本国的环境中,公司多元化战略与企业绩效

外文翻译

原文

Home Country Environments ,Corporate Diversification Strategies and Firm

Performance

Material Source: Academy of Management Journal Author: William P. Wan、Robert E. Hoskisson

Research on corporate diversification has made significant contribution to the f- ield of strategic management in the past decades (Hoskisson&Hitt,1990). With few exceptions,however, most prior studies have assumed away the country environmental differences in which the diversification strategies are adopted. In product diver- sification research, recent theories and empirical studies are mostly grounded in the corporate refocusing, or downscoping, experiences of the United States in the past two decades (Hoskisson&Hitt,1994). However, there is evidence that even firms in the United States might have benefited from unrelated diversification in the 1960s

when conglomerates enjoyed efficient internal capital markets in the absence of a m- atured external capital market (Hubbard&Palia,1999).Such benefits began to dim- inish in the 1970s along with economic and regulatory improvements in the1970s an d 1980s (Markides,1992). Contextual differences become even more salient when we attempt to apply extant theories and findings across countries. For example, dive- rsified business conglomerates have dominated many economies throughout the wo- rld (Khanna&Palepu,1997), while in the United States they have decreased as a si- gnificant form. As such, our knowledge about the product diversification strategies pursued by firms in other countries is limited.

More recently, the topic of international diversification has also captured the atention of corporate diversification researchers (e.g.,Hitt,Hoskisson,&Kim, 1997;Tallman&Li,1996).Despite its significant contribution, this line of research likewise has its theoretical and empirical focus predominantly centered on firms located in a few countries, mainly the United States or Japan, and seldom examined firms locate -d in other countries (Tallman&Shenkar,1990).Although extant research has generally supported a positive relationship between international diversification and performance (e.g.,Geringer,Beamish,&daCosta,1989;Hitt et al.,1997), the

applicability of such theoretical arguments and findings across countries has yet to be adequately examined in the diversification literature. More research is necessary to illuminate if firms located in different country environments can also benefit from internati onal diversification.

The focus of this study is to explore how country-level environmental contexts affect the relationships between corporate diversification strategies and firm perfor- mance. Primarily drawing upon arguments developed in institutional economics(e.g.,Clague,1997;North,1990),we seek to reexamine the relationships between corporate diversification strategies and firm performance between dissimilar types of home country environments. Hirsch and Lounsbury(1996) advocated, in general, the use of institutional economics in studying organizational differences and our research mets this request. This study advances the current theories of corporate diversification by explicitly incorporating the importance of home country environmental contexts and recognizing that different contexts embody diverse levels of environmental mun -ificence (Castrogiovanni,1991;Dess &Beard,1984). In this study, we define munificence in terms of more tangible production factors, such as physical infrastructure, available to firms (labeled factors) and less tangible institutional support, such as judiciary efficiency,which facilitates transactions (labeled institutions). Firms draw on their home country environments’ factors and institutions to help produce goods or services and to exchange inputs and outputs with others. We reconceptualize various corporate diversification strategies as strategic actions to facilitate the substitution or utilization of factors and institutions for enhancing f irms’ competitive advantages.Accordingly, we suggest that certain diversification strategies are more likely to be as- sociated with superior performance in certain home country environments. By bringing home country environment to the foreground, this study extends the corporate diversification literature by providing a fresh approach to understand various corporate diversification strategies from a comparative country environmental perspective. Furthermore, our study contributes to the corporate diversification literature by expl- aining the performance implications of both product and international diversification strategies largely conceptualized from an institutional economics perspective (North,1990). More specifically, by juxtaposing product and international diversification strategies premised on a common set of rationales within an integrative conceptual framework, our study seeks to provide an explanation for the apparent “paradoxical” relationship between corporate diversification strategies and

firm performance across dissimilar home country environments (e.g.,Geringer et al.,2000).

We tested our conceptual framework on a sample of firms from six Western Eu- ropean countries. Western Europe represents a new setting for extending the knowle- dge of corporate diversification beyond the traditional country environmental conte- xts. Although Western European countries are, for the most part, developed countries, there are persistent, notable variations in the degrees of economic success and socio- political developments among them, allowing us to examine the hypothesized perfo- rmance differences of diversification strategies due to country-level environmental munificence dissimilarity. Also, focusing on Western Europe minimizes a host of un- due exogenous influences, such as regional economic shocks or remote geographic locations that limit international diversification, thereby enabling us to interpret the findings more clearly within the framework of country environmental context varia- tion.

Although our focus in this study is exploratory in nature, we found significant performance differences among diversification strategies between dissimilar home country environments. Future studies may investigate additional classifications of c- ountry environments to advance our knowledge in this area. For instance, research on hybrid country environments with abundant factors but inadequate institutions or vice versa would be interesting extensions. Additional studies can explore if differe- nt kinds of factors and institutions would provide complementary or conflicting infl- uence upon one another. Such an examination can further illuminate how complex c- ountry environmental variables influence the relationships between diversification strategies and performance. Moreover, although Western Europe represents an appr- opriate testing ground for this study, future studies would find it fruitful to extend the arguments developed in this study to other parts of the world where more poten- tial contrast between country environments may exist.Our study primarily explored how country-level environmental munificence affects the performance outcomes of diversification strategies. Future research might attempt to unravel how specific fac- tors and/or institutions influence firm strategies and performance. Furthermore, we used broader proxy measures to capture the munificence level of the macro-environ- ments. Although the country-level measures used in our study are more comprehend -sive than prior studies in this area,finergrained measures will be able to more fully capture these country-level variables, as well as to shed additional light on their dir- ect influence. Moreover, future efforts increating an index on factors and institutions

for a large number of countries, thus allowing the use of additional statistical metho- ds such as factor analysis, would be beneficial for the further development of this line of research. Following most prior diversification studies, we used dummies to control for industry effects. However, industry dummies may not fully partial out industry effects as many firms operate in multiple industries. Future studies on busin ess-level strategies, focusing on single-business firms, would be able to address this aspect. Although our study controlled for the effects of blockholders, prior studies (e.g. , Thomsen and Pedersen, 2000) found that ownership types affect performance differentially. Future research may benefit by further teasing out the individual effec- ts of various types of ownership.

Accordingly, our approach may have a potential link to the topic of internation- al corporate governance. Market-based governance structures help ensure firm effic- iency by allowing a separation of ownership and management. Adequate institutions, such as well-developed control mechanisms, in more munificent environments may allow firms to transact with the most efficient counterparts. Non market-based gove- rnance structures, such as family ownership, may exist in response to low levels of environmental munificence. In further developing our approach, future research on international corporate governance may build an integrated conceptual framework for explaining the co-existence of different forms of governance structures across home country environments. Another fruitful extension is to integrate our approach with other macro-environmental framewor ks, such as Murtha and Lenway’s(1994) taxonomy of national systems of interest intermediation, and further examine the pe- rformance implications of diversification strategies. This may broaden our approach- h’s theoretical scope to explain the strategic behaviors of international entrants and cooperative partners. Our approach may also improve understanding regarding the topic of international entry. Previous literature in this area has largely focused on na- tionality or cultural symmetry as a key country-level determinant of international en- try decision (e.g.,Kogut&Singh,1988). Our approach suggests that the matching of country environmental characteristics may also represent a crucial element. For example, firms from countries with unstable political institutions but abundant facto- rs may have the incentives and abilities to enter environments where inward foreign investments are particularly welcome. Such a matching of factors and institutions may thus represent another important consideration in future international entry res- earch. Furthermore, research on corporate innovation and entrepreneurship may find our approach useful. For example, in less munificent environments, firms may find

it risky to develop core competencies based on product innovation because appropri- ability regime is weaker (Teece,1986).Moreover, human capital may be swayed to choose rent-seeking occupations, such as in government bureaucracy or military, in- stead of pursuing entrepreneurial activities (Murphy,Shleifer,&Vishny,1991). Wit- hout adequate factors and institutions that foster innovative startups, incumbent fir- ms would dominate the business topography. As our research shows, although these incumbent firms are dominant in less munificent environments, many of them are unlikely to be potent global competitors. Despite intense competition in more munif- icent environments,firms in these environments are more likely to be world-class co- mpanies. In this light, the theory and evidence of this study may have important im- plications for corporate innovation and entrepreneurship, particularly from a cross- country, comparative perspective.

In summary,we suggested and found that the relationships between corporate diversification strategies and firm performance differ between home country envir- onments.Our study highlights the crucial importance of incorporating the home co- untry environment into the study of corporate diversification, and possibly in other strategy topics as well.Given the potential importance of the conceptual approach developed in this study, further theoretical advancement and empirical studies using this approach are likely to be fruitful.

译文

本国的环境中，公司多元化战略与企业绩效

资料来源：管理科学研究院作者：威廉姆·万、罗伯特·赫斯金森

在战略管理领域的过去的几十年，对企业多元化研究取得了重大的贡献（赫斯金森＆希特，1990）。除少数例外，但是，大多数以前的研究已经走在其中承担的多元化战略通过国家环境差异。在过去的二十年中在产品多元化的研究，最近的理论和实证研究，大多基于企业重新定位，或抓住机会，美国的经验，（赫斯金森＆希特，1994）。但是，有证据表明，即使在美国的公司可能从非相关多角化受益于20世纪60年代时，大企业集团享有对一个成熟的外部资本市场（哈伯德＆帕利亚，1999年）的情况下有效的内部资本市场。这些好处在20

世纪70年代开始减少伴随着20世纪70年代和80年代（马尔兹，1992年）经济和监管的改进。语境的差异变得更加突出，当我们试图运用现存的理论和各国的调查结果。例如，多元化的企业集团主宰世界各地（卡纳＆Palepu，1997）许多经济体，而在美国，他们作为一个有意味的形式下降。因此，我们对产品的多样化在其他国家的公司采取策略的知识是有限的。

最近，国际多样化的话题，也吸引了企业多元化研究者的关注（如希特，赫斯金森，与金，1997年，塔尔曼和李，1996）。尽管它的重大贡献，这方面的研究也有其理论路线和经验主要集中在几个主要在美国和日本等国（塔尔曼及申卡尔，1990年），也很少研究企业所在国，位于中心的企业。虽然现存的研究国际间普遍支持多样化和绩效有正向关系（例如，格林，比米什，达科斯塔，1989。希特等人，1997年），这种理论观点和研究结果的适用性不同国家尚未得到充分研究在多样化的文献中。更多的研究是必要的阐释，如果公司位于不同的国家环境也受益于国际多样化。

这项研究的重点在于探讨如何在国家一级的环境背景影响与企业多元化战略与企业绩效之间的关系。主要是借鉴发达国家的制度经济学参数（例如，克拉格，1997年，诺斯，1990年），我们将寻求重新审视企业多元化战略与企业之间在本国环境下不同类型的性能之间的关系。赫希和朗伯里（1996）主张，在一般情况下，制度经济学在研究组织的差异，我们的研究使用符合这一要求。本研究明确纳入了本国的环境背景下的重要性，并认识到环境中体现不同环境的包容性在不同层次的企业多元化目前的理论（卡斯特罗乔瓦尼，1991；德斯＆比尔德，1984年）。在这项研究中，我们定义的更具体的生产要素，如物理基础设施，提供给企业（标记因素），减少有形司法机构的支持，如效率，有利于交易（标记机构）。公司利用其本国环境的改变因素和机构，以帮助生产商品或服务，并与他人交流输入和输出。我们概念化不同的战略行动，促进提高企业的竞争优势的替代或机构利用的因素和公司多元化战略。因此，我们建议，某些多元化战略，更可能与某些本国环境优越的性能有关。通过把本国的环境，前景，本研究扩展了一个新的态度来理解，从环境角度比较不同国家的企业多元化战略的企业多元化文学。此外，我们的研究有助于解释公司多元化文学的两种产品的多样化和国际主要从制度经济学的角度（诺斯，1990年）的战略概念的性能影响。更具体地说，由并列的产品和国际多元化战略，在一组共同的理由为前提的一个综合性的概念框架内，我们的研究旨在提供一个明显的“矛盾”与企业多元化战略与企业绩效关系的祖国各地不同的环境解释（例如，Geri- nger等。2000）。

我们测试的公司来自六个西欧国家的样本我们的概念框架。西欧代表了超越传统的国家扩大环境背景下的企业多元化的知识新的设置。虽然西欧国家，

在大多数情况下，发达国家，也有持久性，在经济成功和它们之间的社会经济和政治发展的程度显着变化，使我们能够审视多元化战略假设的性能差异，由于国家一级环境的包容性相异。此外，在西欧为重点最大限度地减少了不必要的外生影响，如偏远地区经济的冲击或限制国际地理位置的多样化，主机，从而使我们能够解释在国家环境背景变化框架的结果更清晰。

虽然我们在这一研究的重点是探索性，我们发现在不同的多样化战略与本国环境显着的性能差异。未来的研究可以探讨其他国家的环境分类，以推进这方面的知识。例如，在丰富的因素，但不足的机构或国家环境互相副杂交研究将有趣的扩展。如果进一步的研究可以探讨的各种因素和机构将提供对彼此互补或冲突的影响。这种检查能进一步阐明如何复杂的国家环境变量的影响多元化战略与绩效之间的关系。此外，尽管西欧，代表着本研究适当的试验场，未来的研究会发现它卓有成效延长本研究开发的参数，世界上更多的潜在国家环境之间可能存在的其他部分的对比。我们的研究主要是探讨如何在国家一级的环境影响慷慨多元化战略的性能结果。未来的研究可能会尝试解开如何具体因素和/或机构的影响公司战略和业绩。此外，我们用更广阔的代理措施捕捉到的宏观环境慷慨的水平。虽然国家一级在我们的研究使用措施比以前的研究在这方面的全面，更细致的措施，将能更充分地体现了这些国家一级的变量，以及揭示其直接影响额外的光。此外，在创造大量的国家和机构对指数的因素，从而使更多的统计方法，如使用因素分析今后的努力，将负责这一研究路线的进一步发展是有益的。继最多样化的研究之前，我们用假人来控制工业的影响。不过，业内傻瓜也许不能完全影响了部分行业的许多企业经营多个行业。未来的研究业务一级的战略，在单一业务的公司为重点，将能够解决这一方面。虽然我们的研究为大股东控制的影响（例如，汤姆森和帕德森，2000年）以前的研究发现，所有制类型影响性能差异。未来的研究可能会受益，进一步梳理出各种所有制类型的个别影响。

因此，我们的方法可能有一个国际公司治理主题的潜在联系。以市场为基础的治理结构有助于确保允许所有权与经营权分离的企业效率。充足的机构，如发达的控制机制，更优厚的环境，可能使企业以最有效的交易对手。非市场为基础的治理结构，如家庭所有权，可能存在因应环境的包容性低的水平。在进一步发展我们的方法，对未来的国际公司治理的研究可以解释建立的合作在本国的环境治理结构的不同形式的存在一个综合的概念框架。另一种富有成效的扩展是整合我们与其他宏观环境框架，如默撒和伦韦的（1994年）的国家的利益中介系统分类，方法和进一步研究多元化战略的性能影响。这可能会扩大我们的方法的理论解释的范围，进入与国际合作伙伴的战略行为。

我们的方法也可以增进了解有关国际进入主题。在这个领域以往文献主要

集中在民族或文化的对称性的一个重要国家一级对国际入境的决定（例如，卡杰特与辛格，1988年）的决定因素。我们的做法表明，国家环保特性匹配也可能代表一个关键因素。例如，从政治体制不稳定因素，但丰富的国家的公司可能有奖励和能力的环境下进入外来投资特别欢迎。这种匹配的因素和机构代表另一个可能因此在今后的国际项目研究的重要考虑因素。此外，在企业创新和企业家精神的研究可能会发现我们的方法非常有用。例如，在更短的优厚环境，企业可能会发现，冒险创新的基础上开发产品的核心竞争力，因为独占政权偏弱（蒂斯，1986）。此外，人力资本可能动摇选择寻租而不是追求（墨菲，施莱弗，与维什尼，1991年）创业活动，如在政府官僚机构或军事占领，。如果没有足够的因素和机构，培养创新创业，在位企业将主导商业地形。正如我们的研究表明，尽管这些在位企业在欠优厚的环境中占据主导地位，其中不少是不可能的烈性全球竞争者。尽管在激烈的竞争环境更加优厚，在这些环境中的企业更可能成为世界级的公司。在此，本研究的理论和证据可能对企业创新和企业家精神，特别是从越野，比较的角度看具有重要意义。

总之，我们建议，并发现，在企业多元化战略与企业绩效之间的关系本国环境不同。我们的研究突出了纳入到企业的多元化研究本国的环境至关重要，在其它议题和战略以及可能。鉴于本研究开发的概念方法，进一步的理论地位和使用这种方法的实证研究成果很可能是潜在的重要性。