes, and share distribution networks) and in terms of differentiation similarities (businesses characterized by a common emphasis on product design, brand name products, research and development, and the development of new products). Stimpert and Duhaime do not look at associations of these dimensions with performance.
Also asking managers, Pehrsson (2006) extracts a five-factor conceptualization of relatedness. Managers in his sample assess relatedness along dimensions labeled product technology, general management skills, end customers, brand recognition, and supply channel types. Clustering firms Pehrsson finds that firms characterized by high levels of product technology relatedness enjoy superior financial performance.
Also, Tanriverdi and Venkatraman (2005) study managerial perceptions of relatedness. Investigating types of perceived knowledge relatedness, the authors find that product-, customer-, and management knowledge resource relatedness on their own do not improve performance. A second-order factor capturing complementarities between the three types of knowledge relatedness is found to be positively related to financial performance, however.
In terms of archival assessments of relatedness, research has heavily relied on the hierarchy inherent in the SIC system. Measures such as the entropy- and concentric index (Jacquemin and Berry, 1975; Palepu, 1985; Caves et al., 1981) have been used to capture product-based similarities of businesses emphasizing a physical, tangible type of relatedness. These measures have been criticized, however, for their neglect of reflect-
112
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
ing linkages between intangible assets and for a loose connection to resource-based theory (Markides and Williamson, 1994; Robins and Wiersema, 2003).
As a response, alternative approaches to objectively measuring relatedness have been proposed. Robins and Wiersema (1995) model business interrelationships on the basis of technology flows among industries and find that multibusiness firms with higher levels of resource-based relatedness outperform firms with less interrelated businesses. Moreover, Farjoun (1994; 1998) models business interrelationships on the basis of human resource profiles of industries and finds that the skill-based measure of relatedness and an SIC based measure of product-based relatedness alone do not impact performance. However, when combined, a positive effect on indicators of multibusiness firm performance is found.
Also St. John and Harrison (1999) suggest an approach to measure relatedness from outside the corporation. Seeking to capture “manufacturing relatedness”, they use a judgment-based system and focus on identifying similarities of businesses in terms of common raw materials, common science, and common processing technologies. The authors find that, on average, organizations involved in manufacturing-related businesses are not realizing financial benefits from sharing resources in manufacturing. They also find, however, that explicit commitment to coordination and specific administrative mechanisms allowed some firms to reap fruits from manufacturingrelatedness.
Yet another approach of measuring relatedness that combines using archival- and survey data may be found in Markides and Williamson (1994) who model business interrelationships on the basis of various indicators of intangible assets and stress the strategic importance of these assets across businesses. They develop their measure of “strategic relatedness” and oppose it to “market relatedness” with the latter being captured by the Rumelt classification (1974). Markides and Williamson find that indicators of strategic relatedness explain a large part of the performance differential even of a sample of firms classified as related diversifiers according to the Rumelt-scheme.
Theory and Hypotheses
113
Thus, indicators of whether firms serve markets that are similar in terms of service requirement, number of customers, needed intermediaries, product customization, and required level of labor skill appear to be superior to market-based assessments of relatedness in predicting multibusiness firm performance.
As empirical research into the dimensionality of relatedness and its associations with performance is evolving, I propose that distinguishing types of relatedness according to a logic suggested by Grant already in 1988 may provide some degree of structure and clarity to this literature. In particular, this approach promotes the importance of businesses being strategically similar.
Grant suggested that there are two fundamental dimensions of relatedness – namely strategic and operational relatedness. Strategic relatedness refers to similarities at the corporate-level and describes if businesses are similar to manage in terms of functions such as resource allocation, strategy formulation, and targeting, monitoring, and control of business unit performance (p. 641). Contrarily, operational relatedness refers to similarities rather at the process-level stressing product-market relatedness, technological relatedness, and vertical relatedness (Grant, 1988).
The basic case made by Grant is that operational relatedness, i.e. economies of scope at the operational level, are not a sufficient condition for successful diversification, and that strategic relatedness is at least as important to diversification success. Using a logic from transaction-cost economics (Teece, 1982; Williamson, 1979), Grant stresses the importance of the role of the corporate center and effective corporate management for successful diversification in terms of coordinating, monitoring and controlling business units. Effective corporate management, in turn, was most likely feasible in situations in which business units shared “strategic characteristics” (Grant, 1988, p. 640). This was due to the fact that “strategically similar businesses can be managed using a single dominant general management logic” (Prahalad and Bettis, 1986, p. 490).
114
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
Business are considered strategically similar, for instance, if there are similar sizes and time spans of investment projects, similar sources of risk, similar critical success factors, similar stages of the industry life cycle, similar competitive positions occupied by the businesses, and/or similar performance variables used to define goals (Grant, 1988, p. 641; Prahalad and Bettis, 1986). And, a dominant general management logic is defined as […] the way in which managers conceptualize the business and make critical resource allocation decisions – be it in technology, product development, distribution, advertising, or human resource management” (Prahalad and Bettis, 1986, p. 490). Dominant logic is also reflected in the administrative tools to accomplish goals and to make decisions (Prahalad and Bettis, 1986, p. 491).
If strategically similarity prevails, a corporate center may apply similar types of corporate knowledge, systems, and processes to the different businesses within the portfolio. This also means that experience and routines that have developed over time in the core business can become a strength rather than an obstacle. Moreover, if dominant logics do not differ greatly across businesses, top managers are more likely to respond appropriately and quickly enough to critical situations, i.e. top management is likely to make better decisions (Prahalad and Bettis, 1986). In sum, strategic relatedness of businesses is considered facilitating effective corporate management in terms of coordination, monitoring, and control (Grant, 1998).
Using different terminology, issues centering on this idea have repeatedly been examined also by Michael Goold and colleagues. The authors report that for a corporate parent to add value to individual businesses there must – next to a genuine parenting opportunity – be not only suitable skills and management processes available but also a “sufficient feel” for the critical success factors in individual businesses in order to avoid destroying value through inappropriate influences (Goold, Campbell, and Alexander, 1994). Goold and colleagues also report that in the majority of cases corporate parents would still do more harm than good. “Real sources of value destruction typically lie much more in mistakes that the parent causes through its influence on the businesses than in the corporate overhead as such” (1994, p. 34).
Theory and Hypotheses
115
In fact, Goold and colleagues argue that their research over more than 10 years, as a whole, suggests that “[…] the most important role of the corporate parent lies in influencing the performance of businesses as stand-alone entities, not in the realization of [operational] synergies between business units […]” (1994, p. 33). Following this argumentation, it is issues of corporate management and corporate management processes in terms of appointing key executives, budgetary control, strategy reviews, and capital investment decision-making that get critical. As Goold et al. emphasize the parent could make more timely and better decisions than the standalone firm on these issues only if there is an in-depth understanding of the individual business.
Against this background, it becomes more and more obvious that issues of strategic similarity between business – facilitating effective corporate management – may play a major role in the performance implications of diversification strategy.
Unfortunately, empirical research available on the dimensionality of the relatedness construct and associations with performance has not followed the explicit distinction of strategic and operational relatedness (see above). Also, it appears as if most attention is paid to theories of operational economies of scope at the expense of theories of effective management and of leveraging a dominant logic. At the same time, however, this research – partially implicitly – presents initial evidence that next to aspects of operational relatedness it is aspects of strategic relatedness that deserve further study. In fact, Stimpert and Duhaime’s (1997) two-factor model of product-market relatedness and differentiation relatedness seems to be comparable to a distinction of operational and strategic relatedness. Noteworthy is also that Pehrsson (2005) defines management knowledge relatedness in terms of knowledge facets such as investment-, risk-, alliance-management as one of three important sources of cross-business knowledge synergy. Management knowledge relatedness alone was not found to impact performance, however. Also, Markides and Williamson’s approach (1994) involved measuring opportunities to share knowledge and systems at the corporate rather than at
116
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
the operational level. To name but one example, examining whether few or many customers are served describes in a particular way if businesses are similar to manage. In terms of studies that use archival data, I could locate two studies that explicitly sought to grasp from outside the corporation aspects of strategic relatedness (Harrison, Hall, and Nargundkar, 1993; D’Aveni, Ravenscraft, and Anderson, 2004). Both studies use resource allocation profiles, i.e. a number of expenditure intensity ratios, to gauge the strategic similarity of businesses and build on theory of effective management and dominant logic to explain performance differentials of multibusiness firms. Specifically, D’Aveni, Ravenscraft, and Anderson (2004) examine what they call resource congruence. They take each individual business in a firm’s portfolio as a focal point and test the degree to which profiles of advertising intensity, R&D intensity, selling intensity, and capital intensity, resemble or differ from the profiles of other businesses in the portfolio. The authors examine business-level performance and find support for their arguments that businesses are most efficient and profitable when their resource allocation patterns are highly similar to those of the parent’s other businesses.
Similarly, Harrison, Hall, and Nargundkar (1993) argue that similarities in resource allocations across businesses may indicate corporate strategic consistency that may lead to superior performance. In support of this argument, the variance in R&D intensity across businesses of diversified firm is found to be inversely related to industryadjusted return on assets. No support for a similar conclusion with regard to capital intensity is found, however.
Overall, these findings suggest that next to aspects of operational relatedness it is strategic relatedness in terms of Grant’s logic that matters to multibusiness firm performance. Strategic relatedness may allow for effective corporate management and, thus, help in making operational relatedness work. At the same time, strategic relatedness itself may allow to generate net synergies and make diversification succeed. Strategic relatedness may offer opportunities for both effective management and economies of
Theory and Hypotheses
117
scope through resource sharing. As a consequence, our knowledge of the dimensionality of the relatedness construct and of the diversification strategy-performance linkage may be substantially informed by investigating issues of economies of scope, dominant logic, and synergy in integrative frameworks.
For these reasons, I test in this part of the study with a set of hypotheses Grant’s logic of a two-dimensional conceptualization of the relatedness construct and respective associations with performance. First of all I examine whether Grant’s logic applies in that objective indicators of different types of relatedness can be represented by a twofactor model that distinguishes strategic relatedness from operational relatedness (H5).
Stimpert and Duhaime (1997) found a correlation of r = .19 between the factors product-market relatedness and differentiation relatedness. It appears plausible that businesses that are strategically similar, i.e. similar to manage, do also offer some opportunities for sharing resources at the operational level. I conjecture in this context that the constructs operational and strategic relatedness are positively associated (H6).
In the light of recent evidence that new measures of relatedness have in the majority of cases shown positive associations of operational relatedness with accounting- and market-based returns (e.g., Farjoun, 1998; Robins and Wiersema, 1995; Szeless, Wiersema, and Müller-Stewens, 2003), I again examine whether operational relatedness is positively associated with accounting-based performance (H7), and whether operational relatedness is directly positively associated with market-based performance (H8). I do so despite the fact that no such effects were detected in the crossindustry analysis in part two of this study. In this way I can verify if results from part two of this study hold if stronger statistical techniques are used and if strategic relatedness is accounted for in the model.
In terms of strategic relatedness, I test the proposition that it is positively associated with accounting-based performance (H9), and that it is directly positively associated with market-based performance (H10). Finally, I assume that past performance in
118
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
terms of profitability may be used as a predictor of future expected performance (H11). Accordingly, diversification may also indirectly – through accounting-based performance – impact market-based performance (Hoskisson et al., 1993). 4.2 Methods 4.2.1
Structural Equation Modeling
I employ structural equation modeling and use the AMOS 6.0 program to test the set of hypotheses (Byrne, 2001). By definition, structural equation modeling is a hybrid of factor analysis and path analysis (Hoskisson, Johnson, and Moesel, 1994). As such it is particularly suitable for my analysis as it allows assessing issues in terms of construct measurement and validity as well as causal linkages between latent variables. Further strengths of structural equation modeling pertinent to my analysis are the ability to estimate coefficients of linkages between multiple interdependent constructs simultaneously, to accommodate measurement errors in exogenous and endogenous variables, and to measure direct and indirect effects of exogenous on endogenous variables (Hopkins and Hopkins, 1982; Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1989).
My approach to estimating structural equations follows the two-step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) to minimize the potential of interpretational confounding. I estimate the measurement model prior to estimating the full latent variable model, i.e. prior to estimating measurement model and structural model simultaneously.
The measurement model is estimated in confirmatory factor analysis to test whether or not the variables selected to measure each construct exhibit sufficient convergent and discriminant validity. Subsequently, nomological/criterion-related validity is tested in the full model using a recursive causal sub-model.
Methods
119
In order to identify the final model that corresponds best to the data, I use a set of sequential chi-square difference tests and the decision-tree framework suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In addition, I use comparisons of changes in various goodness-of-fit indices to assess model fit. The maximum likelihood method is used to derive parameter estimates for the initial and modified models. The sample of firms and sources of data used corresponds to the first empirical analysis and are described in section 3.2.1. 4.2.2
Variables
My central measure of performance is Berger and Ofek’s excess value measure as it is most adequate in indicating synergistic effects (cf. sections 3.1 and 3.2.2). Recall that following Berger and Ofek (1995), I compare multibusiness firms’ total value to the sum of imputed stand-alone values of the segments they are active in. The sum of the imputed values of a company’s segments estimates the value of the firm if all of its segments are operated as stand-alone entities. Excess value is the natural log of the ratio of a firm’s actual value to its imputed value and measures the gain or loss in value from diversification (see also appendix 11). I measure excess values concurrent to relatedness measurements.
In addition, I again use three-year averages of Return on Assets (ROA) and Return on Sales (ROS) at the corporate level to reflect accounting-returns. However, this time I calculate ROA and ROS premiums over industry-averages to account for industryeffects on performance. This means that I deduct from a specific multibusiness firm’s ROA (ROS) the average ROA (ROS) of the 50 multibusiness firms in the respective industry. I do not include Tobin’s Q as a second measure of market-based performance in this analysis for reasons of limited discrimination from accounting-based returns (cf. section 3.3).
120
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
Furthermore, I use the three archival data-based measurement schemes detailed and used in the preceding empirical analysis to indicate aspects of operational business relatedness, i.e. Palepu’s measure of product-based relatedness, Robins and Wiersema’s index of technological relatedness, and Farjoun’s measure of skill-based relatedness (cf. section 3.2.2).
In order to grasp strategic relatedness, I use three asset-intensity similarity measures that I calculate as a three-year average (2004-2006). Specifically, I use in this study the ratio of capital expenditures to sales (capital intensity), the ratio of R&D expenditures to sales (R&D intensity), and the ratio of staff and related expenditures to sales (labor intensity).
In this respect, I build on prior empirical work that suggests that expenditure intensities associated with specific businesses can convey important information on the logic of business linkage. Harrison, Hall, and Nargundkar (1993) suggest that financial resource allocation profiles can be used to assess “corporate strategic consistency”, “similarity in business strategies”, and “fit of dominant logic”. Similarly, D’Aveni, Ravenscraft, and Anderson (2004) argue that asset-intensities can be employed to capture “strategic congruence”, “congruence in terms of approaches to competing required in businesses”, and ”businesses’ alignment with the parent’s dominant logic”. Recall also, that in their seminal paper on the dominant management logic, Prahalad and Bettis (1986) define a general management logic as the way in which managers conceptualize the business and make critical resource allocation decisions in technology, product development, distribution, advertising, or human resource management (Prahalad and Bettis, 1986, p. 490).
Unlike prior studies, however, I measure the absolute average difference between secondary four-digit business expenditure profiles and core business expenditure profiles. In this way, I seek to account for the dominant logic of a multibusiness firm. Prahalad and Bettis (1986) argue that the dominant logic is strongly determined through the managers’ experiences which, in turn, are influenced by the core business of a firm:
Methods
121
“The characteristics of the core business, often the source of top managers in diversified firms, tend to cause managers to define problems in certain ways and develop familiarity with and facility in the use of those administrative tools that are particularly useful in accomplishing the critical tasks of the core business” (Prahalad and Bettis, 1986, p. 491).
Furthermore, I use average expenditures of all single business firms active in a fourdigit industry (corrected for outliers) to arrive at the expenditure profile of an industry rather than drawing on a multibusiness firm’s actual expenditures in a business segment (cf. D’Aveni, Ravenscraft, and Anderson, 2004). This proceeding is required as the overall goal is to assess characteristics of an industry in terms of management requirements rather than assessing multibusiness firms’ specific investment policies.
I weight the absolute differences between each core business asset intensity and each secondary business asset intensity by the share the respective secondary business has in a multibusiness firm’s total sales. Finally, I deduct the resulting figure from unity to capture intensity similarity. The measure takes the functional form:
j n
Asset Intensity Similarityki
1 ¦ I k CB I k SB j * w j j 1
where k is the type of asset intensity, i is the multibusiness firm studied, j is the number of secondary businesses within firm i’s portfolio, Ik is intensity k, CB is the core business of firm i, SBj is the jth secondary business in firm i, and wj is the share of sales that secondary business j has in the total sales of firm i.
The data on the asset-intensities for all four-digit industries relevant for the sample of multibusiness firms studied in this analysis is reported in appendix 12. In those 4-digit industries in which there was no data available on single business firms, I used the as-
122
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
set intensity of the superordinate SIC industry group, in very few cases up to the SIC division level. Moreover, I again applied imputed segment-weights (cf. section 3.2.2).
Finally, I use the foreign sales to total sales ratio to control for the level of international diversification. Prior research suggests that firms may derive benefits from international diversification such as scale and scope economies, learning effects, market power, and operational risk reduction. At the same time, higher levels of international diversification may, similar to higher levels of product diversification, result in complexity and coordination requirements that entail substantial costs of organization (e.g., Hymer, 1976; Tallman and Li, 1996). Thus, operational relatedness may allow for international diversification, and international diversification may require operational relatedness.
Please note at this stage that I do not use the additional controls level of product diversification and vertical relatedness in the structural equations for reasons of model parsimony. Initial analyses showed that the model could not be fitted with operational relatedness being indicated by four items (including vertical relatedness) instead of three items (excluding vertical relatedness). In addition, as a negative error variance of the variable ROS was produced as a consequence of the very high correlation between ROS and ROA, I tested the model with accounting-based performance being indicated by a single item only (Byrne, 2001). Subsequently, I ran all models with ROS instead of ROA. No significant difference in results was detected.
A simplified version of the expected theoretical model including indicator variables tested in my analyses is shown in figure 4.1. Straight paths refer to my hypotheses. Dashed paths refer to the linkages between control variables used and endogenous and exogenous variables.
Foreign Sales/ Total sales
Operational Relatedness
(+)
Strategic Relatedness
Figure 4.1 Theoretical Model
Skill-based Similarity
Technological Similarity
Product-based Similarity
Labor Intensity Similarity
Capital Intensity Similarity
R&D Intensity Similarity
International Diversification
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
Market-based Performance
(+)
Accounting-based Performance
Excess Value
Return on Assets
Methods 123
124
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
4.3 Structural Equations Results Table 4.1 reports means, standard deviations, and correlations of all observed variables used in the analysis. Next to product-, technological-, and skill-based relatedness being strongly positively associated, also indicators of strategic relatedness are significantly and positively related, though at smaller effect sizes. Tables 4.2 to 4.5 and figure 4.2 summarize the results of the structural equation modeling.
Table 4.2 indicates the results derived from confirmatory factor analysis on the measurement model. In the measurement model, I specify the relations of the observed variables to the underlying constructs and allow the constructs to intercorrelate freely (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). For comparative purposes also measurement information from the final model (best fitting model) is provided. Given acceptable unidimensional measurement, the pattern coefficients from the measurement model should change only trivially, if at all, when the measurement submodel and alternate structural submodels are simultaneously estimated (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
Each variable is identified as an indicator of an underlying factor, and factor loadings are reported where applicable. All of the factor loadings for the measurement model in table 4.2 are significant at the .001 level and higher in effect size than .52. The factor loadings of the indicators of strategic relatedness do not meet the threshold level of .70 suggested by Carmines and Zeller (1979). However, factor loadings at the .40 level and above are routinely used in the social sciences (Hitt et al., 1996; Ford, MacCallum, and Tait, 1986).
In addition, the shared variance between the two constructs was less than the average variance extracted from each of the constructs. This provides some evidence for discriminant validity (Capron, 1999; Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Steensma and Corley, 2000).
Structural Equations Results
125
Furthermore, none of the confidence intervals for the correlation between two constructs contained 1.0, which is another indication of discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Thus, all factors appeared adequate for use in subsequent model estimation steps.
.33 .32 .02
.34 .59 .97 .95 .91
2. Technological Similarity
3. Skill-based Similarity
4. CAPX Similarity
5. RDX Similarity
6. STX Similarity
-.09
9. Excess Value
n = 350, * p < .10, ** p < .05, *** p < .01
.05
.00
8. ROA Premium .62
22.23
.07
40.47
7. Foreign / Total Sales
.33
.47
1. Product-base Similarity
.04
S.D.
.03
-.05
.05
.19***
.05
.19***
.60***
.65***
1.00
1
.04
.06
.04
.31***
.17***
.17***
.60***
1.00
2
3
.14**
.02
.17***
.15***
.21***
.16***
1.00
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Structural Equations Mean
Table 4.1
.14**
-.02
-.05
.27***
.32***
1.00
4
.11**
.03
-.03
.32***
1.00
5
.02
-.03
.03
1.00
6
.06
.14***
1.00
7
.32***
1.00
8
1.00
9
126 A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
.527*** .797*** .801*** .752*** 1.000 1.000 1.000
Strategic Relatedness Operational Relatedness Operational Relatedness Operational Relatedness International Diversification Accounting-based Performance Market-based Performance
Labor Intensity Similarity Product-based Similarity Technological Similarity Skill-based Similarity Foreign Sales / Total Sales Industry-adjusted ROA Excess Value *** p < .001
.554***
Strategic Relatedness
Capital Intensity Similarity
Loading .571***
Factor
Measurement Model
Strategic Relatedness
Variable
Factor Loadings: Measurement Model and Final Model
R&D Intensity Similarity
Table 4.2
1.000
1.000
1.000
.752***
.801***
.797***
.531***
.551***
.572***
Loading
Final Model
Structural Equations Results 127
128
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
Table 4.3 shows chi-square statistics and the values of goodness-of-fit indices of all models estimated in the course of the modeling procedures. The pseudo chi-square constructed from the chi-square value for the saturated model (the smallest value possible for any structural model) and the degrees of freedom of the null model (independence model; the largest number of degrees of freedom for any structural model) is insignificant suggesting that a structural model with acceptable fit exists and that additional structural models be estimated (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
Overall, the chi-square statistics and goodness-of-fit indices for the measurement model (model 1) reported in table 4.3 suggest a strong measurement model. Thus, I have support for hypothesis 5 that the state-of-the-art in objective measures of relatedness can be represented by a two-factor model that distinguishes the dimension operational relatedness from the dimension strategic relatedness.
In terms of chi-square, a p-value exceeding .05 is usually assumed to indicate that the model is correctly specified (Hopkins and Hopkins, 1982). Elsewhere, the rule of thumb has been suggested that a chi-square value that is less than five times the degrees of freedom indicates a correctly specified model (Wheaton et al., 1977). Contrarily, Carmines and McIver (1981) suggest that a ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom with values less than 3.0 indicate a good fit. While the latter two criteria are satisfied by the measurement model, the first is not.
Following Byrne (2001), the use of chi-square provides little guidance in determining the extent to which a model does not fit, however. This is due to the sensitivity of the chi-square statistic to sample size (Bentler and Bonett, 1980). Accordingly, it is common to rely on other indices of fit.
In this respect, I followed Hair et al. (1998) and assessed three aspects of model fit, i.e. absolute (GFI, RMSEA), incremental (NFI, CFI), and parsimonious fit (PCFI). Goodness-of-fit measures of .90 and above are generally considered desirable in strategic management research (e.g., Combs, Crook, and Shook, 2005; Hitt et al., 1996). Al-
Structural Equations Results
129
though a value > .90 was originally considered representative of a well-fitting model, a revised cut-off value close to .95 has recently been advised for research in other areas of science (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Values of .95 and above can be considered strong evidence of practical significance (Bentler, 1989). In terms of the root mean square residual (RMSEA) Browne and Cudeck (1993) suggest that a good fit is achieved if RMSEA < .05 and that values as high as .08 represent reasonable errors of approximation in the population. Finally, values > .50 on the parsimony comparative fit index (PCFI) are generally considered an indication for a parsimonious model although there is no commonly agreed-upon cut-off value. The improvement in parsimony in the model testing sequence is clearly visible, however. Table 4.4 shows the results of the hierarchical modeling procedure involving chisquare difference tests as suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). This procedure was used to compare alternative theoretical models and to identify the final best model (model 4).
The theoretical model (model 2 and figure 4.1) suggests the removal of the paths from strategic relatedness to the control international diversification and from international diversification to market-based performance. In table 4.4, the comparison of the fully saturated measurement model (model 1) to the theoretical model (model 2) is reflected in the first row “model 2 vs. 1”. The change in chi-square statistic is insignificant. Improvement in goodness-of-fit indices and in model parsimony suggest that model 2 is to be preferred over model 1, however.
The next step involves comparing the theoretical model (model 2) to the next best constrained model (model 3) in which paths specified in the theoretical model are eliminated. In the next-best constrained model I dropped the paths from strategic relatedness to accounting-based performance and from operational relatedness to marketbased performance. This was done to test the proposition that operational relatedness and economies of scope have short-term rather than long-term performance effects, and that the true performance effects of strategic relatedness materialize in the long-
130
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
term (Markides and Williamson, 1994; Prahalad and Bettis, 1986). Comparing model 3 to model 2 results in an insignificant change in chi-square suggesting the preference of the next-best constrained over the theoretical model.
a
Next-best constrained
Final
3
4
43.702
43.700
43.548
25
24
22
20
30
Df
.012
.008
.004
.002
.056
P
.974
.974
.974
.974
GFI
.046
.049
.053
.058
RMSEA
.926
.926
.927
.927
NFI
.966
.965
.961
.958
CFI
.671
.643
.587
.532
PCFI
1.748
1.821
1.979
2.160
1.440
CMIN / df
CMIN = chi-square, GFI = goodness of fit index, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, NFI = normed fit index, CFI = comparative fit index, PCFI = parsimony comparative fit index
Theoretical
2
43.185
Pseudo-Chi Saturated and Null Model
Measurement
43.185
Description
Model
1
CMIN
Model Statisticsa
Table 4.3
Structural Equations Results 131
132
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
Subsequently, I tested the next-best constrained model (model 3) against the fully saturated model (model 1). As this comparison suggested a non-significant change in chisquare as well, there was no need to estimate the next-best unconstrained model (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Moreover, model 3 is preferred over model 1.
Finally, I removed all insignificant paths from the next-best unconstrained model to arrive at the final model (model 4). The chi-square difference test with model 3 was insignificant, suggesting the adoption of model 4 as the final best model. The final best model is the most parsimonious structural model, and it provides adequate explanation of the estimated construct covariances (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). It is illustrated in figure 4.2.
Table 4.4
Testing Sequence and Model Difference Tests
Comparison
Delta Chi-square
Delta df
p
Model Preference
Model 2 vs. 1 Model 3 vs. 2 Model 3 vs. 1 Model 4 vs. 3
0.363 0.152 0.515 0.002
2 2 4 1
>.10 >.10 >.10 >.10
2 3 3 4a
a Anderson and Gerbing’s decision-tree framework suggests that the next-best unconstrained model need not be estimated and that model 4 is to be accepted as the final best model.
Figure 4.2
Final Model
Skill-based Similarity
Technological Similarity
Product-based Similarity
Labor Intensity Similarity
Capital Intensity Similarity
R&D Intensity Similarity
Foreign Sales/ Total sales
Operational Relatedness
.38***
Strategic Relatedness
International Diversification
.11**
.16***
.14***
Market-based Performance
.32***
Accounting-based Performance
Excess Value
Return on Assets
Structural Equations Results 133
134
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
Table 4.5 shows a summary of results of the structural equations modeling procedures comparing the path coefficients identified in the theoretical model and the final best model to the hypothesized nature of the variable linkages.
I find that three of the six hypothesized relationships are significant in the hypothesized direction. These results remain stable for the theoretical as well as the final model. I find support for hypothesis 6 suggesting that strategic and operational relatedness are positively interrelated (.382, p < .01). Hypotheses 7 and 8 suggesting that operational relatedness is positively associated with accounting- and market-based performance are rejected, however. Also, hypothesis 9 is rejected. Strategic relatedness is not positively related to profitability. Contrarily, strategic relatedness is positively correlated with market-based performance (.161, p < .01). Thus, hypothesis 10 is confirmed. Finally, I also find support for hypothesis 11 proposing that higher levels of profitability are associated with higher levels of market-based assessments of performance (.322, p < .01).
In terms of controls, I find that operational relatedness is positively associated with international diversification (.105, p < .1), and that international diversification is positively associated with accounting-based performance (.140, p < .01).
+ + + +
Strategic Relatedness Æ Market-based Performance
Accounting-based Performance Æ Market-based Performance
Operational Relatedness Æ International Diversification
International DiversificationÆ Accounting Returns
10
11
Control
Control
*** p < .01
.140***
+
Strategic Relatedness Æ Accounting Returns
9
* p < .10 ** p < .05
.105*
+
Operational Relatedness Æ Market-based Performance
8
.323***
.175***
-.008
-.024
.001
+
Operational Relatedness Æ Accounting Returns
7
.385***
Path Coefficient
+
Hypothesized Direction
Strategic Relatedness Æ Operational Relatedness
Path Description
Structural Modeling Results Comparing Hypothesis Tests for the Theoretical and Final Model
6
Hypothesis
Table 4.5
.140***
.105*
.322***
.161***
Path Coefficient
Structural Equations Results 135
136
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
4.4 Discussion The central finding of the third major analysis of this study is that different types of business relatedness as indicated by the state-of-the-art in objective measurement schemes can be represented by a two-factor structure that distinguishes strategic relatedness from operational relatedness. Strategic and operational relatedness emerge as two related and yet distinct dimensions of the relatedness construct out of which merely strategic relatedness is found to be significantly and directly positively associated with the excess value measure. The analysis implies that perspectives that integrate aspects of operational relatedness and economies of scope, dominant logic, and synergy may substantially inform our knowledge of the diversification strategyperformance linkage.
My results have important implications for both strategic management theory and practice. In terms of the performance effects of diversification strategy, structural equation results suggest that operational relatedness, and, thus, a potential for economies of scope at the operational level, is not a sufficient condition for successful diversification (e.g., Grant, 1988; D’Aveni, Ravenscraft, and Anderson, 2004; Nayyar, 1992). The third part of this study does not offer any evidence for operational relatedness being directly linked to accounting-based performance or to market-based performance. Accordingly, there is also no evidence that operational relatedness is indirectly linked to market-based performance via accounting-based performance.
This finding is similar to St. John and Harrison (1999) who found their measure of manufacturing-relatedness not to be per se related to performance. At the same time, this finding contrasts with prior research that elicited positive associations between indicators of operational relatedness (used in this study) and performance (Farjoun, 1998; Robins and Wiersema, 1995; Szeless, Wiersema, and Müller-Stewens, 2003).
In addition, I find support for the proposition that relatedness at the strategic level is a determinant of the success of diversification (Grant, 1988; Prahalad and Bettis, 1986).
Discussion
137
Higher levels of strategic relatedness are found to be directly positively associated with higher values of the excess value measure. This suggests that multibusiness firms that can apply the dominant logic prevailing in the core business to secondary businesses in the portfolio are able to add more value to the corporate whole than corporations that have to manage strategically unrelated businesses.
Prahalad and Bettis (1986) argue that strategic dissimilarity adds to the complexity of the top management process. Top managers are less likely to respond correctly and quickly enough to problems that arise in businesses that are unfamiliar, i.e. in businesses in which internalized mental maps are not applicable (Prahalad and Bettis, 1986). In this context, Grant (1988) suggests that the effectiveness with which corporate management performs functions such as allocating resources between businesses, formulating and coordinating business unit strategies, and setting and monitoring performance targets for business units is determined in part by top management’s ability to apply similar knowledge and systems to the different businesses within a firm. And, also Goold and colleagues argue that parents must have a “sufficient feel” for the critical success factors in individual businesses in order to avoid destroying value through inappropriate influences (Goold, Campbell, and Alexander, 1994).
My findings support these lines of argumentation. My results suggest that strategically similar businesses allow the corporate center to more effectively and efficiently manage a multibusiness firm. Strategic relatedness appears to allow for exploiting suband/or super-additivities at the corporate level. At the same time, it seems to make it easier for corporate parents to add value by influencing the performance of individual businesses as stand-alone entities.
However, strategic relatedness is not found to be associated with higher levels of profitability. The absence of any such effect in my model may be due to the limitations of measures of profitability to capture synergistic effects, especially when compared to the excess value measure. At the same time, strategic relatedness may not be associated with profitability because accounting-based measures of performance merely in-
138
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
dicate short-term performance. Contrarily, market-based performance captures investors’ expectations of future returns and, thus, indicates (expected) long-term performance. Accordingly, the positive effects of being able to build on the dominant logic prevailing in the core business and associated management systems also in secondary businesses may materialize in the long- rather than in the short-term.
Moreover, the positive correlation found between strategic and operational relatedness suggests that joining under one corporate roof businesses that are strategically similar does usually entail some potential to realize economies of scope also at the operational level. As operational relatedness is not found to be directly related to performance, while strategic relatedness is, strategic relatedness may act as a moderator here. Strategic relatedness suggests that corporate managers have a comprehensive understanding of the businesses their corporations are active in, and that they are well-aware of the requirements to successfully compete in these businesses. In this situation, it may be easier for corporate managers to efficiently manage operational relatedness and to realize net benefits from scope economies at the operational level. In other words, if businesses are strategically similar, corporate management is – in the strive for organizing for economies of scope at the operational level – less likely to detrimentally intervening in individual businesses’ affairs (D’Aveni, Ravenscraft and Anderson, 2004; Nayyar, 1992).
This argumentation has found some support also in St. John and Harrison (1999) who found that successful manufacturing-related firms were those that simultaneously built on specific types of organization capital in terms of planning, controlling, and coordinating businesses. St. John and Harrison found that high-performers in their sample exhibited a dominant manufacturing logic with their core resources and core capabilities being in manufacturing and technology management.
In principle, positive interaction effects may next to moderator-effects also point at complementarities, i.e. super-additivities, between types of relatedness (Farjoun, 1998; Tanriverdi and Venkatraman, 2005). Economic theory of complementarities defines a
Discussion
139
set of activities as complementary when doing more of any one of them increases the returns to doing more of the others (cf. Tanriverdi and Venkatraman, 2005, p. 100; Milgrom and Roberts, 1995).
As merely strategic relatedness was found to generate direct positive returns, there can, by definition, be no complementarities between strategic relatedness and operational relatedness. Thus, testing a second-order factor model of complementarities (Tanriverdi and Venkatraman, 2005) in the structural equation modeling was discarded for theoretical reasons. Anyway, technically it had not been feasible because of only two first-order factors available (Byrne, 2001).
However, in order to test for possible moderation effects, I estimated supplementary models in which I used an interaction term between the latent variables strategic relatedness and operational relatedness to predict excess value (Williams, Gavin, and Hartman, 2004). Here, I found a significant positive sign for the predictor strategic relatedness, a non-significant effect of operational relatedness, and a negative sign for the interaction term.
Thus, although strategic relatedness and operational relatedness are to an extent correlated, joining high levels of strategic relatedness with very high levels of operational relatedness appears to be detrimental to synergy realization. As such, these additional results suggest that there are no positive interaction effects between strategic and operational relatedness, and that the positive performance effects of strategic similarity found in this study likely arise because of sub- or super-additivities at the strategic level.
In fact, Grant suggested that strategic relatedness may conflict with operational relatedness. Operational relatedness creates interdependence between businesses and an administrative burden which entails substantial coordination costs (Jones and Hill, 1988; Lorsch and Allen, 1973; Nayyar, 1992). Benefits of strategic relatedness, however, are explicitly associated with efficient corporate-wide management and applica-
140
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
tion of control systems which are nurtured by the separation of corporate from operational management and divisional autonomy (Grant, 1988, p. 641-642).
Thus, I can conclude that while higher levels of strategic relatedness are associated with higher levels of operational relatedness, corporations should avoid striving simultaneously for excessive exploitation of strategic and operational relatedness. Strategic relatedness emerges as the business linkage of choice in my cross-industry study and organizational structures ought to be aligned with this strategy and not be compromised for by-product opportunities of economies of scope at the operational level.
This conclusion, however, poses some questions with a view to the findings of the industry-specific analyses (cf. section 3.4). Multibusiness firms with their core business in the food and automotive business were found to exhibit a positive association between higher levels of an operational relatedness and the excess value measure. This is contradictory to the logic that strategic relatedness is the desirable type of business linkage in portfolios, and that strategic relatedness conflicts with operational relatedness.
In this context, one must first understand that the regressions relied on factor scores generated from factor analysis to indicate operational relatedness. Using factor analysis, i.e. data reduction techniques, always entails a loss of information as only a fraction of the variance of multiple original variables can be captured by a factor. Accordingly, results from the regressions in this analysis by design have to be considered cautiously, and, what is more important, have generally to be considered inferior to results from structural equations modeling in terms of validity. The structural equations allowed making use of all original indicator variables of relatedness, the correlations between them, as well as the correlations between all indicators of operational and strategic relatedness. Thus, the structural equations analysis could capture much richer information than the regressions.
Discussion
141
Nonetheless, I ran supplementary regression analyses on the core business industry samples in which I used scores from factor analysis for the factor strategic relatedness in addition to the variables used in the original regressions. I discarded the option of testing structural equations for industry-specific samples for reasons of small sample size. Results indicated that a factor of strategic relatedness could only capture 53% of the original variance of the indicators suggesting that these add-on analyses must be considered tentative and need verification in subsequent research. Please note at this stage that it is for this reason also that I discarded relating absolute discounts/premiums to levels of strategic relatedness.
In the add-on regressions, I found that the factors operational relatedness and strategic relatedness are higher correlated for the food industry than for any other of the seven industries studied. This may suggest that the positive association found between operational relatedness and excess value in the food industry is spurious, i.e. caused by the third variable strategic relatedness. No such evidence was found with a view to the automotive industry, however. To fully answer the question of how precisely operational relatedness and strategic relatedness interact in specific industries, future research is required that uses sufficiently large industry-specific samples to test structural equation models such as the one proposed in this study.
With a view to the results of this study as a whole, the structural equations analysis must be considered superior to the regression analyses. Nonetheless, although this study suggests as a consequence that strategic relatedness may pay off when diversifying out of all seven industries studied in this analysis, its relationship with operational relatedness and the potential performance effects of operational relatedness deserve particular attention in the study of firms from the food and automotive industries.
Overall, the results of this research have implications for the interpretation of past research and the design of future studies. The support I find for Grant’s distinction of strategic relatedness versus operational relatedness involves the finding that recently suggested measures of resource-based/technological relatedness (Robins and
142
A Two-Factor Model of Operational Relatedness and Strategic Relatedness
Wiersema, 1995) and skill-based relatedness (Farjoun, 1994; Farjoun, 1998) not only are highly correlated with each other but are also strongly associated with productbased relatedness (Palepu, 1985). Accordingly, I find very high loadings of these measures on a single factor (operational relatedness) in my comparatively large sample. This suggests that these measures despite capturing partially unique information cannot be considered to be much better indicators of (resource-based) relatedness and much better predictors of performance than the heavily criticized indicators of product-based relatedness, at least if the latter are measured independent of the number of businesses within corporate portfolios (cf. section 3.2.2).
Future diversification-performance research should avoid using these indices in isolation from other indicators of operational relatedness. As a consequence, related empirical findings on associations of these specific types of relatedness with multibusiness firm performance must be treated cautiously. Put differently, this type of research may only produce more of mixed evidence on the performance effects of diversification strategy and promises no leaps forward.
In fact, the support found in this study for a factor of strategic relatedness that is distinct and yet positively associated with the factor operational relatedness whilst at the same time related to market-based performance points at a first possible reason why there is mixed empirical evidence on the linkage between indicators of operational relatedness and corporate performance.
Another reason is that some of the positive performance effects attributed to operational relatedness by prior research may have been due to positive performance effects of international diversification, in fact. In this study, I find operational relatedness to be positively related to the control international diversification, and international diversification to be directly positively related to profitability and indirectly positively related to market-based performance via profitability.
Intermediate Conclusion
143
4.5 Intermediate Conclusion In conclusion, this part of the study has added to the literature on the linkage between diversification strategy and corporate financial performance as it offers an analysis that is the first to test in a single, integrative model the performance effects of strategic relatedness vis-à-vis operational relatedness using a multitude of objective indicators of relatedness.
I validated Grant’s (1988) two-factor conceptualization of the relatedness construct and found evidence for the meaning of strategic relatedness to diversification success. At the same time, results relegate the meaning of operational business relatedness and, thus, of potentials for economies of scope at the operational level, to multibusiness firm performance. Finally, it was found that strategic relatedness most likely conflicts with operational relatedness and that corporations should avoid seeking to excessively exploit both types of relatedness simultaneously.
5 Summary This thesis comprises three major consecutive analyses that contribute to the literature on the diversification strategy and performance linkage.
In the first analysis, I meta-analytically integrated empirical data from 99 individual empirical studies published between 1971 and 2005. I tested the popular proposition that diversification strategy impacts financial performance by replicating and extending an earlier meta-analysis by Palich, Cardinal, and Miller (2000). For this purpose, I employed both the techniques suggested by Hedges and Olkin (1985) and the techniques suggested by Hunter and Schmidt (2004) for testing effects of contingency factors in meta-analytic frameworks. This allowed me to tease out the nature of the linkage between product diversification strategies and accounting-based performance, market-based performance, and growth-based performance that is truly suggested by the body of empirical research.
In the second analysis, I explored for a number of 350 large multibusiness firms the nature of the relationships between three objectively measured types of operational business relatedness and between a multidimensional factor of operational relatedness and accounting- and market-based performance, most notably the excess value measure. In addition, I examined the meaning of core business industry to diversification success. Thus, the second analysis linked the state-of-the-art in empirically, objectively measuring operational relatedness, and thus, potentials for economies of scope at the operational level, and the state-of-the-art in empirically measuring synergy realization.
Finally, in the third analysis, I used structural equation modeling to initially validate Grant’s (1988) two-factor conceptualization of the business relatedness construct. Subsequently, I tested the associations between strategic relatedness, operational relatedness, and accounting-based and market-based performance for the same sample of 350
146
Summary
large multibusiness firms. Accordingly, the third part of my study offers an analysis that is the first to test in a single, integrative model the performance effects of strategic relatedness vis-à-vis operational relatedness with both dimensions of the relatedness construct being represented by a multitude of objective indicators.
Overall, the results of the three analyses challenge contemporary theory on the performance effects of diversification strategy and business relatedness in a number of ways. They have important implications for further research and theory development on corporate strategy. In addition, my results entail concrete, performance-relevant advice for top executives deciding on how to best compose business portfolios.
Drawing on a total sample size of 52,116 empirical observations of the diversificationperformance relationship made between 1940 and 2000, the initial meta-analysis casts some serious doubt on what has become standard theory in strategic management – the performance effects of product diversification strategy (Palich, Cardinal, and Miller, 2000; Rumelt, 1974).
I present evidence that strategies of related and unrelated diversification (as indicated by traditional measurement schemes) per se are not significantly associated with accounting-based performance. This finding is stable across samples and across metaanalytic techniques applied. Thus, I have strong evidence that the inverted-U curve association between diversification and accounting-based performance suggested in the meta-analysis by Palich et al. (2000) does not exist.
In addition, the Hedges/Olkin-based analysis suggests that neither related diversification nor unrelated diversification is significantly associated with market-based performance. This applies to both the replicated and the extended sample. Again, this is in contrast to what Palich, Cardinal, and Miller report. However, the Hunter/ Schmidtbased analysis suggests a positive association between related diversification and market-based performance and a negative association between unrelated diversification and market-based performance. Thus, I have mixed evidence on the existence of the
Summary
147
inverted-U association between diversification and market-based performance that is suggested by Palich and colleagues (2000).
If one considers the Hunter/Schmidt-based findings on the association between diversification and market-based performance viable, performance effects of diversification strategy likely materialize in the long- rather than in the short term (Bergh, 1995a; Wan, 1998). Thus, my results suggest that if there is a performance dimension that is worth further study in terms of its linkage with diversification strategy it is marketbased performance.
In terms of performance dimensions, meta-analytic results also suggest that the use of growth-based performance measures may be misleading in diversification performance research, especially the use of measures such as sales-growth and asset-growth. I found that growth-based performance indicators are generally more positively related to diversification than profitability-based measures. This is, however, due to the fact that these measures indicate company size growth, and company size has variously been shown to be positively correlated with diversification.
Another issue to be emphasized is that in the majority of (the few) cases in which significant associations were found between diversification strategy and performance in the meta-analysis, effect sizes reached trivial to small strength (Cohen, 1988). This finding is in line with Palich, Cardinal, and Miller’s earlier meta-analytic results. To make that point clear, the meta-analysis as a whole suggests that diversification strategy per se – as indicated by traditional measurement schemes –, if it matters at all, is far less important to performance than may have been expected by some.
Methodologically, the meta-analysis shows that choice of meta-analytic technique may influence the nature of results in research practice. This finding raises some serious questions with regard to meta-analytic findings in strategic management research in general, a domain in which it is not common to use multiple methods to strengthen the validity of meta-analytic findings.
148
Summary
In addition, the process of conducting the meta-analysis indicated that – in actual research practice – meta-analysis may be far from being the perfect vehicle for disclosure and replicability that it is supposed to be. While this is due to reporting practices and journal space constraints, it is also due to the difficulty of fully reproducing conceptualization- and coding approaches used by other authors.
And yet, with a view to empirical diversification-performance research, the metaanalyses in this study indicate that further studies are needed that make use of alternative approaches to measuring diversification strategy that are richer in content than traditional approaches. Also, the focal linkage ought to be tested under specific contingencies rather than being examined at superficial levels of aggregation. Finally, market-based assessments seem most pertinent in capturing the performance effects of diversification. Contrarily, the use of growth-based measures may be misleading and should be refrained from. These issues, in turn, were directly reflected in the design of subsequent empirical analyses.
In the second major analysis of this study, I concretized the content of diversification strategies by specifying in greater detail the business relatedness construct, i.e. the logic of business linkages in portfolios. In this analysis, I focused the attention exclusively on types of operational relatedness given that the vast majority of research in the field suggests that it is economies of scope at the operational level that are critical to diversification success.
Using a sample that is considerably larger than samples investigated in prior research, I found that measures of product-based relatedness, technological relatedness, and skill-based relatedness appear not to sufficiently discriminate from each other to be used as separate predictors of multibusiness firm performance. This is in sharp contrast to prior findings in this line of research. The three indices of relatedness at the operational level were found to all load very high on a single factor. This suggests that relatedness at the operational level should be represented by a single multidimensional fac-
Summary
149
tor rather than by separate indices of tangible and intangible types of operational relatedness.
In other words, the high correlation between the three indicators suggests that if businesses in a portfolio are more similar in tangible respects at the operational level, they are also more similar in intangible respects at the operational level. Specifically, this means that businesses that sell similar products and draw on similar raw materials, physical processes, and facilities are usually also more similar in terms of the technologies they import from other industries as well as the type of human skills and expertise they require. Accordingly, the added-value of distinguishing types of tangible and intangible relatedness at the operational level may have to be questioned.
Moreover, these findings suggest that some of the results of recent corporate strategy research may be in need of reevaluation. And this applies in particular to those studies that suggest that intangible relatedness (e.g., technological or skill-based relatedness) is distinct from tangible, product-based relatedness, and that exclusively intangible relatedness is conducive to superior multibusiness firm performance.
In terms of the performance effects of operational relatedness, it was found in the regressions that the identified factor explains performance differentials of multibusiness firms active in specific core business industries only (here food and automotive) and only when specific measures of performance are used (here the excess value measure). However, in the majority of core business industries studied, diversification strategy in terms of lower or higher levels of operational business relatedness was found not to have any accounting-based or market-based performance effects.
This implies that core business industry can matter to the performance effects of diversification strategy. Specifically, multibusiness firms with their core business in food or automotive seem to systematically generate benefits from transferring, sharing, and leveraging resources at the operational level. However, this does not apply to firms in the remaining five industries examined.
150
Summary
Thus, positive net effects of operational relatedness, i.e. operational synergies due to sharing and leveraging the similarity of products, processes, end-customers, technologies and related capabilities, and of types of production- and other functional skills, seem realizable to a greater extent in some industries than in others. Either the value of operational scope economies must be systematically higher and/or the costs of running a multi-business firm with operationally similar businesses must be systematically lower for these firms than for firms diversifying out of other industries. Further studies should take up this issue and detail those industry characteristics that may cause these effects.
At the same time, these findings suggest that indeed it seems to be the excess value measure that is most pertinent to capturing the performance effects of diversification strategy. Also, as it is a market-based measure of performance, the performance effects of diversification strategy seem to materialize in the longer term rather than in the short term. This suggests that more studies in strategic management research should draw on the methodology suggested by Berger and Ofek (1995) to capture synergy effects.
Subsequent examination of absolute values of the excess value measure allowed shifting in focus from comparing the performance of multibusiness firms towards comparing multibusiness firm performance to single business firm performance, i.e. towards assessing the performance effects of diversification itself – in relation to the theoretical case of staying a single-business firm.
It was found that an average diversification discount prevails for multibusiness firms in the cross-industry sample of 350 firms studied. This finding parallels findings from the meta-analysis in which an overall negative association between diversification and performance was identified. This suggests that diversification is in many cases detrimental to firm performance and often difficult to be accomplished successfully.
Summary
151
However, results also indicate that a discount does not necessarily prevail. It was found to be a function of core business industry. In fact, this finding suggests that nature and extent of net benefits – of whatever type – realizable from diversification are a function of core business industry. This finding somewhat parallels the observation made in terms of the food and automotive industry in the regressions. Again, either the value of specific benefits of diversification must be systematically higher and/or the costs of running a multi-business firm must be systematically lower for these firms than for firms diversifying out of other industries. At least, this is what the capital market and investors seem to expect. If I am not mistaken, this idea has not been taken up in any prior study on the diversification-performance linkage. This issue and the reasons underlying should be investigated in future research.
Finally, in six of the seven industries examined, the mean excess value of multibusiness firms that score high on operational relatedness relative to their industry peers does not significantly differ from the mean excess value of firms that score comparatively low on operational relatedness. In other words, except for the food industry, firms do not achieve a diversification premium by means of high levels of operational relatedness. Similarly, firms do not suffer from a discount due to low levels of operational relatedness. Despite making use of newly developed indices that were designed to overcome the limitations inherent in traditional measurement approaches, I was in the majority of industries not able to show that scoring high on these indices leads to making the corporate whole add up to more than the sum of its parts.
Overall, the second analysis of this study indicates that diversification strategy defined in terms of levels of operational business relatedness and indicated by state-of-the-art, archival measures is per se not related to corporate performance in the vast majority of cases. In this respect, results from this analysis corroborate findings from the metaanalysis in the first part of this study that called into question already any overarching, generalizable cause-and-effect relationship between diversification strategy and performance.
152
Summary
Up to this stage, I examined diversification strategy and its performance implications merely in terms of relatedness at the operational level. However, some authors suggest that synergy may not only be associated with economies of scope at the operational level but also with aspects of leveraging a dominant logic and distinctive competence as well as with effective management at the corporate, strategic level. Authors such as Grant (1988) and Prahalad and Bettis (1986) argue that effective corporate management and leveraging distinct corporate-level competences is possible in portfolios that are characterized by businesses that are similar at the strategic level.
For this reason, I devoted the third part of this study to examining the diversificationperformance linkage from a perspective that integrates aspects of operational economies of scope, dominant management logic, and performance. Specifically, I used structural equations modeling to first validate Grant’s (1988) two-factor conceptualization of the relatedness construct and to second test the performance implications of operational relatedness vis-à-vis the effects of strategic relatedness.
I found that different types of business relatedness as indicated by objective measurement schemes can indeed be represented by a two-factor structure that distinguishes strategic relatedness from operational relatedness. Strategic and operational relatedness emerged as two related and yet distinct dimensions of the relatedness construct.
Merely strategic relatedness was found to be significantly and directly positively associated with the excess value measure, however. At the same time, results again relegated the meaning of operational business relatedness and, thus, of economies of scope at the operational level, to multibusiness firm performance. Finally, strategic relatedness was found to most likely conflict with operational relatedness. This means that corporations should avoid seeking to excessively exploit both types of relatedness simultaneously.
Overall, my results suggest that across industries issues of effective management, dominant logic, and corporate distinctive competence are more important to diversifi-
Summary
153
cation success than issues of operational relatedness and realizing economies of scope at the operational level.
Multibusiness firms that can apply the dominant management logic and corporatelevel competences prevailing in the core business to secondary businesses in the portfolio are able to add more value to the corporate whole than corporations that have to manage strategically unrelated businesses. This is because strategically similar businesses allow the corporate center to more effectively and efficiently manage a multibusiness firm. If mental maps internalized at the core business, similar knowledge, and similar management systems can be applied also in secondary businesses, the effectiveness with which corporate management performs functions such as appointing key executives, allocating resources between businesses, formulating and coordinating business unit strategies, and setting and monitoring performance targets rises. By means of concentrating a portfolio on strategically similar businesses, the complexity of top management tasks and processes is limited. Moreover, having a sufficient feel for the critical success factors in individual businesses makes top managers more likely to respond correctly and quickly enough to problems that arise. In sum, strategic relatedness paves the way for exploiting sub- and/or super-additivities at the corporate level, and it becomes easier for the corporate parent to influence the performance of individual businesses to the favour of the corporation as a whole.
As a consequence, this study seems to empirically corroborate what has long been a supposition based on largely anecdotal evidence. Strategic relatedness matters to the success of multibusiness firms. Also, strategic relatedness may in part explain why multibusiness firms that are frequently described as premium conglomerates are premium in fact, and why they outperform their peers.
At the same time, my findings may add some substance to what Goold and colleagues concluded after more than ten years of their largely case study-based research: “[…] The most important role of the corporate parent lies in influencing the performance of
154
Summary
businesses as stand-alone entities, not in the realization of [operational] synergies between business units […]” (1994, p. 33).
Moreover, if diversification is comparatively difficult to be accomplished successfully in practice and in many cases does more harm than good, then corporate executives seem well-advised to first make sure that value is not destroyed by exerting inappropriate influence on individual businesses. The exercise of inappropriate influence, however, most likely occurs in situations in which businesses in a portfolio are strategically dissimilar. My work suggests that understanding this logic and appreciating its implications for practice appears in the vast majority of cases to be more conducive to the long-term success of diversification than continuing to do what still seems more popular in practice – striving for implementing comprehensive operational synergy initiatives.
All of the above means that this research has strong implications both for further research on the diversification strategy and performance linkage as well as for corporate top-management deciding on the composition of business portfolios. It is hoped that the findings from this research are used to advance future research designs in strategic management and to enrich decision-making processes in management practice that involve answering questions of corporate strategy and the scope of the firm.
Nonetheless, at the same time, it is to be acknowledged that this work could demonstrate merely small effects of strategic relatedness on multibusiness firm performance. Therefore, it is up to further research to show whether strategic relatedness in combination with additional contingency variables may lead to greater performance effects. In this context, also alternative indicators of strategic relatedness should be developed and used in order to more comprehensively capture the construct.
Overall, I hope that a two-factor distinction of strategic- and operational relatedness and a corresponding reflection of both aspects of dominant management logic and aspects of operational economies of scope is used to provide some structure to further
Summary
155
work in an area of research that appears getting increasingly diverse. Future research should also pay careful attention to the meaning of the core business of a firm to diversifying patterns and to the performance implications of diversification strategy and strategic relatedness. Accordingly, core business industry-specific analyses appear most promising.
Given the difficulty of measuring strategic relatedness from outside corporations, particularly studies using manager self-report data may be used to cross-validate and build on the conceptualization of strategic relatedness versus operational relatedness. Possible interaction effects of strategic and operational relatedness deserve further study as well as the role of actual organizational structures in place in moderating the linkage between strategic relatedness, operational relatedness, and performance.
Limitations and some ex post Remarks on Meta-Analysis The meta-analysis is limited in that I was unable to test the effects of the full set of contingency variables on the diversification-performance linkage in some situations. This becomes obvious in the Hunter/Schmidt-based analysis within which the hierarchical breakdown, i.e. the stepwise combination of contingency variables, causes rapidly decreasing subset sizes. Moreover, in all those cases in which the hierarchical breakdown suggests population heterogeneity, contingency variables other than the ones tested in this analysis are contributing to the variance of the nature of the focal subset relationship.
In addition, the use of small sample sizes in specific correlation subsets may be criticized. This applies particularly to associations between related diversification and performance dimensions. Accordingly, one may question the validity of parts of the metaanalytic results. Small subsets simply point at the fact, however, that there is few empirical research available that is testing specific types of relationships. Though small subset size may limit the generalizability of parts of this study’s results, it is less a shortcoming of this research than it is one of prior empirical research.
Subsequent empirical analyses are limited in that I measure relatedness objectively with archival data. Managerial perceptions of relatedness may differ from objective assessments of relatedness, however.
Moreover, it is to be mentioned that the finding of limited unique information being captured by the three indices of operational relatedness applies to the seven core business industries examined in this study and to the patterns in which incumbent firms diversify. However, it is up to further research to show whether the discriminating power of the relatedness indices is higher for firms in other industries and corresponding diversification patterns.
158
Limitations and some ex post Remarks on Meta-Analysis
Also, though substantively warranted, I discarded for statistical reasons, i.e. for reasons of small sample size, the option of testing the structural equation models for specific industries. Future research should take up this issue and test whether the effects of strategic relatedness detected in the cross-industry sample in this analysis indeed apply across industries or apply to specific industries only.
Ultimately, I would like to close this work with some critical remarks on meta-analysis – an approach to research synthesis that is getting increasingly popular in strategic management research.
In the course of the analyses I observed that the Hedges/Olkin approach by design is somewhat less transparent than is the Hunter/Schmidt approach. In principle, the Hedges/Olkin technique does not require the reporting of any absolute values of (weighted mean) correlations observed between the variables examined. At the same time, it does seem to “seduce” the researcher not to report the sample sizes truly underlying the meta-analysis of contingency variables. Contrarily, the Hunter/Schmidtbased analysis points out that across methods the meta-analyses in some respects draw on very few correlations to derive results. This applies particularly to associations between related diversification (samples with firms restricted from the high end of diversification) and performance dimensions. This information would have been lost completely if only the regressions of correlations onto contingency variables had been used.
In addition, as Hedges/Olkin-based regressions require continuous indicators, dummy variables must usually be used to assess the effects of contingency factors on correlations. However, these effects can as a consequence merely be assessed and expressed in relative terms, i.e. relative to an omitted benchmark category. Thus, without any subsequent estimations from derived regression equations, the actual direction of specific variable linkages and its strength in absolute terms cannot be elicited.
Limitations and some ex post Remarks on Meta-Analysis
159
In general, both types of meta-analyses initially require abstracting entirely from any context and contingency variables. All correlations between the variables of interest located – no matter where, when and how observed – are pooled in a set that is only subsequently analyzed for specific contingency variables. While this proceeding seems necessary for meta-analysis, the Hunter/Schmidt approach appears somewhat more problematic in this respect. Here, the researcher is required to report the weighted mean correlations between the variables of interest at the highest possible level of aggregation and to only subsequently break it down into subsets. These absolute values may be strongly misleading, however, if interpreted in isolation. This is because these averages arise simply as a consequence of some underlying distribution of measurement characteristics of individual correlations that are neglected at this stage, if not ignored.
In the present study, these characteristics comprise, for instance, type of diversification operationalization, type of performance operationalization, temporal sequence of variable measurement and so forth. As a consequence, mean correlations are always and necessarily abstracting from additional information and should only be used to argue for a generalizable nature of a variable linkage at sufficiently detailed levels.
Across methods, a general problem of meta-analysis is that it somewhat “requires us to abstract though we know better”. Moreover, even if we planned to test for various contingency factors at later stages of the meta-analysis, we simply lack the number of studies in strategic management research that are necessary to conduct this examination under valid statistical premises. To some extent this also applied to the study reported in this paper (recall the small sample sizes of the correlation subsets that prevented analysis of further contingency effects).
What is also important about the Hunter/Schmidt approach is that it suggests correcting correlations for various statistical artifacts. However, the statistics and measurement information required to actually do so, such as reliabilities, for instance, are usually not reported in strategic management studies. Moreover, in this context, I found
160
Limitations and some ex post Remarks on Meta-Analysis
that the use of attenuation factors in order to more or less globally correct for a number of these artifacts (other than sampling error) can be used to strongly increase and also to manipulate absolute values of correlation coefficients. Readers of Hunter/Schmidtbased meta-analyses should be aware of this substantial lever and authors should be very explicit about it.
Finally, it is important to understand that, by design, only linear associations can be tested in meta-analytic frameworks except for the case in which some “circumventionstrategy” is found. This study provides a concrete example: I have to draw on rangerestricted samples to be able to decompose a single linear association into two linear associations representing a curvilinear association. If curvilinearity is ignored in metaanalysis, mean correlations may arise simply as a consequence of positive and negative effect size statistics (from individual empirical studies) cancelling out each other in the integration. In this case, mean correlations have virtually no meaning.
Nonetheless, despite the problems just enumerated, what I also learned in the course of conducting this study, is that meta-analysis forces the researcher to really look into the matter, i.e. into the very details of sampling, methods, construct operationalization, and quantitative results of individual empirical analyses. In other words, “academic rigour required” appears an in-built feature of meta-analysis. Premature overall judgement of individual study results is less likely. For this reason, I am convinced that metaanalysis has the potential to become an indispensable complement to narrative literature reviews if we are able to establish transparent methodological standards. Possibly it is a combination of quantitative and qualitative integration elements that will characterize the future standard in literature reviews in strategic management research.
Bibliography
Acar, W. and Sankaran, K. (1999). ‘The myth of the unique decomposability: Specializing the Herfindahl and Entropy measures?’ Strategic Management Journal, 20, 969-975. Amit, R. and Livnat, J. (1988a). ‘Diversification and the risk-return trade-off’. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 154-166. Amit, R. and Livnat, J. (1988b). ‘Diversification strategies, business cycles and economic performance’. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 99-110. Amit, R. and Livnat, J. (1988c). ‘A concept of conglomerate diversification’. Journal of Management, 14, 593-604. Amit, R. and Livnat, J. (1989). ‘Efficient corporate diversification: Methods and implications’. Management Science, 35, 879-897. Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). ‘Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach’. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411423. Ansoff, H. I. (1957). ’Strategies for Diversification’. Harvard Business Review, 35, 113-124. Barkema, H. and Vermeulen, F. (2001). ’Learning through acquisitions’. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 457-477. Barney, J. B. (1997). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
162
Bibliography
Barton, S. L. (1988). ‘Diversification strategy and systematic risk: Another look’. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 166-175. Bass, F. M., Cattin, P. J., and Wittunk, D. R. (1977). ‘Market structure and industry influence on profitability’, in Thorelli, H. (Eds), Strategy + Structure = Performance. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Baumol, W., Panzer, J., and Willig, R. (1982). Contestable markets and the theory of industry structure. New York, NY: Harcourt. Bausch, A., Pils, F., and Van Tri, D. L. (2007). In search of profitable growth: Strategic priorities put to a meta-analytic performance test, Paper presented at the IABE Annual International Conference, Las Vegas/USA. Beattie, D. L. (1980). ‘Conglomerate diversification and performance: A survey and time series analysis’. Applied Economics, 12, 251-273. Bengtsson, L. (2000). ‘Corporate strategy in a small open economy: Reducing product diversification while increasing international diversification’. European Management Journal, 18, 444-453. Bentler, P. M. and Bonett, D. G. (1980). ’Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures’. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angelses, CA: BMDP statistical software. Berger, P. G. and Ofek, E. (1995). ’Diversification’s effect on firm value’. Journal of Financial Economics, 37, 39-65.
Bibliography
163
Bergh, D. D. (1995a). ‘Problems with repeated measures analysis: Demonstration with a study of the diversification and performance relationship’. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1692-1708. Bergh, D. D. (1995b). ‘Size and relatedness of units sold: An agency theory and resource-based perspective’. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 221-239. Bergh, D. D. (2001). ‘Diversification strategy research at crossroads: established, emerging, and anticipated paths’, in Hitt, M. A., Freeman, R. E., and Harrison, J. S. (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management, Oxford: Blackwell, 362-383. Bergh, D. D. and Holbein, G. F. (1997). ‘Assessment and redirection of longitudinal analysis: Demonstration with a study of the diversification and divestiture relationship’. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 557-571. Bergh, D. D. and Lawless, M. W. (1998). ‘Portfolio restructuring and limits to hierarchical governance: The effects of environmental uncertainty and diversification strategy’. Organization Science, 9, 87-102. Berry, C. H. (1971). ‘Corporate Growth and Diversification’. Journal of Law and Economics, 14, 371-383. Bethel, J. E. and Liebeskind, J. (1997). ‘The effects of ownership structure on corporate restructuring’. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 15-31. Bettis, R. A. (1981). ‘Performance Differences in Related and Unrelated Diversified Firms’. Strategic Management Journal, 2, 379-393. Bettis, R. A. and Hall, W. K. (1981). ‘Strategic management in the multibusiness firm’. California Management Review, 24(1), 23-38.
164
Bibliography
Bettis, R. A. and Hall, W. K. (1982). ’Diversification strategy, accounting determined risk, and accounting determined return’. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 254-264. Bettis, R. A. and Mahanjan, V. (1985). ‘Risk/return performance of diversified firms’. Management Science, 31, 785-799. Bishara, H. I. (1980). ‘Performance of Canadian conglomerate corporations: An empirical analysis’. Akron Business and Economic Review, Fall, 23-30. Boeker, W. (1997). ‘Strategic change, The influence of managerial characteristics and organizational growth’. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 152-170. Bowen, H. P. and Wiersema, M. F. (2005). ‘Foreign-based competition and corporate diversification strategy’. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1153-1171. Bowen, H. P. and Wiersema, M. F. (2005). ’Matching method to paradigm in strategy research: Limitations of cross-sectional analysis and some methodological alternatives’. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 625-636. Bowen, H. P. and Wiersema, M. F. (2007). ’International and product diversification: Their interrelationship and impact on firm performance’. Under Review. Browne, M. W. and Cudeck, R. (1993). ’Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures’. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445-455. Bühner, R. (1983). ‘Portfolio-Risikoanalyse der Unternehmensdiversifikation von Industrieaktiengesellschaften’. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 53, 1023-1041. Busija, E. C., O’Neil, H. M., and Zeithaml, C. P. (1997). ‘Diversification strategy, entry mode and performance: Evidence of choice and constraints’. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 321-327.
Bibliography
165
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Camisón-Zornosa, C., Lapiedra-Alcami, R., Segarra-Ciprés M., and Boronat-Navarro, M. (2004). ‘A meta-analysis of innovation and organizational size’. Organization Studies, 25, 331-361. Campa, J. M. and Kedia, S. (2002). ’Explaining the diversification discount’. The Journal of Finance, 57, 1731-1762. Capon, N., Hulbert, J. M., Farley, J. U., and Martin, L. E. (1988). ‘Corporate diversity and economic performance: The impact of market specialization’. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 61-74. Capron, L. (1999). ’The long-term performance of horizontal acquisitions’. Strategic Management Journal, 20(11), 987-1018. Carmines, E. G. and McIver, J. (1981). ‘Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures’, in Bohrnstedt, G. and Borgatta, E. (Eds.), Social measurement: Current Issues, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 65-115. Carmines, E. G. and Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Carter, J. R. (1977). ‘In Search of Synergy: A Structure-Performance Test’. Review of Economics and Statistics, 59, 279-289. Caves, R. E. (1971). ‘International corporations: The industrial economics of foreign investment’. Economica, 38(149), 1-27. Caves, R. E. (1981). ‘Diversification and seller concentration: Evidence from changes, 1963-72’. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 63, 289-293.
166
Bibliography
Caves, R. E., Porter, M. E., Spence, A. M., and Scott, J. T. (1980). Competition in the Open Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chang, Y. and Choi, U. (1988): ‘Strategy, Structure and Performance of Korena Business Groups: A Transactions Cost Approach’. Journal of Industrial Economics, 37, 141-158. Chang, Y. and Thomas, H. (1989). ‘The impact of diversification strategy on riskreturn performance’. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 285-294. Chatterjee, S. (1986). ‘Types of synergy and economic value: The impact of acquisitions on on merging and rival firms’. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 119-139. Chatterjee, S. and Blocher, J. D. (1992). ‘Measurement of firm diversification: Is it robust?’ Academy of Management Journal, 35, 874-888. Chatterjee, S. and Wernerfelt, B. (1991). ‘The link between resources and type of diversification: Theory and evidence’. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 33-48. Chen, S. and Kim, W. H. (2000). ‘Corporate diversification, ownership structure, and firm value. The Singapore evidence’. International Review of Financial Analysis, 9, 315-326. Chkir, I. E. and Cosset, J. C. (2001). ‘Diversification strategy and capital structure of multinational corporations’. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 11, 17-37. Christensen, H. K. and Montgomery, C. A. (1981). ’Corporate economic performance: diversification strategy versus market structure’. Strategic Management Journal, 2, 327-343.
Bibliography
167
Chu, W. (2001). ‘Contingency Organizations and Shared Values: Multiple Logics in Managing Diversification’. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 18, 83-99. Chu, W. (2004). ‘Are group-affiliated firms really more profitable than nonaffiliated?’ Small Business Economics, 22, 391-405. Chung, K. H. and Pruitt, S. W. (1994). ’A simple approximation of Tobin’s q’. Financial Management, 23(3), 70-74. Ciscel, D. H. and Evans, R. D. (1984). ‘Returns to corporate diversification in the 1970s’. Managerial and Decision Economics, 5(2), 67-71. Clarke, J. E., Fee, C. E., and Thomas, S. (2004). ‘Corporate diversification and asymmetric information: Evidence from stock market trading characteristics’. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10, 105-129. Coase, R. (1937). ‘The nature of the firm’. Economica, 4(16), 386-405. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed.. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum Publishing. Collis , D. J., Montgomery, C. A. (2004). Corporate Strategy: A Resource-based Approach, 2nd ed.. London: McGraw Hill. Combs, J. G., Crook, T. R., and Shook, C. L. (2005). The dimensionality of organizational performance and its implications for strategic management research, in Ketchen D. J. and Bergh, D. D. (Eds.), Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, Vol. 2., Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 259-286. Comment, R. and Jarrell, G. A. (1995). ’Corporate focus and stock returns’. Journal of Financial Economics, 37, 67-87.
168
Bibliography
D’Aveni, R. A., Ravenscraft, D. J., and Anderson, P. (2004). ’From corporate strategy to business-level advantage: Relatedness as resource congruence’. Managerial and Decisions Economics, 25, 365-381. Daellenbach, U. S., McCarthy, A. M., and Schoenecker, T. S. (1999). ‘Commitment to innovation: The impact of top management team characteristics’. R&D Management, 29(3), 199-208. Datta, D. K., Rajagopalan, N., and Rasheed, A. M. A. (1991). ’Diversification and performance: critical review and future directions’. Journal of Management Studies, 28, 529-558. Davis, R. and Duhaime, I. M. (1992). ‘Diversification, vertical integration, and industry analysis: New perspectives and measurement’. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 511-524. Dawley, D. D., Hoffman, J. J., and Brockman, E. N. (2003). ‘Do size and diversification type matter? An examination of post-bankruptcy outcomes’. Journal of Management Issues, 25, 413-429. Delios, A. and Beamish, P. W. (1999). ‘Geographic scope, product diversification, and the corporate performance of Japanese firms’. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 711-727. Denis, D. J., Denis, D. K., and Sarin, A. (1997). ‘Agency problems, equity ownership and corporate diversification’. Journal of Finance, 52, 135-160. Denis, D. J., Denis, D. K., and Yost, K. (2002). ’Global diversification, industrial diversification, and firm value’. The Journal of Finance, 6, 1951-1979. Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., and Hitt, M. A. (1990). ’Industry effects and strategic management research’. Journal of Management, 16, 7-27.
Bibliography
169
Dubofsky, P. and Varadarajan, P. R. (1987). ‘Diversification and measures of performance: Additional empirical evidence’. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 597-606. Dundas, K. H. M. and Richardson, P. R. (1982). ‘Implementing the unrelated product strategy’. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 287-301. Duru, A. and Reeb, D. M. (2002). ‘Geographic and industrial corporate diversification: The level and structure of executive compensation’. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 17, 1-24. Elgers, P. T. and Clark, J. J. (1980). ‘Merger Types and Stockholder Returns: Additional Evidence’. Financial Management, 9, 66-72. Fan, J. P. H. and Lang, L. H. P. (2000). ’The measurement of relatedness: An application to corporate diversification’. Journal of Business, 73, 629-660. Farjoun, M. (1994). ’Beyond industry boundaries: Human expertise, diversification and resource-related industry groups’. Organization Science, 5, 185-199. Farjoun, M. (1998). ’The independent and joint effects of the skill and physical bases of relatedness in diversification’. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 611-630. Fauver, L., Houston, J. F, and Naranjo, A. (2004). ‘Cross-country evidence on the value of corporate industrial and international diversification’. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10, 729-752. Ford, J. C., MacCallum, R. C., and Tait, M. (1986). ’The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis’. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291-314.
170
Bibliography
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981). ’Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error’. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. Friedrich, S. A. and Hinterhuber, H. H. (2000). ‘Mehrwert durch Diversifikation?’, in Hinterhuber, H. H., Friedrich, S. A., Matzler, K., and Pechlaner, H. (Eds.), Die Zukunft der diversifizierten Unternehmung, Munich, Germany: Vahlen, 5-30. Gassenheimer, J. B. and Keep, W. W. (1995). ‘The effect of diversification on manufactures, wholesalers, and retailers’. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7, 13-26. Gassenheimer, J. B. and Keep, W. W. (1998). ‘Generalizing diversification theory across economic sectors: Theoretical and empirical considerations’. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Winter, 38-47. Gedajlovic, E., Shapiro, D. M., and Buduru B. (2003). ‘Financial ownership, diversification and firm profitability in Japan’. Journal of Management and Governance, 7, 315-335. Geiger, S. W., Hoffman, J. J. (1998). ‘The Impact of The Regulatory Environment And Corporate Level Diversification On Firm Performance’. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10, 439-453. Geringer, J., Tallman, S., and Olsen, M. (2000). ’Product and international diversification among Japanese multinational firms’. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 5180. Glass, G. V. (1976). ‘Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis’. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8.
Bibliography
171
Gomes, L. and Ramaswamy, K. (1999). ’An empirical examination of the form of the relationship between multinationality and performance’. Journal of International Business Studies, 29, 173-188. Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1992). ‘Structure and process of diversification, compensation strategy, and firm performance’. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 381-397. Gomez-Mejia, L. R. and Palich, L. E. (1997). ‘Cultural diversity and the performance of multinational firms’. Journal of International Business Studies, Second Quarter, 309-335. Gooding, R. Z. and Wagner, J. A. III.. (1985). ‘A meta-analytic review of the relationship between size and performance: The productivity and efficiency of organizations and their subunits’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 462-481. Goold, M. and Campbell, A. (1987). ‘Strategies and styles: The role of the centre in managing diversified corporations’, Oxford: Blackwell. Goold, M. and Campbell, A. (1999). ‘Desperately seeking synergy’, Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 131-143. Goold, M., Campbell, A., and Alexander, M. (1994). ‘How corporate parents add value to the stand-alone performance of their businesses’, Business Strategy Review, 5(4), 33-55. Goold, M. and Luchs. K. (1993). ‘Why diversify? Four decades of management thinking’. Academy of Management Executive, 7(3), 7-25. Gort, M. (1962). Diversification and Integration in American Industry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
172
Bibliography
Gort, M., Grabowski, H., and McGuckin, R. (1985). ‘Organization capital and the choice between specialization and diversification’. Managerial and Decision Economics, 6(1), 2-10. Grant, R. M. (1988). ‘On 'dominant logic', relatedness and the link between diversity and performance’. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 639-642. Grant, R. M. and Jammine, A. P. (1988). ’Performance differences between the Wrigley/Rumelt strategic categories’. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 333-346. Grant, R. M., Jammine, A. P., and Thomas, H. (1988). ‘Diversity, diversification, and profitability among British manufacturing companies, 1972-84’. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 771-801. Grinyer, P. H., Yasai-Ardekani, M., and Al-Bazzaz, S. (1980). ‘Strategy, Structure, the Environment, and Financial Performance in 48 United Kingdom Companies’. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 193-220. Hadlock, C. J., Ryngaert, M., and Thomas, S. (2001). ‘Corporate structure and equity offerings: Are there benefits to diversification?’ Journal of Business, 74(4), 613635. Haines, W. W. (1970). ‘The profitability of large-size firms’. Rivista Internazionale Di Sciencze Economiche E Commerciali, 17, 321-351. Hall Jr., E. H. and Lee, J. (1999). ‘Broadening the view of corporate diversification: An international perspective’. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 7, 25-53. Hall Jr., E. H. and St. John, C. H. (1994). ‘A methodological note on diversity measurement’. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 153-168.
Bibliography
173
Hamilton, R. T. and Shergill, G. (1992). ‘The Relationship between Strategy-Structure Fit and Financial Performance in New Zealand: Evidence of Generality and Validity with enhanced Controls’. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 95-113. Harrison, J. S., Hall Jr., E. H., and Nargundkar, R. (1993). ’Resource allocation as an outcropping of strategic consistency: Performance implications’. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1026-1052. Harrison, J. S., Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., and Ireland, R. D. (2001). ’Resource complementarity in business combinations: extending the logic to organizational alliances’. Journal of Management, 27, 679-690. Higgins, R. C. and Schall, L. D. (1975). ’Corporate bankruptcy and conglomerate merger’. Journal of Finance, 30, 93-113. Hill, C. W. L. (1983). ‘Conglomerate performance over the economic cycle’. Journal of Industrial Economics, 32, 197-211. Hill, C. W. L. (1994). ‘Diversification and economic performance: Bringing structure and corporate management back into the picture’, in Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D. E., and Teece, D. J. (Eds.), Fundamental issues in strategy: A research agenda, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 297-322. Hill, C. W. L. and Hoskisson, R. E. (1987). ‘Strategy and structure in the multiproduct firm’. Academy of Management Review, 12, 331-341. Hill, C. W. L. and Snell S. A. (1988). ‘External control, corporate strategy, and firm performance in research-intensive industries’. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 577-590.
174
Bibliography
Hill, C. W. L., Hitt, M. A., and Hoskisson, R. E. (1992). ‘Cooperative versus competitive structures in related and unrelated diversified firms’. Organization Science, 3, 501-521. Hitt, M. A. and Ireland, D. R. (1986). ‘Relationships among corporate level distinctive competencies, diversification strategy, corporate structure and performance’. Journal of Management Studies, 23, 401- 416. Hitt, M. A. and Ireland, R. D. (1985). ’Corporate distinctive competence, strategy, industry, and performance’. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 273-293. Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., and Kim, H. (1997). ‘International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms’. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 767-798. Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., and Moesel, D. D. (1996). ’The market for corporate control and firm innovation’. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1084-1119. Hofer, C. and Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. Holzmann, O. J., Copeland, R. M., and Hayya, J. (1975). ‘Income measures of conglomerate performance’. Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 15, 67-78. Hopkins, W. E. and Hopkins, S. A. (1982). ’Strategic planning-financial performance relationships in banks: A causal examination’. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 635-652. Hoskisson, R. E. (1987). ‘Multidivisional structure and performance: The contingency of diversification strategy’. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 625-644.
Bibliography
175
Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A. (1990). ’Antecedents and performance outcomes of diversification: a review and critique of theoretical perspectives’. Journal of Management, 16, 461-509. Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Johnson, R. A., and Moesel, D. D. (1993). ’Construct validity of an objective (entropy) categorical measure of diversification strategy’. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 215-235. Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., and Moesel, D. D. (1994). ’Corporate divestiture intensity in restructuring firms: Effects of governance, strategy, and performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1207-1251. Hoskisson, R. O. and Johnson, R. A. (1992). ‘Corporate restructuring and strategic change: The effect on diversification strategy and R&D intensity’. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 625-634. Hu, L. and Bentler, P. M. (1999). ’Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives’. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. Huber, G. P., Miller, C. C., and Glick, W. H. (1990). ‘Developing more encompassing theories about organizations: The centralization-effectiveness relationship as an example’. Organization Science, 1, 11-40. Hungenberg, H. (2003). Fokussierung versus Diversifikation – Überlegungen zur Zukunft der “Multibusiness Firm”. Working Paper 03-02, Institut für Unternehmensplanung. Hunter, J. E. and Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
176
Bibliography
Hunter, J. E. and Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings, 2nd ed.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., and Jackson, G. B. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hurdle, G. J. (1974). ’Leverage risk, market structure, and profitability’. Review of Economics and Statistics, 56, 428-435. Hymer, S. H. (1976). A study of direct foreign investment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Imel, B. and Helmberger, P. (1971). ‘Estimation of Structure-Profit Relationships with Application to the Food Processing Sector’. American Economic Review, 61, 614627. Jacquemin, A. P. and Berry, C. H. (1975). ’Entropy measure of diversification and corporate growth’. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 27, 359-369. Jahera, J. S., Oswald, S. L., and McMillan, K. (1993). ‘The relationship between the effectiveness of risk diversification and corporate performance’. Journal of Applied Business Research, 9(3), 1-11. Jensen, M. and Zajac, E. J. (2004). ‘Corporate elites and corporate strategy: How demographic preferences and structural position shape the scope of the firm’. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 507-524. Jensen, M. C. (1986). ‘Agency costs of Free Cash Flow, corporate finance and takeovers’. The American Economic Review, 76, 323-329. Jöreskog, K. G. and Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. 2nd ed.. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Bibliography
177
Johnson, G., Scholes, K., and Whittington, R. (2006). Exploring Corporate Strategy, 7th ed.. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall. Johnson, R. A., Hoskisson, R. E., and Hitt, M. A. (1993). ‘Board of director involvement in restructuring: The effects of board versus managerial controls and characteristics’. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 33 -50. Jones, J. C. H., Laudadio, L., and Percy, M. (1977). ‘Profitability and Market Structure: A Cross-section Comparison of Canadian and American Manufacturing Industry’. Journal of Industrial Economics, 25, 195-211. Jones, G. R. and Hill, C. W. L. (1988). ’Transaction cost analysis of strategy-structure choice’. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 159-172. Jose, M. L., Nichols, L. M., and Stevens, J. L. (1986). ‘Contributions of Diversification, Promotion, and R&D to the Value of Multiproduct Firms: A Tobin's q Approach’. Financial Management, 15, 33-42. Kaiser, H. F. and Rice, J. (1974). ‘Little Jiffy, Mark IV’. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 111-117. Kanter, R. M. (1989). When giants learn to dance. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Kaul, V. K. (2003). ‘Product-market diversity, resource deployment, and performance’. Vikalpa: The Journal of Decision Makers, 28(3), 15-29. Keats, B. W. (1990). ’Diversification and business economic performance revisited: issues of measurement and causality’. Journal of Management, 16, 61-72. Keats, B. W. and Hitt, M. A. (1988). ‘A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 570-598.
178
Bibliography
Ketchen Jr., D. J., Combs, J. G., Russell, C. J, Shook, C., Dean, M. A., Runge, J., Lohrke, F. T., Naumann, S. E., Haptonstahl, D. E., Baker, R., Beckstein, B. A., Handler, C., Honig, H., and Lamoureux, S. (1997). ‘Organizational configurations and performance: A meta-analysis’. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 223240. Khanna, T. and Palepu, K. (1997). ‘Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets’. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 41-51. Khanna, T. and Rivkin, J. W. (2001). ‘Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets’. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 45-74. Kim, H., Hoskisson, R. E., and Wan, W. P. (2004). ‘Power dependence, diversification strategy,
and performance in Keiretsu member firms’. Strategic Management
Journal, 25, 613-636. Kim, W. C., Hwang, P., and Burgers, W. P. (1989). ‘Global diversification strategy and corporate profit performance’. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 45-57. Kim, W., Hwang, P., and Burgers, W. (1993). ‘Multinationals’ diversification and the risk-return trade-off’. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 275-286. Kogut, B. (1985). ’Designing global strategies: Comparative and competitive value added chains’. Sloan Management Review, 27, 27-38. Koslowsky, M. and Sagie, A. (1994). ‘Components of artifactual variance in metaanalysis’. Personnel Psychology, 47, 561-574. Lamont, O. A. and Polk, C. (2002). ’Does diversification destroy value? Evidence from industry shocks’. Journal of Financial Economics, 63, 51-77.
Bibliography
179
Lane, P. J., Cannella, A. A., and Lubatkin, M. H. (1998). ‘Agency problems as antecedents to unrelated mergers and diversification: Amihud and Lev reconsidered’. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 555-578. Lang, L. H. P. and Stulz, R. M. (1994). ‘Tobin’s q, corporate diversification, ad firm performance’. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 1248-1280. Lecraw, D. J. (1984). ‘Diversification Strategy and Performance’. Journal of Industrial Economics, 33, 179-198. Lee, J. and Habte-Giorgis, B. (2004). ‘Empirical approach to the sequential relationships between firm strategy, export activity, and performance in U.S. manufacturing firms’. International Business Review, 13, 101-129. Lee, J., Hall Jr., E. H., and Rutherford, M. W. (2003). ‘A comparative study of U.S. and Korean firms: Changes in diversification and performance’. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 13, 11-41. Lemelin, A. (1982). ’Relatedness in the patterns of interindustry diversification’. Review of Economics and Statistics, 64, 646-657. Lewellen, W. G. (1971). ’A pure financial rationale for the conglomerate merger’. Journal of Finance, 26, 521-545. Li, M. and Wong, Y. Y. (2003). ‘Diversification and economic performance: An empirical assessment of Chinese firms’. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20, 243-265. Lim, G. E. and Teck, T. Y. (1995). ‘Diversification strategies, firm characteristics and performance among Singapore firms’. International Journal of Management, 12, 223-233.
180
Bibliography
Lins, K. V. and Servaes, H. (2002). ‘Is corporate diversification beneficial in emerging markets’? Financial Management, 31(2), 5-31. Lipsey, M. W. and Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lorsch JW, Allen III SA. (1973). Managing Diversity and Interdependence: An Organizationa1 Study of Multidivisional firms. Graduate School of Business Administration, Boston, MA: Harvard University. Low, P. Y. and Chen, K. H. (2004). ‘Diversification and capital structure: Some international evidence’. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 23, 55-71. Lu, J. W. and Beamish, P. W. (2001). ‘The internationalization and performance of SMEs’. Strategic Management, Journal, 22, 565-586. Lu, J. W. and Beamish, P. W. (2004). ‘International diversification and firm performance: The s-curve hypothesis’. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 598-609. Lubatkin, M. and Chatterjee, S. (1991). ‘The Strategy-Shareholder Value Relationship: Testing Temporal Stability across Market Cycles’. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 251-270. Lubatkin, M. and Chatterjee, S. (1994). ‘Extending modern portfolio theory into the domain of corporate diversification: Does it apply?’ Academy of Management Journal, 37, 109-136. Lubatkin, M. and Rogers, R. C. (1989). ‘Diversification, systematic risk, and shareholder return: A capital market extension of Rumelt’s 1974 study’. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 454-465.
Bibliography
181
Lubatkin, M., Merchant, H., and Srinivasan, N. (1993). ‘Construct validity of some unweighted product-count diversification measures’. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 433-449. Luffman, G. A. and Reed, R. (1982). ‘Diversification in British Industry in the 1970s’. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 303-314. Mackey, T. B. and Barney, J. B. (2006). ’Is there a diversification discount? Diversification, payout policy, and the value of a firm’. Academy of Management Best Conference Paper 2006 BPS:NN1. Mahoney, J. and Pandian, J. R. (1992). ‘The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management’. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 363-380. Markham, J. W. (1973). Conglomerate Enterprise and Economic Performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Markham, J. W. (1974). Conglomerate Enterprise and Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Markides, C. C. (1992). ‘Consequences of corporate refocusing: Ex ante evidence’. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 398-412. Markides, C. C. and Williamson, P. J. (1994). ‘Related diversification, core competences and corporate performance’. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 149-165. Markides, C. C. and Williamson, P. J. (1996). ’Corporate diversification and organizational structure: a resource-based view’. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 340-367. Martin, J. D. and Sayrak, A. (2003). ‘Corporate diversification and shareholder value: A survey of recent literature’. Journal of Corporate Finance, 9, 37-57.
182
Bibliography
Mayer, M. and Whittington, R. (2003). ‘Diversification in context: A cross-national and cross-temporal extension’. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 773-781. McDougall, F. M. and Round, D. K. (1984). ‘A comparison of diversifying and nondiversifying Australian industrial firms’. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 384-398. Melicher, R. W. and Rush, D. F. (1973). ‘The performance of conglomerate firms: Recent risk and return experience’. The Journal of Finance, May, 381-388. Melicher, R. W. and Rush, D. F. (1974). ‘Evidence on the acquisition-related performance of conglomerate firms’. The Journal of Finance, 29, 141-149. Michel A. and Shaked I. (1984). ‘Does Business diversification affect performance’? Financial Management, 13(4), 18-25. Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1995). ‘Complementarities and fit: strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing’. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19 (2/3), 179-208. Miller, D. J. (2004). ’Firms’ technological resources and the performance effects of diversification: a longitudinal study’. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 10971119. Montgomery, C. A. (1982). ‘The measurement of firm diversification: Some new empirical evidence’. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 299-307. Montgomery, C. A. (1985). ‘Product-market diversification and market power’. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 789-798. Montgomery, C. A. and Wernerfelt, B. (1988). ‘Diversification, Richardian rents, and Tobin's q’. RAND Journal of Economics, 19, 623-632.
Bibliography
183
Mosakowski, E. (1997). ‘Strategy under causal ambiguity: Conceptual issues and empirical evidence’. Organization Science, 8, 414-442. Mukherji, A. (1998). ‘The relationship between prior performance and diversification: a study of three industries’. Management Decision, 36, 180-188. Nachum, L. (2004). ‘Geographic and industrial diversification of developing country firms’. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 273-294. Narasimhan, R. and Kim, S. W. (2002). ‘Effect of supply chain integration on the relationship between diversification and performance: Evidence from Japanese and Korean firms’. Journal of Operations Management, 20, 303-323. Nathanson, D. A. and Cassano, J. S. (1982). ‘Organization, Diversity, and Performance’. The Wharton Magazine, 6, 18-26. Nayyar, P. R. (1992). ‘On the measurement of corporate diversification strategy: Evidence from large U.S. service firms’. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 219-235. Nayyar, P. R. (1993). ‘Stock market reactions to related diversification moves by service firms seeking benefits from information asymmetry and economies of scope’. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 569-591. Nguyen, T. H., Seror, A., and Devinney, T. M. (1990). ‘Diversification Strategy and Performance in Canadian Manufacturing Firms’. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 411-418. Nunnally, J. C. and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory, 3rd ed.. New York: McGraw-Hill. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, FL., and Rynes, S. L. (2003). ‘Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis’. Organization Studies, 24, 403-441.
184
Bibliography
Palepu, K. (1985). ’Diversification strategy, profit performance and the entropy measure’. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 239-255. Palich, L. E., Cardinal, L. B., and Miller, C. C. (2000). ‘Curvilinearity in the diversification-performance linkage: an examination of over three decades of research’. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 155-174. Palich, L. E., Carini, G. R., and Seaman, S. L. (2000). ‘The impact of internationalization on the diversification-performance relationship: A replication and extension of prior research’. Journal of Business Research, 48, 43-54. Palmer, D. A., Jennings, P. D., and Zhou, X. (1993). ‘Late adoption of the multidivisional form by large U.S. corporations, institutional, political, and economic accounts’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 100-131. Pandya, A. M. and Rao, N. V. (1998). ‘Diversification and firm performance: An empirical evaluation’. Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions, 11, 67-81. Park, C. (2002). ‘The effects of prior performance on the choice between related and unrelated acquisitions: implications for the performance consequences of diversification strategy’. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 1003-1019. Pehrsson, A. (2006). ‘Business relatedness and performance: A study of managerial perceptions’. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 265-282. Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. London: Blackwell. Perreault, W. D. and Leigh, L. E. (1989). ‘Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments’. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 135-148. Peteraf, M. (1993). ‘The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view’. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179-191.
Bibliography
185
Picard, R. G. and Rimmer, T. (1999). ‘Weathering a recession: Effects of size and diversification on newspaper companies’. The Journal of Media Economics, 12, 118. Pitts, R. A. and Hopkins, H. D. (1982). ’Firm diversity: conceptualization and measurement’. Academy of Management Review, 7, 620-629. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage. New York, NY: The Free Press. Porter, M. E. (1987). ‘From competitive advantage to corporate strategy’. Harvard Business Review, 65(3), 43-59. Prahalad, C. K. and Bettis, R. A. (1986). ’The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance’. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485-501. Qian, G. (1997). ‘Assessing product-market diversification of U.S. firms’. Management International Review, 37, 127-149. Qian, G. (2002). ‘Multinationality, product diversification, and profitability of emerging US small- and medium-sized enterprises’. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 611-633. Qian, G. and Li, L. (2003). ‘Profitability of small- and medium-sized enterprises in high-tech industries: The case of the biotechnology industry’. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 881-887. Raju, J. S. and Dhar, S. K. (1999). ‘A note on the relationship between firm diversification and corporate advertising expenditures’. Marketing Letters, 10(1), 35-49. Ramanujam, V. and Varadarajan, P. (1989). ‘Research on corporate diversification: a synthesis’. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 523-551.
186
Bibliography
Ramaswamy, K., Li, M., and Petitt, B. S. P. (2004). ‘Who drives unrelated diversification? A study of Indian manufacturing firms’. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21, 403-423. Ramaswamy, K., Li, M., and Veliyath, R. (2002). ‘Variations in ownership behavior and propensity to diversify: A study of the Indian corporate context’. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 345-358. Ramirez- Aleson, M. and Escuer, M. E. (2002). ‘The impact of product diversification strategy on the corporate performance of large Spanish firms’. Spanish Economic Review, 4, 119-137. Ravenscraft, D. J. (1983). ‘Structure-Proft Relationship at the Line-of-Business and Industry Level’. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 65, 22-31. Riahi-Belkaoui, A. and Pavlik, E. (1993). ‘Effects of ownership structure, firm performance, size and diversification strategy on CEO compensation: A path analysis’. Managerial Finance, 19, 33-54. Robins, J. and Wiersema, M. F. (1995). ‘A resource-based approach to the multibusiness firm: empirical analysis of portfolio interrelationships and corporate financial performance’. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 277-299. Robins, J. A. and Wiersema, M. F. (2003). ‘The measurement of corporate portfolio strategy: analysis of the content validity of related diversification indices’. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 39-59. Rosenthal, R. and DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). ‘Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative research methods for literature reviews’. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59-82.
Bibliography
187
Rumelt, R. P. (1974). Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rumelt, R. P. (1982). ‘Diversification strategy and profitability’. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 359-369. Saloner, G. (1987). ‘Predation, mergers, and incomplete information’. RAND Journal of Economics, 18, 165-186. Salter, M. S. and Weinhold, W. A. (1979). Diversification through acquisition: Strategies for creating economic value. New York, NY: The Free Press. Sambharya, R. B. (2000). ‘Assessing the construct validity of strategic and SIC based measures of corporate diversification’. British Journal of Management, 11, 163173. Schmalensee, R. (1985). ‘Do markets differ much’? American Economic Review, 75, 341-351. Schmidt, F. L. and Hunter, J. E. (1977). ‘Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 529-540. Servaes, H. (1996). ‘The value of diversification during the conglomerate merger wave’. The Journal of Finance, 51(4), 1201-1225. Seth, A. (1990). ‘Value creation in acquisitions: A re-examination of performance issues’. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 99-115. Sharma, A. and Kesner, I. F. (1996).’Diversifying entry: Some ex ante explanations for postentry survival and growth’. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 635-677. Sheperd, W. G. (1975). A treatment of market power. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
188
Bibliography
Shin, H. H. and Stulz, R. M. (1998). ‘Are internal capital markets efficient’? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 531-552. Shulman. L. (1999). Management Lessons of Premium Conglomerates. Boston Consulting Group. Singh, M., Davidson, W. N., and Suchard, J. (2003). ‘Corporate diversification strategies and capital structure’. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 43, 147-167. Singh, M., Mathur, I., and Gleason, K. C. (2001). ‘An empirical examination of the trend and performance implications of business diversification’. Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 7(2), 25-51. Singh, M., Mathur, I., and Gleason, K. C. (2004). ‘Governance and performance implications of diversification strategies: evidence from large U.S. firms’. The Financial Review, 39, 489-526. Skaggs, B. C. and Droege, S. B. (2004). ‘The performance of service diversification by manufacturing firms’. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 396-407. Smith, K. V. and Weston, J. F. (1977). ‘Further evaluation of conglomerate performance’. Journal of Business Research, 5, 5-14. Srivastata, A., Nargunkar, S., and Green, R. F. (1994). ‘An empirical evaluation of the equivalence of categorical and continuous measures’. Journal of Business Research, 29, 145-149. St. John, C. H. and Harrison, J. S. (1999). ‘Manufacturing-based relatedness, synergy, and coordination’. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 129-145.
Bibliography
189
Steensma, H. K. and Corley, K. G. (2000). ‘On the performance of technologysourcing partnerships: The interaction between partner interdependence and technology attributes’. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1045-1067. Stimpert, J. L. and Duhaime, I. M. (1997). ’In the eyes of the beholder: Conceptualizations of relatedness held by the managers of large diversified firms’. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 111-125. Stowe, J. D. and Xing, X. (2006). ‘Can growth opportunities explain the diversification discount?’ Journal of Corporate Finance, 12, 783-796. Szeless, G., Wiersema, M., and Müller-Stewens, G. (2003). ’Portfolio interrelationships and financial performance in the context of European firms’. European Management Journal, 21, 146-163. Tallman, S. and Li, J. (1996). ‘Effects of international diversity and product diversity on the performance of multinational firms’. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 179-196. Tanriverdi, H. and Venkatraman, N. (2005). ‘Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms’. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 97-119. Teece, D. J. (1980). ‘Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise’. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 223-247. Teece, D. J. (1982). ‘Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm’. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 39-63. Tongli, L., Ping, E. J., and Chiu, W. K. C. (2005). ‘International diversification and performance: Evidence from Singapore’. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22, 65-88.
190
Bibliography
Varadarajan, P. R. (1986). ‘Product diversity and firm performance: An empirical investigation’. Journal of Marketing, 50, 43-57. Varadarajan, P. R. and Ramanujam, V. (1987). ‘Diversification and performance: A reexamination using a new two-dimensional conceptualization of diversity in firms’. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 380-393. Venkatraman, N. and Grant, J. H. (1986). ‘Construct measurement in organizational strategy research: A critique and proposal’. Academy of Management Review, 11, 71-87. Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujam, V. (1986). ‘Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches’. Academy of Management Review, 11, 801-814. Vermeulen, F. and Barkema, H. (2001). ‘Learning through acquisitions’. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 457-478. Villalonga, B. (2004). ‘Diversification discount or premium? New evidence from the business information tracking series’. The Journal of Finance, 59, 479-506. Wan, C. (1998). ‘International diversification, industrial diversification and firm performance of Hong-Kong MNCs’. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 15, 205217. Wan, W. P. and Hoskisson, R. E. (2003). ‘Home country environments, corporate diversification strategies, and firm performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 27-45. Wernerfelt, B. and Montgomery, C. A. (1986). ‘What is an attractive industry?’ Management Science, 32, 1223-1230.
Bibliography
191
Weston, J. F. and Mansinghka, S. K. (1971). ‘Tests of the efficiency performance of conglomerate firms’. The Journal of Finance, 26, 919-936. Weston, J. F., Smith, K. V., and Shrives, R. E. (1972). ‘Conglomerate performance using the capital asset pricing model’. Review of Economics and Statistics, 54, 357363. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D., and Summers, G. (1977). ‘Assessing reliability and stability in panel models’, in Heise D. (Ed.), Sociologial Methodology, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 84-136. Williams, L. J., Gavin, M. B., and Hartman, N. S. (2004). Structural Equation Modeling Methods in Strategy Research: Applications and Issues, in Ketchen D. J. and Bergh D. D. (Eds.), Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, Vol. 1, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 303-346. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York, NY: The Free Press. Williamson, O. E. (1979). ‘Transaction cost economics: The governance of contractual relations’. Journal of Law and Economics, 22, 232-261. Zhao, H. and Luo, Y. (2002). ‘Product Diversification, Ownership Structure, and Subsidiary Performance in China's Dynamic Market’. Management International Review, 42, 27-48. Zuckerman, E. W. (2000). ’Focusing the corporate product: Securities analysts and diversification’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 591-619.
.94* (2/989)
-
-
4 NSD/Four-digit Count
5 Specialization Ratio
6 Resource-based
-
-
8 Skill-based Relatedness
9 Product-based &
.58* (2/730) -
.59* (2/730)
-
-
16 Amit / Livnat 15
17 Concentric Index
18 Rumelt Categories coded
a
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.75 (1/205)
.74 (1/205)
-
.15 (1/205)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
3
Number of correlations meta-analyzed and total sample size in brackets; * p < .05
coded in ascending order
20 Varadarajan Categories
coded
19 Entropy Categories
-
.26 (1/54)
.28 (1/54)
15 BSD / Two-digit Count
-
.27* (2/433)
.64 (1/205)
14 Herfindahl Two-digit
i n ascending order
.64* (2/259)
.56* (4/547)
.16 (1/54)
.40* (4/989)
.34* (2/186)
-
-
-
-
.82* (2/186)
.87*
.86 (1/205)
1
2
13 DU Entropy
.16 (1/54)
11 DR Entropy
12 MNSD
-
.41* (6/1,277)
10 Related Ratio
Skill-based Relatedness
-
7 DR / DT
Relatedness
.83* (1/205)
3 Herfindahl Three-digit
1
.95* (5/1,938)
2 Herfindahl Four-digit
1 DT Entropy
1
-
-
.5 (1/229)
-
-
.56* (3/630)
-
-
.43 (1/229)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
4
-
-
-
-
-
.51 (1/94)
-
-
-
-
.40* (2/187)
-
-
-
-
1
5
-
-
-
.06 (1/80)
-
-
-
-
-
-.03 (2/113)
-
-
-
-
1
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.76 (1/114)
.17 (1/119)
1
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.61 (1/114)
1
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
9
-
-
-
-
-
.52 (1/94)
-
-
-
-
1
10
Appendices
Appendix 1: Diversification – Sample Size-weighted Inter-measure Correlationsa
1
a
-
-
Number of correlations meta-analyzed and total sample size in brackets; * p < .05
coded in ascending order
20 Varadarajan Categories
in ascending order
19 Entropy Categories coded
in ascending order -
-
.26 (1/229)
-
-
-
-
.93 (1/80)
17 Concentric Index
18 Rumelt Categories coded
-
-
.25* (2/730)
16 Amit / Livnat 15
-
-
-
.31 (1/54)
-.25* (3/499)
-.7 (1/54)
15 BSD / Two-digit Count
1
1 .97(1/205)
-
-.39 (1/205)
14 Herfindahl Two-digit
1
14
-.11 (1/54)
13
-.31* (5/685)
.33 (1/54)
12
13 DU Entropy
12 MNSD
11 DR Entropy
10 Related Ratio
Skill-based Relatedness
9 Product-based &
8 Skill-based Relatedness
7 DR / DT
Relatedness
6 Resource-based
5 Specialization Ratio
4 NSD/Four-digit Count
3 Herfindahl Three-digit
2 Herfindahl Four-digit
1 DT Entropy
11
-
-
.49 (1/229)
-
-
1
15
-
-
-
-
1
16
-
-
-
1
17
.40 (1/160)
.82 (1/160)
1
18
.37 (1/160)
1
19
1
20
194 Appendices
continued
.08 (3/881) -
.04 (9/2,982) .04 (2/146)
15 Sales Growth
a
1
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.37 (1/33)
-.02 (2/143)
-
-
-
-
.62* (1/33)
Number of correlations meta-analyzed and total sample size in brackets; * p < .05
17 Asset Growth
16 Market Share Growth
-
-
11 Tobin’s Q
14 Stock Returns
.28* (1/160)
10 Treynor Index
.07 (2/600)
.17 (1/160)
.10 (2/270)
9 Sharpe Ratio
.22* (4/898)
.03 (2/270)
.27* (3/399)
8 Jensen’s Alpha
13 Market-to-Book Assets
.18* (1/169)
-
7 Cashflow / Assets
-
-
-
6 Cashflow / Sales
.34* (2/565)
-
-
5 Net income
.73 (1/147)
-
.63* (8/1,785)
4 ROS
.31* (7/4114)
.05 (4/1165)
.87* (2/216)
1 ROI
12 Market-to-Book Equity
1 .87* (2/178)
1 .36* (7/2,220)
2 ROE
2
1 ROA
1
.10 (1/108)
-
.15* (3/908)
-
.42 (1/70)
.66 (1/147)
-
.24* (2/193)
.27* (2/193)
.19* (2/307)
-
-
-
1
4
-
-
.48 (1/22)
1
5
-
-
-
-
-
-.03 (1/232)
-
-
-
-
-
1
6
.54* (2/730)
.58* (2/730)
-
-
-
-
1
7
-
-
-
-
-
.06 (1/147)
-
.87 (1/160)
.90 (1/160)
1
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
.71 (1/110)
.94 (1/33)
1
9
Appendices 195
Appendix 2: Corporate Financial Performance – Sample Size-weighted Inter-measure Correlationsa
-
-
13 Market-to-Book Assets
14 Stock Returns
15 Sales Growth
16 Market Share Growth
17 Asset Growth
1
12
-
-
-
-
.95* (2/730)
Number of correlations meta-analyzed and total sample size in brackets; * p < .05
-
-
12 Market-to-Book Equity
a
1
1
11 Tobin’s Q
11
10 Treynor Index
9 Sharpe Ratio
8 Jensen’s Alpha
7 Cashflow / Assets
6 Cashflow / Sales
5 Net income
4 ROS
1 ROI
2 ROE
1 ROA
10
-
-
-
-
1
13
-
-
-
1
14
.11 (1/108)
.59* (2/623)
1
15
-
1
16
1
17
196 Appendices
continued
Appendices
197
Appendix 3: Financial Performance – Intra- and Inter-Dimension Sample Size-weighted Mean Correlationsa
Accounting-based Performance
Market-based Performance
Accounting-based Performance
.51* (28/6,828)
Market-based Performance
.29* (42/10,176)
.82* (8/1,500)
Growth-based Performance
.08 (19/5,147)
-
a
Number of correlations cumulated and total sample size in brackets; * p < .05
Growth-based Performance
.52* (3/731)
198
Appendices
Appendix 4: Effect Size Statistics Conversion Formulae
d
Mean1 Mean2
V pooled
n1 1 V 12 n2 1 V 2 2 n1 n2 2
V pooled 2
r
d2 d 4
r
t2 t df
r
F2 F df
r
z n
2
2
2
d: a standardized mean difference, V : standard deviation, r : Pearson correlation coefficient, t: t-statistic, F: F-statistic, df : degrees of freedom, z : z-statistic, ni : (group) sample size
Source: Rosenthal and DiMatteo (2001)
Appendices
199
Appendix 5: Sample of Firms studied per Industry (SIC) Primary SIC Code
20xx Food and Kindred Products
282x Chemicals/Plastics Materials and Synthetic Resins
1
AJINOMOTO CO INC
ACHILLES CORP
2
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS INC
BURELLE SA
3
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND CO
CHEMTURA CORPORATION
4
ASAHI BREWERIES LTD
CHENG SHIN RUBBER INDUSTRY
5
ASSOCIATED BRITISH FOOD PLC
CI KASEI CO LTD
6
CADBURY SCHWEPPES PLC
DAICEL CHEMICAL IND
7
CAMPBELL SOUP CO
DOW CHEMICAL
8
CARLSBERG A/S
DU PONT (E I) DE NEMOURS
9
CIA DE BEBIDAS DAS AMERICAS
EASTMAN CHEMICAL CO
10
CJ CORP
EMS-CHEMIE HOLDING AG
11
COCA-COLA CO
ETERNAL CHEMICAL CO LTD
12
CONAGRA FOOD INC
HANWHA CHEMICAL CORP
13
DANONE (GROUPE)
HEXCEL CORP
14
DEAN FOOD CO
HONAM PETROCHEMICAL CORP
15
DIAGEO PLC
HUNTSMAN POLYMERS CORP
16
FOMENTO ECONOMICO MEXICANO
INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORP
17
GENERAL MILLS INC
JSP CORP
18
GRUPO BIMBO SA DE CV
JSR CORP
19
HEINEKEN HOLDING NV
KANEKA CORP
20
HEINZ (H J) CO
KONINKLIJKE DSM NV
21
HERSHEY CO
KOREA KUMHO PETROCHEMICAL
22
HORMEL FOOD CORP
KURARAY CO LTD
23
INBEV SA
KUREHA CORP
24
ITOHAM FOOD INC
LENZING AG
25
KELLOGG CO
MITSUBISHI RAYON CO LTD
26
KERRY GROUP PLC
MITSUI CHEMICALS INC
27
KIRIN BREWERY CO LTD
NUPLEX INDUSTRIES LTD
28
KRAFT FOOD INC
OKURA INDUSTRIAL CO LTD
29
MAPLE LEAF FOOD INC
OMNOVA SOLUTIONS INC
30
MEIJI DAIRIES CORP
PETKIM PETROKIMYA HLDG AS
31
MOLSON COORS BREWING CO
PLASTIC OMNIUM SA
32
MORINAGA MILK INDUSTRY CORP
POLYONE CORP
33
NESTLE SA/AG
ROHM AND HAAS CO
34
NIPPON MEAT PACKERS INC
SANYO CHEMICAL INDS LTD
35
NIPPON SUISAN KAISHA LTD
SCHULMAN (A.) INC
36
ORKLA ASA
SHANGHAI WORLDBEST CO LTD
37
PEPSICO INC
SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO LTD
38
PERNOD RICARD SA
SHIN-ETSU POLYMER CO LTD
39
PILGRIMS PRIDE CORP
SHINKONG SYNTHETIC FIBERS
40
SABMILLER PLC
SINOPEC YIZHENG CHEM FIBRE
41
SARA LEE CORP
SK CHEMICALS
42
SCOTTISH & NEWCASTLE PLC
SOLUTIA INC
200
Appendices
continued Primary SIC Code
20xx
282x
Food and Kindred Products
Chemicals/Plastics Materials and Synthetic Resins
43
SMITHFIELD FOOD INC
SUMITOMO BAKELITE CO LTD
44
SUEDZUCKER AG
TAEKWANG INDUSTRIAL CO LTD
45
TATE & LYLE PLC
TEIJIN LTD
46
THAI BEVERAGE PCL
TSRC CORP
47
TYSON FOOD INC
UBE INDUSTRIES LTD
48
UNILEVER GROUP (GBP)
USI CORP
49
UNI-PRESIDENT ENTERPRISE CO
WELLMAN INC
50
YAMAZAKI BAKING CO LTD
ZEON CORP
Primary SIC Code
283x
284x
Pharmaceutical/Drugs
Personal Care/Soap and Detergents
1
ABBOTT LABORATORIES
2
ALLERGAN INC
ALES GROUPE ALLIANCE BOOTS PLC
3
ALTANA AG
AVON PRODUCTS
4
AMGEN INC
BEIERSDORF AG
5
ASTELLAS PHARMA INC
BOMBRIL SA
6
ASTRAZENECA PLC
CCL INDUSTRIES
7
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS INC
CHURCH & DWIGHT INC
8
BAUSCH & LOMB INC
CLARINS SA
9
BIOGEN IDEC INC
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO
10
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO
DABUR INDIA LTD
11
CHUGAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO LTD
DAI-ICHI KOGYO SEIYAKU CO
12
DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LTD
DR.CI:LABO CO LTD
13
DAINIPPON SUMITOMO PHARMA CO
ECOLAB INC
14
EISAI CO LTD
FANCL CORP
15
FOREST LABORATORIES
HENKEL KGAA
16
GENENTECH INC
HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD
17
GENZYME CORP
INTER PARFUMS SA
18
GILEAD SCIENCES INC
JACQUES BOGART
19
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC
KAO CORP
20
H LUNDBECK A/S
KATY INDUSTRIES INC
21
HOSPIRA INC
KOSE CORP
22
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
LAUDER ESTEE COS INC
23
KING PHARMACEUTICALS INC
LG HOUSEHOLD & HEALTHCARE
24
KOBAYASHI PHARMACEUTICAL CO
LION CORP
25
KYOWA HAKKO KOGYO CO LTD
L'OREAL SA
26
LILLY (ELI) & CO
MANDOM CORP
27
MERCK & CO
MARICO LTD
28
MERCK KGAA
MATSUMOTO YUSHI SEIYAKU CO
29
MIRACA HOLDINGS INC
MCBRIDE PLC
30
MYLAN LABORATORIES INC
MEXICHEM SA DE CV
Appendices
201
continued Primary SIC Code
283x
284x
Pharmaceutical/Drugs
Personal Care/Soap and Detergents
31
NBTY INC
32
NOVARTIS AG
MIRATO SPA
33
NOVO NORDISK A/S
NEOCHIMIKI L.V. LAVRENTIADIS
34
ONO PHARMACEUTICAL CO LTD
NICCA CHEMICAL CO LTD
35
ORION CORP (FINLAND)
NIRMA LTD
36
PERRIGO CO
NOEVIR CO LTD
37
PFIZER INC
NOTOS COM.HOLDINGS SA
38
ROCHE HOLDING AG
ORIFLAME COSMETICS SA
39
SANOFI-AVENTIS
PIGEON CORP
40
SCHERING-PLOUGH
PROCTER & GAMBLE CO
41
SHANGHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO
PZ CUSSONS PLC
42
SHIONOGI & CO LTD
RECKITT BENCKISER PLC
43
SIGMA-ALDRICH CORP
REVLON INC
44
STADA ARZNEIMITTEL AG
SHISEIDO CO LTD
45
TAISHO PHARMACEUTICAL CO LTD
SOFT99 CORP
46
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO
STEPAN CO
47
TANABE SEIYAKU CO LTD
SUNSTAR INC
48
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
T HASEGAWA CO LTD
49
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS INC
TOHO CHEM IND CO LTD
50
WYETH
WELLA AG
Primary SIC Code
MILBON CO LTD
357x
360x
371x
Computer and Office Equipment
Electronic and Other Electrical Equipment
Motor Vehicles and Equipment
1
ACER INC
ABB LTD
AISIN SEIKI CO LTD
2
APPLE COMPUTER INC
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES
ARVINMERITOR INC
3
ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC
ALCATEL-LUCENT
AUDI AG
4
BENQ CORP
ALPS ELECTRIC CO LTD
AUTOLIV INC
5
BROTHER INDUSTRIES LTD
AU OPTRONICS CORP
BMW-BAYER MOTOREN WERKE AG
6
CAL-COMP ELECTRONICS PCL
CELESTICA INC
BORGWARNER INC
7
CANON INC
ELECTROLUX AB
COLLINS & AIKMAN CORP
8
CASIO COMPUTER CO LTD
EMERSON ELECTRIC CO
DAIHATSU MOTOR CO LTD
9
CISCO SYSTEMS INC
ERICSSON (LM) TELEFON
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG
10
COMPAL ELECTRONIC INC
FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL
DANA CORP
11
CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY LTD
FOXCONN INTL HOLDINGS LTD
DELPHI CORP
12
DE LA RUE PLC
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR INC
DENSO CORP
13
DELL INC
FUJI ELECTRIC HLDGS CO LTD
EATON CORP
14
DIEBOLD INC
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG
FEDERAL-MOGUL CORP
202
Appendices
continued Primary SIC Code
357x
360x
371x
Computer and Office Equipment
Electronic and Other Electrical Equipment
Motor Vehicles and Equipment
15
EMC CORP/MA
INTEL CORP
FIAT SPA
16
FOXCONN TECHNOLOGY CO LTD
JABIL CIRCUIT INC
FORD MOTOR CO
17
GATEWAY INC
KYOCERA CORP
FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD
18
GEMPLUS INTERNATIONAL SA
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS HLDGS INC
GENERAL MOTORS CORP
19
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO
LG CORP
GKN PLC
20
HIGH TECH COMPUTER CORP
LG PHILIPS LCD CO LTD
HINO MOTORS LTD
21
HITACHI LTD
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDL CO
HONDA MOTOR CO LTD
22
HON HAI PRECISION IND CO LTD
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC WORKS
HYUNDAI MOBIS
23
INVENTEC CO LTD
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORP
HYUNDAI MOTOR CO LTD
24
JUNIPER NETWORKS INC
MOTOROLA INC
ISUZU MOTORS LTD
25
JURONG TECHNOLOGIE INDL CORP
NEC ELECTRONICS CORP
KANTO AUTO WORKS LTD
26
KINPO ELECTRONICS INC
NIKON CORP
KIA MOTORS CORP
27
LENOVO GROUP LTD
NOKIA (AB) OY
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL
28
LEXMARK INTL INC
NORTEL NETWORKS CORP
MAN AG
29
LG ELECTRONICS INC
OKI ELECTRIC INDUSTRY CO LTD
MAZDA MOTOR CORP
30
LITE-ON IT CORP
ONEX CORP
MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORP
31
LOGITECH INTERNATIONAL SA
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS (KON) NV
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORP
32
MEDION AG
PIONEER CORP
NISSAN MOTOR CO LTD
33
MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL CO
QUALCOMM INC
OSHKOSH TRUCK CORP
34
MITAC INTERNATIONAL CORP
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD
PACCAR INC
35
MITSUMI ELECTRIC CO LTD
SAMSUNG SDI CO LTD
PEUGEOT SA
36
NCR CORP
SANMINA-SCI CORP
PORSCHE AG
37
NEC CORP
SHARP CORP
RENAULT SA
38
NETWORK APPLIANCE INC
SOLECTRON CORP
SCANIA AB
39
PALM INC
SONY CORP
SSANGYONG MOTOR CO LTD
40
PITNEY BOWES INC
STMICROELECTRONICS NV
SUMITOMO WIRING SYSTEMS LTD
41
PROVIEW INTL HLDGS LTD
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG CO
SUZUKI MOTOR CO LTD
42
QUANTA COMPUTER INC
TATUNG CO
TATA MOTORS LTD
43
SANDISK CORP
TCL CORP
TENNECO INC
44
SANYO ELECTRIC CO LTD
TDK CORP
TOMKINS PLC
45
SEIKO EPSON CORP
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC
TOYODA GOSEI CO LTD
46
SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC
THOMSON
TOYOTA MOTOR CORP
47
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES
TOSHIBA CORP
VALEO SA
48
TOSHIBA TEC CORP
TSA TP 83
VISTEON CORP
49
WESTERN DIGITAL CORP
VICTOR CO OF JAPAN LTD
VOLKSWAGEN AG
50
XEROX CORP
WHIRLPOOL CORP
VOLVO AB
Appendices
203
Appendix 6: The Standard Industrial Classification System (SIC) underlying the Measure of Product-based Relatedness (Excerpt) Division A-J Division D: Manufacturing Major Group 20: Food And Kindred Products Industry Group 201: Meat Products Industry Group 202: Dairy Products 2021 Creamery Butter 2022 Natural, Processed, and Imitation Cheese 2023 Dry, Condensed, and Evaporated Dairy Products Baby formula: fresh, processed, and bottled Buttermilk: concentrated, condensed, dried, evaporated, and powdered Casein, dry and wet Cream substitutes Cream: dried, powdered, and canned Dietary supplements, dairy and non-dairy base Dry milk products: whole milk, nonfat milk, buttermilk, whey, and Eggnog, canned: nonalcoholic Ice cream mix, unfrozen: liquid or dry Ice milk mix, unfrozen: liquid or dry Lactose, edible Malted milk Milk, whole: canned Milk: concentrated, condensed, dried, evaporated, and powdered Milkshake mix Skim milk: concentrated, dried, and powdered Sugar of milk Whey: concentrated, condensed, dried, evaporated, and powdered Whipped topping, dry mix Yogurt mix 2024 Ice Cream and Frozen Desserts 2026 Fluid Milk Industry Group 203: Canned, Frozen, And Preserved Fruits, Vegetables, and Food Specialties Industry Group 204: Grain Mill Products Industry Group 205: Bakery Products Industry Group 206: Sugar And Confectionery Products Industry Group 207: Fats And Oils Industry Group 208: Beverages Industry Group 209: Miscellaneous Food Preparations And Kindred
204
Appendices … Major Group 21: Tobacco Products Major Group 22: Textile Mill Products Major Group 23: Apparel And Other Finished Products Made From Fabrics And Similar Materials Major Group 24: Lumber And Wood Products, Except Furniture Major Group 25: Furniture And Fixtures Major Group 26: Paper And Allied Products Major Group 27: Printing, Publishing, And Allied Industries Major Group 28: Chemicals And Allied Products Major Group 29: Petroleum Refining And Related Industries Major Group 30: Rubber And Miscellaneous Plastics Products Major Group 31: Leather And Leather Products Major Group 32: Stone, Clay, Glass, And Concrete Products Major Group 33: Primary Metal Industries Major Group 34: Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery And Transportation Equipment Major Group 35: Industrial And Commercial Machinery And Computer Equipment Major Group 36: Electronic And Other Electrical Equipment And Components, Except Computer Equipment Major Group 37: Transportation Equipment Major Group 38: Measuring, Analyzing, And Controlling Instruments; Photographic, Medical And Optical Goods; Watches And Clocks Major Group 39: Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
Appendices
205
Appendix 7: Robins and Wiersema's Measure of Resource-based/Technological Relatedness – Categories of Industries used Category
SIC Codes included
Category
SIC Codes included
1
0090-0900
21
3500-3519
2
0999-1500
22
3520-3529
3
2000-2199
23
3530-3539
4
2209-2299
24
3540-3549
5
2309-2399
25
3550-3568
3110-3119
3572-3593
3130-3179 3190-3199 6
3598-3599 26
3569-3571
27
3610-3629
2410-2459 2490-2499
2572-2574
7
2500-2599
3640-3649
8
2609-2669
3690-3699
9
2709-2799
28
10
2809-2819
29
3630-3639 3650-3679
2870-2899
30
3710-3719 3720-3729
11
2820-2829
31
12
2830-2839
32
3760-3769
13
2859-2870
33
3730-3759 3810-3879
14
2840-2859
15
2900-2999
34
3009-3049
35
16
3790-3799
3060-3079
3910-3919 3930-3969
17
3210-3299
18
3310-3329
36
5009-5999
19
3330-3335
37
4000-4999
3338-3369 3390-3399 20
3410-3499
Source: Robins and Wiersema (1995, p. 295).
3990-3999
206
Appendices
Appendix 8: Robins and Wiersema's Measure of Resource-based/Technological Relatedness – Inter-Industry Category Coefficients of Technological Similarity (Excerpt) Category
1
…
10
11
12
13
14
…
37
1
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
20
…
…
-0.05
-0.10
-0.07
-0.07
0.10
…
…
21
…
…
-0.04
-0.11
-0.04
-0.07
0.06
…
…
22
…
…
-0.04
-0.06
0.39
-0.04
0.94
…
…
23
…
…
-0.05
-0.12
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
…
…
24
…
…
-0.10
-0.10
-0.06
-0.16
0.18
…
…
25
…
…
0.00
-0.09
-0.09
-0.01
0.10
…
…
26
…
…
0.03
-0.09
-0.08
-0.05
-0.03
…
…
27
…
…
-0.05
-0.10
-0.07
-0.08
0.01
…
…
28
…
…
-0.06
-0.08
-0.07
-0.08
-0.04
…
…
29
…
…
-0.06
-0.08
-0.06
-0.05
0.01
…
…
30
…
…
-0.05
-0.09
-0.01
-0.08
0.18
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
37
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
Source: Robins and Wiersema (1995, p. 296 et sqq.).
Appendices
207
Appendix 9: Farjoun’s Measure of Skill-based Relatedness – Types of Expertise/Occupations used to identify skill-related Industry Groups A. Mgmt. & Mgmt. Support:
E. Service:
1. Top Management
26. Cleaning and Building services
2. Financial Managers
27. Food Prep. and Service
3. Marketing, Adv. Pr. Managers
28. Health Service
4. Human Resource Managers
29. Personal Service
5. Purchasing Managers
30. Protective Services
6. All other Managers
31. All Other Service
7. Management Support Occupations F. Production (Including Agriculture): B. Professionals:
32. Supervisory-Blue Collar
8. Engineers
33. Construction and Extraction
9. Social Sciences Scien. and Work.
34. Mechanics, Installers, Repairers
10. Health Diagnosing and Treating
35. Precision Production
11. Cultural Occupations
36. Machine Setting and Operators
12. Health Technicians
37. Assembling and Hand Workers
13. Engineering and Science Technic.
38. Plant and System
14. Other technicians
39. Transportation Material Moving
15. Other professionals
40. Helpers and Laborers 41. Agri. Forest. Fish.
C. Marketing & Related: 16. Ins. Secur. Real. Bus. Sales 17. Salespersons, Retail 18. Cash. Counter. Travel 19. All Other Sales Occupations
D. Administration: 20. Adjusters, Invest. Collectors 21. Comm. and D. P. Operators 22. Financial and Info Processing 23. In. Out. Process Clerks 24. Record Process. Secret. 25. Other Clerical
Source: Farjoun (1994, p. 190)
208
Appendices
Appendix 10: Multiples of Market Value of Equity plus Book Value of Debt per Sales [Indi(V/AI)mf ] for the Median Single Segment Firm in 360 four-digit Industries in 2005* No.
4-digit SIC
Indi(V/AI)mf
No.
4-digit SIC
Indi(V/AI)mf
No.
4-digit SIC
Indi(V/AI)mf
No.
4-digit SIC
Indi(V/AI)mf
1
0241
1.34
51
2091
0.70
101
2844
1.25
151
3524
1.24
2
0253
1.34
52
2092
0.70
102
2851
1.14
152
3531
1.05
3
0254
1.34
53
2095
1.05
103
2861
1.15
153
3537
1.09
4
0721
0.86
54
2096
1.05
104
2865
1.15
154
3541
1.85
5
0912
2.98
55
2099
1.05
105
2869
1.59
155
3542
1.85
6
0919
2.98
56
2100
2.00
106
2873
1.59
156
3546
1.85
7
1311
7.49
57
2211
0.80
107
2879
1.24
157
3549
1.85
8
1521
1.27
58
2231
0.87
108
2891
1.24
158
3552
1.78
9
1522
1.27
59
2241
0.87
109
2892
1.26
159
3555
1.55
10
1531
1.30
60
2260
0.87
110
2895
1.26
160
3556
1.78
11
1541
2.38
61
2273
1.05
111
2899
1.26
161
3559
1.87
12
2000
2.09
62
2281
0.87
112
2911
1.95
162
3562
3.65
13
2010
0.83
63
2282
0.87
113
3011
1.10
163
3564
1.58
14
2011
0.68
64
2295
0.87
114
3021
0.88
164
3568
1.25
15
2013
1.32
65
2298
0.87
115
3052
1.36
165
3569
1.25
16
2015
0.67
66
2299
0.87
116
3061
1.67
166
3570
1.39
17
2020
1.05
67
2300
1.15
117
3069
1.67
167
3571
1.80
18
2022
1.01
68
2331
0.85
118
3081
0.80
168
3572
1.20
19
2023
1.03
69
2335
0.85
119
3082
1.22
169
3575
1.19
20
2024
0.70
70
2341
0.85
120
3084
1.22
170
3577
1.49
21
2026
1.08
71
2389
0.96
121
3085
1.22
171
3578
1.71
22
2030
0.93
72
2396
0.85
122
3086
0.97
172
3579
0.87
23
2032
1.40
73
2399
0.85
123
3087
1.22
173
3581
1.04
24
2033
1.40
74
2435
0.86
124
3089
1.15
174
3585
0.92
25
2034
1.14
75
2611
1.68
125
3221
1.79
175
3589
1.04
26
2035
1.14
76
2621
1.56
126
3229
3.19
176
3599
1.41
27
2038
1.14
77
2671
1.71
127
3241
2.78
177
3610
1.27
28
2041
1.02
78
2672
1.71
128
3269
1.43
178
3612
1.21
29
2043
1.04
79
2676
1.10
129
3291
2.54
179
3613
1.31
30
2045
1.06
80
2679
1.10
130
3295
2.54
180
3621
1.64
31
2046
1.09
81
2711
1.89
131
3299
2.54
181
3624
1.57
32
2047
1.10
82
2721
2.05
132
3312
0.97
182
3625
1.57
33
2048
1.05
83
2741
3.21
133
3315
1.03
183
3629
1.57
34
2051
1.08
84
2759
1.26
134
3316
1.03
184
3631
2.09
35
2052
0.86
85
2812
1.55
135
3325
1.23
185
3632
2.09
36
2053
1.08
86
2816
1.55
136
3357
1.04
186
3633
1.86
37
2061
1.65
87
2819
1.43
137
3411
1.00
187
3634
1.86
38
2062
1.65
88
2820
1.43
138
3421
1.36
188
3635
2.09
39
2063
1.65
89
2821
1.02
139
3433
1.70
189
3639
2.09
40
2064
1.65
90
2822
1.28
140
3442
0.91
190
3640
1.36
41
2066
1.65
91
2823
1.28
141
3443
2.37
191
3641
1.36
42
2074
2.03
92
2824
1.28
142
3448
5.75
192
3645
1.36
43
2075
2.10
93
2830
2.94
143
3465
0.97
193
3646
1.36
44
2077
2.05
94
2833
2.94
144
3479
1.48
194
3647
1.36
Appendices
209
45
2079
2.04
95
2834
3.80
145
3483
1.48
195
3651
0.98
46
2082
2.07
96
2835
4.99
146
3491
1.19
196
3652
1.18
47
2084
2.58
97
2836
9.77
147
3494
1.19
197
3660
2.10
48
2085
2.39
98
2841
1.39
148
3499
1.19
198
3661
2.10
49
2086
1.53
99
2842
1.39
149
3511
2.91
199
3663
1.63
50
2087
2.16
100
2843
1.25
150
3519
2.91
200
3669
1.44
continued No.
4-digit SIC
Indi(V/AI)mf
No.
4-digit SIC
Indi(V/AI)mf
No.
4-digit SIC
Indi(V/AI)mf
No.
4-digit SIC
Indi(V/AI)mf
201
3670
1.84
251
4961
3.17
301
5734
0.86
351
8711
1.34
202
3671
1.59
252
5010
0.92
302
5812
1.17
352
8731
7.63
203
3672
1.59
253
5012
0.59
303
5813
1.17
353
8733
2.90
204
3674
2.63
254
5013
0.59
304
5912
0.86
354
8734
2.50
205
3675
1.87
255
5015
0.88
305
5921
0.87
355
8741
1.36
206
3677
1.70
256
5031
0.86
306
5961
2.75
356
8742
1.50
207
3678
1.17
257
5039
0.88
307
5962
2.15
357
8748
1.50
208
3679
1.70
258
5043
1.01
308
5995
1.30
358
8999
1.50
209
3691
1.54
259
5045
1.04
309
5999
1.30
359
9311
3.98
210
3694
1.71
260
5047
2.56
310
6141
6.84
360
9999
3.98
211
3695
1.71
261
5051
0.80
311
6153
7.28
212
3699
1.54
262
5052
0.80
312
6159
7.44
213
3711
1.33
263
5063
0.84
313
6311
5.67
214
3713
0.93
264
5064
1.71
314
6331
3.51
215
3714
1.14
265
5065
0.78
315
6411
4.83
216
3720
2.16
266
5078
1.02
316
6512
5.78
217
3724
1.04
267
5083
0.91
317
6519
5.88
218
3728
1.43
268
5084
0.91
318
6531
4.97
219
3743
1.29
269
5087
0.99
319
6552
3.89
220
3751
1.01
270
5088
0.99
320
6719
6.67
221
3799
1.82
271
5099
0.68
321
6794
4.41
222
3812
2.32
272
5113
0.74
322
6799
6.84
223
3823
1.92
273
5122
0.90
323
7323
4.39
224
3825
2.50
274
5136
0.87
324
7359
4.97
225
3826
2.03
275
5137
0.87
325
7363
0.78
226
3827
2.59
276
5142
0.84
326
7370
2.38
227
3829
2.27
277
5143
0.84
327
7371
2.05
228
3841
2.85
278
5145
0.84
328
7372
2.80
229
3842
2.27
279
5147
0.84
329
7373
1.66
230
3843
3.56
280
5149
0.84
330
7374
2.62
231
3845
3.82
281
5153
0.62
331
7375
2.38
232
3851
1.27
282
5162
0.71
332
7377
2.66
233
3861
1.27
283
5169
0.71
333
7378
2.38
234
3873
1.87
284
5180
0.88
334
7379
2.38
235
3944
1.05
285
5181
0.84
335
7382
1.58
236
3949
1.55
286
5182
0.88
336
7389
1.87
237
3961
1.25
287
5191
0.78
337
7513
2.65
238
3991
1.92
288
5199
0.78
338
7514
2.65
239
3999
1.92
289
5311
1.25
339
7515
2.65
210
Appendices
240
4213
1.08
290
5399
1.15
340
7532
241
4214
1.50
291
5441
1.15
341
7812
2.65 1.94
242
4222
3.27
292
5461
1.15
342
7832
2.86
243
4225
3.27
293
5499
1.15
343
7948
5.76
244
4226
3.27
294
5511
1.61
344
7996
3.01
245
4783
2.28
295
5521
1.61
345
7999
2.40
246
4812
2.28
296
5599
1.61
346
8062
2.11
247
4813
2.64
297
5621
1.61
347
8071
3.44
248
4822
2.62
298
5651
0.61
348
8099
2.40
249
4899
2.65
299
5699
1.61
349
8351
8.48
250
4911
3.35
300
5731
0.33
350
8412
8.49
* This table comprises only the 4-digit businesses in which the 350 multibusiness firms studied operate
Data Source: Compustat Global
Appendices
211
Appendix 11: Illustration of the Calculation of the Excess Value Measure Nestlé SA (Food, SIC 20)
(1) Market Value of Equity plus Book Value of Debt 2005: € 132.585.014.000
Calculation of Imputed Value of the Firm [‘000] Segments
Absolute Sales
Nestlé
Nestlé
Median Single Segment Firm Multiple
Absolute Sales Nestlé * Median Single Segment Firm Multiple
SIC 1
2086
29522874
1.53
45169997
SIC 2
2023
14761437
1.03
15204280
SIC 3
2099
7380718
1.05
7749754
SIC 4
5441
3690359
1.15
4243913
SIC 5
2048
1845180
1.05
1937439
SIC 6
2834
922590
3.80
3505841
SIC 7
2095
461295
1.05
484360
SIC 8
2026
230647
1.08
Sum
(2) Imputed Value 2005: € 78.544.683.000 Excess Value = LN ((1)/(2)): 0.52
58815100
249099 78544683
212
Appendices
CISCO Systems Inc (Computers, SIC 357)
(1) Market Value of Equity plus Book Value of Debt 2005: € 100.947.244.000
Calculation of Imputed Value of the Firm [‘000] Segments
Absolute Sales
CISCO
CISCO
Median Single Segment Firm Multiple
Absolute Sales CISCO * Median Single Segment Firm Multiple
SIC 1
3577
13326365
1.49
19856283
SIC 2
7373
6663182
1.66
11060883
SIC 3
7379
3331591
2.38
Sum
(2) Imputed Value 2005: € 38.846.353.000 Excess Value = LN ((1)/(2)): 0.95
23321138
7929187 38846353
Appendices
213
OMRON Corp (Electronics, SIC 36)
(1) Market Value of Equity plus Book Value of Debt 2005: € 6.655.659.000
Calculation of Imputed Value of the Firm [‘000] Segments
Absolute Sales
OMRON
OMRON
Median Single Segment Firm Multiple
Absolute Sales OMRON * Median Single Segment Firm Multiple
SIC 1
3625
2428290
1.57
3812416
SIC 2
3669
1214145
1.44
1748369
SIC 3
3578
607073
1.71
1038094
SIC 4
3841
303536
2.85
Sum
4553044
(2) Imputed Value 2005: € 7.463.957.000 Excess Value = LN ((1)/(2)): -0.11
Data Source: Datastream Worldscope and Compustat Global
865078 7463957
214
Appendices
Appendix 12: Asset-Intensity Profiles of 4-digit SIC Industries Single Business Firms
SIC Code
Single Business Firms
Average
Average
Average
Capital Intensity
R&D Intensity
Labor Intensity
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
SIC Code
Average
Average
Average
Capital Intensity
R&D Intensity
Labor Intensity
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
…
2253
0.0527
0.0167
0.1985
0241
2273
0.0438
0.0091
0.2226
0253
2300
0.0711
0.0185
0.1805
0254
2320
0.0493
0.0045
0.1607
0721
2330
0.0420
0.0130
0.2062
0912
2340
0.0285
0.0043
0.2231
0919
2390
0.0701
0.0247
0.2300
1311
0.4554
0.0164
0.1339
2400
0.1231
0.0075
0.1246
1381
0.2450
0.0210
0.1475
2421
0.1044
0.0073
0.1671
1382
0.4671
0.0229
0.2032
2430
0.0713
0.0032
0.1985
1389
0.1645
0.0205
0.2004
2611
0.1330
0.0071
0.1709
1400
0.1113
0.0112
0.2201
2621
0.0870
0.0134
0.1748
1500
0.0617
0.0203
0.2487
2631
0.1684
0.0048
0.1880
1520
0.0353
0.0053
0.1889
2650
0.0943
0.0032
0.2024
1531
0.0359
0.0042
0.1165
2670
0.0632
0.0199
0.2095
1540
0.0273
0.0077
0.1722
2673
0.0759
0.0122
0.2362
2000
0.0761
0.0124
0.1540
2700
0.0940
0.0063
0.2964
2011
0.0358
0.0047
0.1507
2711
0.0522
0.0108
0.3237
2013
0.0519
0.0071
0.1647
2721
0.0749
0.0240
0.3016
2015
0.0532
0.0059
0.1266
2731
0.0509
0.0109
0.2259
2020
0.0434
0.0077
0.1182
2732
0.0579
0.0375
0.3318
2024
0.0627
0.0066
0.1367
2741
0.0531
0.0131
0.3445
2030
0.0608
0.0123
0.2008
2750
0.0667
0.0179
0.2510
2033
0.1195
0.0037
0.0898
2761
0.0274
0.0108
2040
0.0569
0.0117
0.0930
2771
0.0524
2050
0.0545
0.0061
0.2425
2780
0.0236
2052
0.0664
0.0099
0.2044
2790
0.0493
2060
0.1020
0.0136
0.1164
2800
0.1316
0.0329
0.1071
2070
0.1057
0.0098
0.0453
2810
0.0874
0.0251
0.1298
2080
0.0632
0.0124
0.1589
2820
0.0964
0.0210
0.1628
2082
0.0854
0.0043
0.2037
2821
0.0568
0.0267
0.1658
2084
0.1006
0.0133
0.1704
2833
0.1196
0.0740
0.1795
2085
0.0301
0.0130
0.1334
2834
0.0911
0.1738
0.1877
2086
0.0668
0.0762
0.1965
2835
0.0883
0.1850
2090
0.0656
0.0139
0.2073
2836
0.2171
0.3757
0.4952
2092
0.0861
0.0045
0.1339
2840
0.0517
0.0270
0.0904
2100
0.0359
0.0084
0.0763
2842
0.0602
0.0350
0.3770
2111
0.0420
0.0100
0.1225
2844
0.0513
0.0383
0.1637
2200
0.1001
0.0142
0.2274
2851
0.0314
0.0214
0.1590
2221
0.0651
0.0191
0.1978
2860
0.0703
0.0337
0.0271
2250
0.0637
0.0244
0.3263
2870
0.0575
0.0360
0.0904
0.0103 0.3480
Appendices
215 Single Business Firms
SIC Code
Single Business Firms
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Capital Intensity
R&D Intensity
Labor Intensity
SIC Code
Capital Intensity
R&D Intensity
Labor Intensity
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2890
0.0877
0.0292
0.1644
3430
0.0409
0.0213
0.2970
2891
0.0402
0.0199
0.1952
3433
0.0291
0.0174
0.1702
2911
0.0711
0.0026
0.0352
3440
0.0438
0.0123
0.2125
2950
0.0619
0.0179
3442
0.0632
0.0131
0.3245
2990
0.0584
0.0347
0.0076
3443
0.1038
0.0124
3011
0.0999
0.0197
0.1061
3444
0.0400
3021
0.0540
0.0230
3448
0.0489
0.0071
3050
0.0660
0.0235
0.1811
3451
0.0659
0.0296
3060
0.0872
0.0242
0.1704
3452
0.0647
0.0120
0.2701
3080
0.1004
0.0185
0.2069
3460
0.0816
0.0253
0.2227
3081
0.0738
0.0154
0.0284
3470
0.0829
0.0198
0.2107
3086
0.0585
0.0215
0.3027
3480
0.0408
0.0361
0.1085 0.2214 0.2345
3089
0.0901
0.0170
0.2043
3490
0.0492
0.0181
0.2040
3100
0.0485
0.0202
0.2782
3500
0.0922
0.0420
0.0691
3140
0.0296
0.0166
0.1614
3510
0.1065
0.0700
0.1881
3211
0.1886
0.0208
0.1514
3523
0.0278
0.0207
0.3114
3220
0.2265
0.0313
0.2203
3524
0.0416
0.0185
0.1358
3221
0.1055
0.0068
0.2203
3530
0.0669
0.0132
0.2609
3231
0.2155
0.0086
0.0714
3531
0.0461
0.0197
0.3193
3241
0.1326
0.0063
0.1110
3532
0.0366
0.0162
3250
0.0881
0.0150
0.2453
3533
0.0979
0.0236
3260
0.0651
0.0225
0.3661
3537
0.0343
0.0195
0.2198
3270
0.0874
0.0042
0.1617
3540
0.0613
0.0277
0.3039
3272
0.0762
0.0091
0.1605
3541
0.0520
0.0287
0.3275
3281
0.1265
0.0271
0.3465
3550
0.0460
0.0323
0.2880
3290
0.1617
0.0211
0.2169
3555
0.0421
0.0508
0.3460
3300
0.0605
0.0084
0.0350
3559
0.0744
0.0855
0.2691
3310
0.0880
0.0049
0.0786
3560
0.0732
0.0313
0.2482
3312
0.0678
0.0055
0.1234
3561
0.0430
0.0176
0.2916
3317
0.0490
0.0055
0.1713
3562
0.0643
0.0175
0.0897
3320
0.0756
0.0141
0.0653
3564
0.0582
0.0256
0.2268
3330
0.0812
0.0206
0.0788
3567
0.0347
0.0260
0.2408
3334
0.0947
0.0104
0.0593
3569
0.1119
0.0328
0.3475
3341
0.0458
0.0579
0.1825
3570
0.0630
0.0681
0.2178
3350
0.0625
0.0063
0.2109
3571
0.0318
0.0513
0.1215
3357
0.0575
0.0338
0.1908
3572
0.0736
0.0836
0.1563
3360
0.0644
0.0142
0.2952
3575
0.0930
0.0335
0.5056
3390
0.0905
0.0171
0.2509
3576
0.0629
0.1833
3411
0.0764
0.0087
3412
0.1935
3420
0.0356
0.0132
0.1629
3577
0.0603
0.0759
0.2183
0.0486
3578
0.0564
0.0459
0.3456
0.3276
3579
0.0421
0.0478
0.3934
216
Appendices Single Business Firms
SIC Code
Single Business Firms
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Capital Intensity
R&D Intensity
Labor Intensity
SIC Code
Capital Intensity
R&D Intensity
Labor Intensity 2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
3580
0.0688
0.0224
0.2470
3822
0.1028
0.0465
3585
0.0342
0.0166
0.1212
3823
0.0537
0.0614
3590
0.0610
0.0263
0.2630
3824
0.0307
0.0202
3600
0.0720
0.0418
0.2525
3825
0.0504
0.1374
0.2102
3612
0.0417
0.0268
0.1187
3826
0.0614
0.1206
0.3482
3613
0.0512
0.0435
0.3617
3827
0.1198
0.0804
0.3334
3620
0.0633
0.0499
0.1127
3829
0.0704
0.1090
0.3461
3621
0.0657
0.0390
0.2654
3841
0.0887
0.0926
0.2942
3630
0.0702
0.0230
0.1972
3842
0.0762
0.0850
0.2678
3634
0.0997
0.0125
0.1041
3843
0.0429
0.0477
0.6754
3640
0.0744
0.0235
0.2436
3844
0.0546
0.0924
0.1530
3845
0.0780
0.1318
0.2950
3851
0.0687
0.0503
0.3206 0.3753
0.2624
3651
0.0666
0.0546
3652
0.1071
0.0425
3661
0.0334
0.1161
0.2659
3861
0.0644
0.0629
3663
0.0577
0.1036
0.2211
3873
0.0919
0.0221
3669
0.1042
0.0878
0.2683
3910
0.0231
3670
0.1189
0.0642
0.2290
3911
0.0464
0.0122
0.3866
3672
0.1214
0.0353
0.2422
3931
0.0247
0.0446
0.2785
3674
0.1416
0.1283
0.2177
3942
0.0338
0.0336
0.2864
3677
0.0572
0.0869
0.2311
3944
0.0518
0.0929
0.1198
3678
0.1343
0.0517
3949
0.0380
0.0269
0.1996
3679
0.0934
0.0701
0.2352
3950
0.0430
0.0249
0.2570
3690
0.0697
0.0963
0.2882
3960
0.0819
0.0103
0.2228
0.1232
3695
0.1701
0.0601
3700
0.0789
0.0258
3711
0.0794
0.0353
3713
0.0439
3714
0.0810
0.0299
3715
0.0278
3716
0.0102
3720
0.2051 0.1680
3990
0.0893
0.0754
0.2230
4011
0.1949
0.0044
0.3479
0.1534
4013
0.0251
0.0330
0.1904
4100
0.1418
0.0052
0.2210
4200
0.1151
0.3021
0.0026
4210
0.0685
0.2860
0.0081
4213
0.0794
0.3476
0.0987
0.0285
4220
0.2640
0.2122
3721
0.0383
0.0691
0.3030
4231
0.3356
3724
0.0339
0.0307
0.1776
4400
0.1900
0.0260
0.2691
3728
0.0363
0.0591
0.3668
4412
0.2893
0.0018
0.1539
3730
0.0934
0.0109
0.1668
4512
0.1465
0.0017
0.2303
3743
0.0597
0.0136
0.2581
4513
0.1465
3751
0.0377
0.0251
0.1008
4522
0.1237
3760
0.0331
0.0262
0.1156
4581
0.2295
0.0115
0.3107
3790
0.0612
0.0236
0.1410
4610
0.2537
3812
0.0352
0.0495
0.4208
4700
0.2037
3821
0.0443
0.0451
4731
0.0947
0.0579
0.3821
0.2024 0.2169
Appendices
217 Single Business Firms
SIC Code
Single Business Firms
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Capital Intensity
R&D Intensity
Labor Intensity
Capital Intensity
R&D Intensity
Labor Intensity 2004-2006
SIC Code
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
4810
0.1988
0.0259
0.2294
5093
0.0985
0.0024
4812
0.1753
0.0219
0.1457
5094
0.0400
4813
0.1689
0.0185
0.2081
5099
0.0157
0.0472
0.0853
4822
0.0391
0.1315
5110
0.0390
0.0003
0.1292
4832
0.0885
0.1188
5122
0.0151
0.0205
0.0438
4833
0.0750
0.0014
0.1730
5130
0.0233
0.0008
4841
0.1251
0.0425
0.1756
5141
0.0140
4899
0.1481
0.0957
0.2810
5150
0.0368
0.0007
4900
0.0900
0.0021
0.1570
5160
0.0414
0.0148
4911
0.1803
0.0079
0.1245
5171
0.0616
4922
0.1674
0.0006
0.0396
5172
0.0393
4923
0.1962
0.0181
0.0836
5180
0.0953
4924
0.0988
0.0018
0.0886
5190
0.0276
0.0015
4931
0.1353
0.0015
0.1976
5200
0.0384
0.0095
4932
0.1232
5211
0.0517
4941
0.3118
0.0034
0.2409
5311
0.0390
4950
0.2302
0.0229
0.1483
5331
0.0391
4953
0.1226
0.2206
5399
0.0461
4955
0.1553
0.2762
5400
0.0471
4961
0.3332
0.1712
5411
0.0419
4991
0.2172
0.2276
0.1196
5412
0.0432
5000
0.0514
0.0008
0.1363
5500
0.0413
0.0014
5010
0.0761
0.0050
0.0809
5531
0.0420
0.0140
5013
0.0243
0.0069
0.0822
5600
0.0437
0.1935
5020
0.0878
5621
0.0419
0.1863
5030
0.0357
0.0089
0.1219
5651
0.0361
0.1694
5031
0.0615
0.0829
5661
0.0288
0.2315
5040
0.0312
0.0498
0.2525
5700
0.0418
0.1133
5045
0.0329
0.0307
0.1247
5712
0.0498
5047
0.0430
0.0415
0.2639
5731
0.0252
0.0108
5050
0.0450
0.1238
5734
0.0373
0.0110
5051
0.0329
0.0553
5735
0.0194
5063
0.0258
0.0094
0.1298
5810
0.1123
5064
0.0612
0.0181
0.2105
5812
0.0849
0.0153
0.3432
5065
0.0340
0.0401
0.0810
5900
0.0709
0.0023
0.1755
5070
0.0162
0.0165
0.1006
5912
0.0261
0.0294
0.2332
5072
0.0221
0.0054
0.1101
5940
0.0391
0.0197
5080
0.0387
0.0154
0.1049
5944
0.0332
5082
0.0377
0.0063
5945
0.0378
5084
0.0285
0.0084
0.1501
5960
0.0634
0.0248
0.2093
5090
0.0229
0.0093
0.2414
5961
0.0318
0.0532
0.1481
0.0214
0.1197
0.1648 0.0385 0.0668 0.0583 0.1795
0.0009 0.1032 0.1028 0.1546 0.2114 0.0003
0.1526 0.1515 0.0897
0.0028
0.1633 0.1392 0.1497 0.0578 0.2223
0.1438 0.0824 0.2772
0.1241 0.0670
218
Appendices Single Business Firms
Single Business Firms
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Capital Intensity
R&D Intensity
Labor Intensity
SIC Code
Capital Intensity
R&D Intensity
Labor Intensity
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
0.0523
0.0045
0.2103
7340
0.1043
0.0044
0.6942
6020
0.1824
7350
0.2730
0.0441
0.2435
6029
0.1180
7359
0.2094
0.0064
0.2382
6035
0.1583
7361
0.0347
0.0389
0.8161
6036
0.1301
7363
0.0120
0.0066
0.5519
7370
0.0827
0.1273
0.4245
0.0730
7371
0.0672
0.1258
0.5766
0.1303
7372
0.0724
0.1826
0.4805
6153
0.1417
7373
0.0677
0.1116
0.4815
6159
0.1664
7374
0.0619
0.0734
0.3466
0.1258
7377
0.3268
7380
0.0591
0.0179
0.5304 0.7246
SIC Code
5990
6099
0.0308
6111 6141
6162
0.0179
0.1066
6163
0.7178
6172
0.1842
7381
0.0426
0.0596
6199
0.2003
7384
0.0899
0.1707
0.2834
7385
0.0622
0.0585
0.2902
6200
0.0314
6211
0.0270
0.3219
7389
0.0682
6282
0.1627
0.2945
7500
0.1580
0.0508
7510
0.3363
0.0922
7600
0.0241
7812
0.1598
0.1701
0.2154
0.1004
7819
0.1618
0.0974
0.6104
0.3092
7822
0.0516
6300 6311
0.0123
6321 6331
0.0080
6361 0.0405
0.3382 0.0690
0.3568 0.0964 0.3684
6411
0.0197
0.1577
7829
0.0350
0.1205
6510
0.1721
0.0870
7830
0.1693
0.1892
6513
0.3697
0.0920
7841
0.1364
0.0284
6519
0.2297
0.1923
7900
0.2084
0.0101
6531
0.1693
0.2491
7941
0.0826
6532
0.0412
0.1152
7948
0.1931
6552
0.1301
0.0803
7990
0.1549
6722
0.0428
0.2534
7996
0.1279
0.1326
6726 6792
0.1301
6794
0.0478
0.3039
0.5706 0.2477
0.0413
0.3018 0.4070
7997
0.1614
0.4278
8000
0.0683
0.0127
8011
0.1072
0.3643
8050
0.1097
0.4964
0.1231
8051
0.0921
0.5228
0.0328
0.1991
8060
0.0943
0.4503
0.0528
0.0284
0.3275
8062
0.0948
7311
0.0674
0.0002
0.3511
8071
0.0686
7320
0.0335
0.0356
0.4772
8082
0.1168
7330
0.0501
0.0082
0.2682
8090
0.0971
7331
0.0606
8093
0.0457
6795 6798
0.0415
6799
0.0941
7310
0.4517 0.0847
0.2690 0.3810
0.0293
0.2246 0.5795
Appendices
219 Single Business Firms
Single Business Firms
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Capital Intensity
R&D Intensity
Labor Intensity
Capital Intensity
R&D Intensity
Labor Intensity
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
2004-2006
8200
0.0928
0.0126
0.4046
8300
0.1319
8351
0.1497
0.4063
8400
0.1329
0.1942
SIC Code
8111
8600 8700
0.0705
0.0573
0.3282
8711
0.0574
0.0117
0.3806
8721
0.0215
0.0192
8731
0.1512
0.2779
0.4758
8734
0.1327
0.0379
0.4029
8741
0.1024
8742
0.0290
0.0132
0.4138
8744
0.0251
0.0095
0.2563
8900
0.0380
0.0870
0.5632
9995
0.0561
0.2809
0.0944
9997
0.1152
0.0116
0.1969
9998
0.0701
0.2349
0.1438
0.5430
SIC Code