Diversification and performance: evidence from East Asian firms

Abstract

We examine the impact of diversification on performance for firms operating in different institutional environments during a relatively stable period and during a major economy‐wide shock. We locate our study in six Asian countries at different levels of institutional development. Results indicate that diversification negatively impacts performance in more developed institutional environments while improving performance only in the least developed environments. Even in the least developed institutional environments, diversification offers limited benefits when an economy‐wide shock strikes. Though successful diversifiers are sometimes affiliated with business groups, diversification is associated with poorer performance for both affiliated firms and independent firms. In sum, we find that the outcomes of diversification are influenced by institutional environments, economic stability and affiliation with business groups. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Linking operations, marketing and environmental capabilities and diversification to hotel performance: A data envelopment analysis approach

“…Additionally, firms use superior environmental capability management to comply with the corporate social responsibility commitment, build reputation for natural environmental services, and earn profit on performance (Judge and Douglas, 1998;Klassen and McLaughlin, 1996). Furthermore, service diversification has two potential impacts on a company's overall performance, positive (Bettis, 1981;Chatterjee and Wernerfelt, 1991) or negative (Chakrabarti et al, 2007). Nath et al (2010) measure the impacts of functional capabilities (including marketing capability and operations capability) and diversification strategy on financial performance for the UK based logistics industry.…”

Market for Corporate Control and Contractual Buyout (CoBO): A New 'Collective Ownership-and-Administrative' Strategy

“…We further comprehend the previous studies on definite strategies such as diversification, turnaround, and foreign market entry modes (e.g., Bruton et al, 2003;Chakrabarti et al, 2007;Hennart and Reddy, 1997;Matusik and Fitza, 2012;Oh and Contractor, 2012;Reddy, 2015bReddy, , 2015c. More specifically, we recognize various linked perceptions on buyouts and entrepreneurship (e.g., Ragozzino and Reuer, 2010), emerging economies and inorganic-tactics (e.g., Brannen and Voisey, 2012;Ramamurti, 2012), and other allied contributions in the mergers and buyouts research.…”

“…Miller (2006) states that conglomerate firms produce more value from technological diversity than do single segment firms, and perform superior as technological diversity increases. Chakrabarti et al (2007) find that institutional environments, economic stability, and business group affiliation influence the outcomes of diversification. 9 In a recent study, Matusik and Fitza (2012) examine diversification in the context of venture capital firms.…”

“…We also review the studies on restructuring, diversification, and performance (e.g., Bruton, Ahlstrom, and Wan, 2003;Chakrabarti, Singh, and Mahmood, 2007;Makhija, 2004;Matusik and Fitza, 2012;Miller, 2006;Oh and 1 The authors review the extent studies on market for corporate control, and document that takeovers generate positive margins, which bidding firm shareholders do not lose where as target firm shareholders are benefited. Also, see Haleblian, Devers, McNamara, Carpenter, and Davison (2009) for the extensive review on extant merger literature.…”

A tale of two levels: the diversification of business groups

“…Previous studies have tested whether business group member firms are economically more efficient than stand-alone firms (Belenzon & Berkovitz, 2010;Carney et al, 2011;Chakrabarti, Singh, & Mahmood, 2007;Chang, 2006;Khanna, 2000;Khanna & Rivkin, 2001). …”