Resource Integration, Reconfiguration, and Sustainable Competitive Advantages: The Differences between Traditional and Emerging Industries
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
2.1. RBV and SCA
2.2. Organizational Learning, Resource Integration, and Resource Reconfiguration
2.2.1. Organizational Learning
2.2.2. Resource Integration
2.2.3. Resource Reconfiguration
2.3. Resource Integration and Reconfiguration under Different Industries
2.3.1. Traditional Industry
2.3.2. Emerging Industry
3. Methodology
3.1. Selection of Sample
3.2. Procedure of Analysis
3.3. Scale Development and Measures
4. Finding of the Research
4.1. Results of General Descriptive Analysis
4.2. Results of Multivariate Linear Regression Analysis
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Contributions
5.2. Managerial Contributions
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Prud’homme, D. Dynamics of China’s provincial-level specialization in strategic emerging industries. Res. Policy 2016, 45, 1586–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, K.C.; Hu, T.S.; Wang, J.Y.; Chen, K.C.; Lo, H.M. From fashion product industries to fashion: Upgrading trends in traditional industry in Taiwan. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2016, 24, 762–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abadi, S.; Huda, M.; Hehsan, A.; Mohamad, A.M. Design of online transaction model on traditional industry in order to increase turnover and benefits. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 7, 231–237. [Google Scholar]
- Forbes, D.P.; Kirsch, D.A. The study of emerging industries: Recognizing and responding to some central problems. J. Bus. Ventur. 2011, 26, 589–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guillen, M.F. Business groups in emerging economies: A resource-based view. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 362–380. [Google Scholar]
- Hart, S.L. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 986–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergman, M.M.; Bergman, Z.; Berger, L. An empirical exploration, typology, and definition of corporate sustainability. Sustainability 2017, 9, 753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M.E. Industry structure and competitive strategy: Keys to profitability. Financ. Anal. J. 1980, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reuter, C.; Foerstl, K.A.I.; Hartmann, E.V.I.; Blome, C. Sustainable global supplier management: The role of dynamic capabilities in achieving competitive advantage. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2010, 46, 45–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fonseca, L.M. ISO 9001 quality management systems through the lens of organizational culture. Calitatea 2015, 16, 54–59. [Google Scholar]
- Hitt, M.A.; Dacin, M.T.; Levitas, E. Partner selection in emerging and developed market contexts: Resource-based and organizational learning perspectives. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 449–467. [Google Scholar]
- Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dranove, D.; Peteraf, M.; Shanley, M. Do strategic groups exist? An economic framework for analysis. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 1029–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grimm, C.M.; Smith, K.G. Strategy as Action: Industry Rivalry and Coordination; South-Western College Pub.: Nashville, TN, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Halawi, L.A.; Aronson, J.E.; McCarthy, R.V. Resource-based view of knowledge management for competitive advantage. Electron. J. Knowl. Manag. 2005, 3, 75. [Google Scholar]
- Hesterly, B.; Barney, J. Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Maury, B. Sustainable competitive advantage and profitability persistence: Sources versus outcomes for assessing advantage. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 84, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofer, C.W.; Schendel, D. Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts; West Publ.: Eagan, MN, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Distanont, A.; Khongmalai, O. The role of innovation in creating a competitive advantage. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davcik, N.S.; Sharma, P. Marketing resources, performance, and competitive advantage: A review and future research directions. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5547–5552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kozlenkova, I.V.; Samaha, S.A.; Palmatier, R.W. Resource-based theory in marketing. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 2014, 42, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver, C. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 697–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argote, L. Organizational learning research: Past, present and future. Manag. Learn. 2011, 42, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiménez-Jiménez, D.; Sanz-Valle, R. Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 408–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- March, J.G. Exploratory and exploitative in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 1991, 2, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yannopoulos, P.; Auh, S.; Menguc, B. Achieving fit between learning and market orientation: Implications for new product performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2012, 29, 531–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Liu, H.; Gao, S.; Li, Y. Technological innovation of firms in China: Past, present, and future. Asia Pacific. J. Manag. 2012, 29, 819–840. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.; Chen, H.; Liu, Y.; Peng, M. Managerial ties, organizational learning, and opportunity capture: A social capital perspective. Asia Pacific. J. Manag. 2014, 31, 271–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fonseca, L.; Ramos, A.; Rosa, Á.; Braga, A.C.; Sampaio, P. Stakeholder satisfaction and sustainable success. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Sustainability, Póvoa de Varzim, Portugal, 22–24 June 2011; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Niebles, J.C.; Wang, H.; Li, F.-F. Unsupervised learning of human action categories using spatial-temporal words. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2008, 79, 299–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S.L.; Akaka, M.A. Value cocreation and service systems (re) formation: A service ecosystems view. Serv. Sci. 2012, 4, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lusch, R.F.; Vargo, S.L. Service-Dominant Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Hung, R.Y.Y.; Lien, B.Y.H.; Yang, B.; Wu, C.; Kuo, Y. Impact of TQM and organizational learning on innovation performance in the high-tech industry. Int. Bus. Rev. 2011, 20, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, N.; Atuahene-Gima, K. Using exploratory and exploitative market learning for new product development. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2010, 27, 519–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capron, L.; Mitchell, W. Selection capability: How capability gaps and internal social frictions affect internal and external strategic renewal. Organ. Sci. 2009, 20, 294–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vidal, E.; Mitchell, W. Adding by subtracting: The relationship between performance feedback and resource reconfiguration through divestitures. Organ. Sci. 2015, 26, 1101–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pentland, B.T.; Feldman, M.S. Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2005, 14, 793–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Short, J.C.; Ketchen, D.J., Jr.; Shook, C.L.; Ireland, D. The concept of “opportunity” in entrepreneurship research: Past accomplishments and future challenges. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 40–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lichtenthaler, U.; Ernst, H.; Hoegl, M. Not-sold-here: How attitudes influence external knowledge exploitative. Organ. Sci. 2010, 21, 1054–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maes, J.; Sels, L. SMEs’ radical product innovation: The role of internally and externally oriented knowledge capabilities. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2014, 52, 141–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zollo, M.; Winter, S.G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organ. Sci. 2002, 13, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argote, L.; Miron-Spektor, E. Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organ. Sci. 2011, 22, 1123–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- May, R.C.; Stewart, W.H., Jr.; Sweo, R. Environmental scanning behavior in a transitional economy: Evidence from Russia. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 403–427. [Google Scholar]
- Czarnitzki, D.; Toole, A.A. Patent protection, market uncertainty, and R&D investment. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2011, 93, 147–159. [Google Scholar]
- Swink, M.; Narasimhan, R.; Wang, C. Managing beyond the factory walls: Effects of four types of strategic integration on manufacturing plant performance. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 148–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flynn, B.B.; Huo, B.; Zhao, X. The impact of supply chain integration on performance: A contingency and configuration approach. J. Oper. Manag. 2010, 28, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pisano, G.P. Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning: An empirical analysis of process development. Strateg. Manag. J. 1994, 15, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredrickson, J.W. The comprehensiveness of strategic decision processes: Extension, observations, future directions. Acad. Manag. J. 1984, 27, 445–467. [Google Scholar]
- Ge, B.S.; Yang, Y.B.; Jiang, D.K.; Gao, Y.; Du, X.M.; Zhou, T.T. An Empirical Study on Green Innovation Strategy and Sustainable Competitive Advantages: Path and Boundary. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.; Ge, B.S.; Lang, X.X.; Xu, X.B. Impacts of proactive orientation and entrepreneurial strategy on entrepreneurial performance: An empirical research. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 135, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, L.Y. Applicability of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views under environmental volatility. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wuebker, R.; Hampl, N.; Wuestenhagen, R. The strength of strong ties in an emerging industry: Experimental evidence of the effects of status hierarchies and personal ties in venture capitalist decision making. Strateg. Entrepreneurship J. 2015, 9, 167–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenhardt, K.M.; Martin, J.A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 1105–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jabłoński, A.; Jabłoński, M. Research on business models in their life cycle. Sustainability 2016, 8, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambrosini, V.; Bowman, C. What are dynamic capabilities and are they usefulconstructs in strategic management? Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2009, 11, 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armstrong, J.; Overton, T.S. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Market. 1997, 14, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall International: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Ge, B.S.; Jiang, D.K.; Gao, Y.; Tsai, S.B. The influence of legitimacy on a proactive green orientation and green performance: A study based on transitional economy scenarios in china. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atuahene-Gima, K.; Murray, J.Y. Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development: A social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China. J. Int. Market. 2007, 15, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiklund, J.; Shepherd, D.A. The effectiveness of alliances and acquisitions: The role of resource combination activities. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 193–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feldman, M.S.; Pentland, B.T. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Adm. Sci. Q. 2003, 48, 94–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, K.D.; Pentland, B.T.; Choi, S. Dynamics of performing and remembering organizational routines. J. Manag. Stud. 2012, 49, 1536–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrales-Molina, V.; Montes, F.J.L.; Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L.J. Dynamic capabilities, human resources and operating routines: A new product development approach. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2015, 115, 1388–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, P.; West, S.G.; Aiken, L.S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Psychology Press: New York, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Size (Number of Employee) | Year (Year of Establishment) | Sales (Average Sales per Month, RMB) | Specific Industry (Registered Industrial Category of Firm) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Traditional Industries | 1–10 people 11–50 people 51–100 people 101–300 people >300 people | 15.9% 25.5% 15.9% 33.8% 8.9% | 1 year or less 1–3 years 3–5 years 5–8 years >8 years | 18.8% 18.3% 20.7% 22.6% 19.6% | 1 million or less 1–3 million 3–5 million 5–10 million >10 million | 17.8% 38.9% 20.7% 12.4% 10.2% | Smelting industry Textile industry Petrochemical industry Furniture manufacturing industry Paper products industry Shoe-making industry | 22.3% 16.2% 28.7% 12.4% 9.8% 10.6% |
Emerging Industries | 1–10 people 11–50 people 51–100 people 101–300 people >300 people | 20.0% 24.1% 17.3% 29.4% 9.2% | 1 year or less 1–3 years 3–5 years 5–8 years >8 years | 19.5% 25.9% 14.1% 17.7% 22.8% | 1 million or less 1–3 million 3–5 million 5–10 million >10 million | 15.9% 42.3% 22.3% 12.1% 7.4% | Newgeneration of information technology Bio-medicine Energy saving and environmental protection High-end equipment manufacturing New materials New energy New energy vehicle | 30.6% 14.4% 19.9% 7.7% 17.3% 6.7% 3.4% |
Variables | Items | Factor Loading Coefficient | Cumulative Variance Explained Rate | Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin KMO | Cronbach’s α Coefficient | Deleted Cronbach’s α Coefficient | Convergent Validity | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | ||
Exploratory Learning | Item (1) | 0.803 | 0.816 | 67.46% | 66.02% | 0.694 p = 0.000 | 0.688 p = 0.000 | 0.759 | 0.743 | 0.691 | 0.636 | 0.861 | 0.854 |
Item (2) | 0.852 | 0.799 | 0.654 | 0.660 | |||||||||
Item (3) | 0.808 | 0.823 | 0.686 | 0.678 | |||||||||
Exploitative Learning | Item (4) | 0.843 | 0.828 | 72.05% | 70.12% | 0.710 p = 0.000 | 0.681 p = 0.000 | 0.806 | 0.787 | 0.756 | 0.729 | 0.885 | 0.876 |
Item (5) | 0.857 | 0.884 | 0.707 | 0.634 | |||||||||
Item (6) | 0.846 | 0.798 | 0.741 | 0.761 |
Variables | Items | Factor Loading Coefficient | Cumulative Variance Explained Rate | KMO | Cronbach’s α Coefficient | Deleted Cronbach’s α Coefficient | Composite Reliability | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | ||
Resource Integration | Item (1) | 0.907 | 0.65 | 78.89% | 56.89% | 0.897 p = 0.000 | 0.836 p = 0.000 | 0.945 | 0.848 | 0.931 | 0.841 | 0.957 | 0.887 |
Item (2) | 0.903 | 0.719 | 0.932 | 0.827 | |||||||||
Item (3) | 0.904 | 0.799 | 0.931 | 0.812 | |||||||||
Item (4) | 0.884 | 0.797 | 0.934 | 0.819 | |||||||||
Item (5) | 0.867 | 0.768 | 0.94 | 0.819 | |||||||||
Item (6) | 0.863 | 0.781 | 0.941 | 0.816 |
Variables | Items | Factor Loading Coefficient | Cumulative Variance Explained Rate | KMO | Cronbach’s α Coefficient | Deleted Cronbach’s α Coefficient | Composite Reliability | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | ||
Improvement of Resource Structure | Item (1) | 0.839 | 0.835 | 72.50% | 66.39% | 0.702 p = 0.000 | 0.67 p = 0.000 | 0.823 | 0.757 | 0.767 | 0.666 | 0.894 | 0.861 |
Item (2) | 0.844 | 0.845 | 0.754 | 0.625 | |||||||||
Item (3) | 0.894 | 0.78 | 0.747 | 0.731 | |||||||||
Creation of Resource Structure | Item (4) | 0.769 | 0.829 | 0.796 | 0.734 | 0.766 | 0.611 | 0.879 | 0.849 | ||||
Item (5) | 0.863 | 0.797 | 0.743 | 0.62 | |||||||||
Item (6) | 0.887 | 0.797 | 0.647 | 0.712 |
Variables | Items | Factor Loading Coefficient | Cumulative Variance Explained Rate | KMO | Cronbach’s α Coefficient | Deleted Cronbach’s α Coefficient | Composite Reliability | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | Traditional Industries | Emerging Industries | ||
SCA | Item (1) | 0.81 | 0.93 | 70.27% | 84.09% | 0.783 p = 0.000 | 0.884 p = 0.000 | 0.893 | 0.952 | 0.874 | 0.938 | 0.922 | 0.964 |
Item (2) | 0.858 | 0.934 | 0.86 | 0.937 | |||||||||
Item (3) | 0.837 | 0.916 | 0.872 | 0.941 | |||||||||
Item (4) | 0.843 | 0.909 | 0.871 | 0.948 | |||||||||
Item (5) | 0.843 | 0.896 | 0.874 | 0.943 |
Variate | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Size | 1 | |||||||
2. Year | 0.147 * | 1 | ||||||
3. Sales | −0.017 | 0.097 | 1 | |||||
4. Exploratory Learning | −0.012 | −0.025 | −0.009 | 1 | ||||
5. Exploitative Learning | 0.148 * | −0.07 | 0.061 | 0.234 ** | 1 | |||
6. Resource Integration | 0.085 | 0.211 ** | 0.012 | 0.283 ** | 0.206 ** | 1 | ||
7. Resource Reconfiguration | 0.049 | −0.061 | −0.054 | 0.274 ** | 0.229 ** | 0.131 | 1 | |
8. SCA | 0.083 | 0.028 | −0.137 * | 0.062 | −0.002 | 0.196 ** | 0.213 ** | 1 |
Mean value | 3.060 | 3.060 | 3.080 | 3.788 | 3.694 | 3.989 | 3.583 | 3.807 |
Standard deviation | 1.394 | 1.397 | 1.431 | 0.908 | 0.976 | 0.886 | 0.626 | 0.774 |
Variate | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Size | 1 | |||||||
2. Year | 0.034 | 1 | ||||||
3. Sales | 0.088 | 0.249 ** | 1 | |||||
4. Exploratory Learning | −0.114 | −0.08 | −0.018 | 1 | ||||
5. Exploitative Learning | −0.124 | −0.104 | 0.077 | 0.546 ** | 1 | |||
6. Resource Integration | 0.004 | −0.051 | 0.141 * | 0.273 ** | 0.310 ** | 1 | ||
7. Resource Reconfiguration | −0.099 | −0.115 | −0.132 | 0.291 ** | 0.283 ** | −0.259 ** | 1 | |
8. SCA | 0.092 | 0.087 | 0.172 * | −0.114 | −0.138 * | 0.341 ** | −0.637 ** | 1 |
Mean value | 2.950 | 2.980 | 3.060 | 3.383 | 3.794 | 3.256 | 3.663 | 3.262 |
Standard deviation | 1.431 | 1.462 | 1.370 | 0.691 | 0.888 | 0.697 | 0.559 | 1.222 |
Dependent Variable: SCA | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resource Integration | Resource Reconfiguration | SCA | |||||
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | |
Constant | −0.490 | −0.467 | 0.074 | 0.093 | 0.050 | 0.105 | 0.020 |
Control Variables | |||||||
Size | 0.055 | 0.031 | 0.057 | 0.031 | 0.076 | 0.056 | 0.057 |
Year | 0.204 ** | 0.226 ** | −0.065 | −0.042 | 0.03 | 0.008 | 0.02 |
Sales | −0.007 | −0.016 | −0.047 | −0.058 | −0.138 * | −0.129 | −0.102 |
Main Research Variable | |||||||
Exploratory Learning | 0.252 *** | 0.233 ** | |||||
Exploitative Learning | 0.159 * | 0.171 * | |||||
Resource Integration | 0.168 * | 0.185 ** | |||||
Resource Reconfiguration | 0.181 ** | 0.221 ** | |||||
Resource Integration× Resource Reconfiguration | 0.216 ** | ||||||
Adjusted R2 | 0.034 | 0.133 | −0.005 | 0.088 | 0.012 | 0.072 | 0.112 |
△R2 | 0.048 | 0.106 | 0.009 | 0.101 | 0.026 | 0.068 | 0.044 |
F change | 3.403 * | 12.705 *** | 0.640 | 11.439 *** | 1.819 | 7.580 ** | 10.165 ** |
Dependent Variable: SCA | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resource Integration | Resource Reconfiguration | SCA | |||||
Model 8 | Model 9 | Model 10 | Model 11 | Model 12 | Model 13 | Model 14 | |
Constant | −0.115 | −0.195 | 0.327 | 0.263 | −0.727 | −0.278 | −0.143 |
Control Variables | |||||||
Size | −0.008 | 0.038 | −0.087 | −0.043 | 0.077 | 0.028 | 0.027 |
Year | −0.092 | −0.052 | −0.086 | −0.048 | 0.046 | 0.013 | −0.003 |
Sales | 0.165 * | 0.138 * | −0.103 | −0.127 | 0.153 * | 0.064 | 0.078 |
Main Research Variable | |||||||
Exploratory Learning | 0.160 * | 0.179 * | |||||
Exploitative Learning | 0.211** | 0.185 * | |||||
Resource Integration | 0.182 ** | 0.171 ** | |||||
Resource Reconfiguration | −0.577 *** | 0.596 *** | |||||
Resource Integration×Resource Reconfiguration | 0.070 | ||||||
Resource Reconfiguration×Resource Reconfiguration | −0.119 * | ||||||
Adjusted R2 | 0.015 | 0.111 | 0.019 | 0.111 | 0.024 | 0.432 | 0.448 |
ΔR2 | 0.028 | 0.103 | 0.032 | 0.099 | 0.037 | 0.407 | 0.021 |
F change | 2.079 | 12.732 *** | 2.385 | 12.195 *** | 2.795 * | 78.473 *** | 4.261 * |
Hypotheses | Results |
---|---|
Hypothesis 1. Organizational learning has a positive effect on resource integration. | supported |
Hypothesis 1a. Exploratory learning has a positive effect on resource integration | supported |
Hypothesis 1b. Exploitative learning has a positive effect on resource integration. | supported |
Hypothesis 2. Organizational learning has a positive effect on resource reconfiguration. | supported |
Hypothesis 2a. Exploratory learning has a positive effect on resource reconfiguration. | supported |
Hypothesis 2b. Exploitative learning has a positive effect on resource reconfiguration. | supported |
Hypothesis 3. In the traditional industry, resource integration has a positive effect on SCAs. | supported |
Hypothesis 4. In the traditional industry, resource reconfiguration has a positive effect on SCAs. | supported |
Hypothesis 5. In the traditional industry, there is a “concerto effect” between resource integration and resource reconfiguration on SCAs. | supported |
Hypothesis 6. In the emerging industry, resource integration has a positive effect on SCAs. | supported |
Hypothesis 7. In the emerging industry, resource reconfiguration has a negative effect on SCAs. | partial supported |
Hypothesis 8. In the emerging industry, there is no “concerto effect” between resource integration and resource reconfiguration on SCAs. | supported |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ma, H.; Sun, Q.; Gao, Y.; Gao, Y. Resource Integration, Reconfiguration, and Sustainable Competitive Advantages: The Differences between Traditional and Emerging Industries. Sustainability 2019, 11, 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020551
Ma H, Sun Q, Gao Y, Gao Y. Resource Integration, Reconfiguration, and Sustainable Competitive Advantages: The Differences between Traditional and Emerging Industries. Sustainability. 2019; 11(2):551. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020551
Chicago/Turabian StyleMa, Hongjia, Qing Sun, Yang Gao, and Yuan Gao. 2019. "Resource Integration, Reconfiguration, and Sustainable Competitive Advantages: The Differences between Traditional and Emerging Industries" Sustainability 11, no. 2: 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020551
APA StyleMa, H., Sun, Q., Gao, Y., & Gao, Y. (2019). Resource Integration, Reconfiguration, and Sustainable Competitive Advantages: The Differences between Traditional and Emerging Industries. Sustainability, 11(2), 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020551