Industry classification schemes: An analysis and review

Phillips, Ryan; Ormsby, Rita

doi:10.1080/08963568.2015.1110229

Cited by 45 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many industry schemes (see Phillips & Ormsby, 2016, for a review) allow for meaningful classification of industries. Most notably, the standard industrial classification (SIC) and the North American industry classification system (NAICS) codes provide 10 and 20 large industry groupings, respectively.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing Work Team Design Characteristics Across Industries: Combining Meta-Analysis and Comprehensive Synthesis

Carter

Mead

Stewart

et al. 2018

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a comprehensive synthesis and quantitative review of studies examining relationships between team design characteristics and team performance. Across 398 primary studies, the present study meta-analytically investigated the effects of team composition, team task design, and team leadership characteristics on team performance. The study further investigates how the effects of these team design characteristics differ according to the industry context within which the team is embedded (high technology, manufacturing, service, or student). Overall, this review emphasizes the importance of continued inquiries focusing on team design while also discussing the implications of this review for theory, practice, and future research.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing Work Team Design Characteristics Across Industries: Combining Meta-Analysis and Comprehensive Synthesis

Carter

Mead

Stewart

et al. 2018

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Before moving onto an examination of the rise of intangible assets, I classify the firms into 10-industry categories based on the reclassification of the SIC codes according to the Fama-French Industrial Classification System in order to be able to look at trends at the industry level. Originally, the Fama-French Industrial Classification System was developed by Fama and French (1997) with the aim of reaching industry aggregations based on similar risk characteristics (Fama and French, 1997;Hrazdil et al, 2013;Phillips and Ormsby, 2016). The use of this classification allows us to observe the changes in the structural and technological composition of the US industries.…”

Section: Industrial Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of intangible assets in explaining the investment–profit puzzle

Orhangazi

2018

Cambridge Journal of Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Starting around the early 2000s, and especially after the 2008 crisis, the rate of capital accumulation for US nonfinancial corporations has slowed down despite relatively high profitability; indicating a weakening of the link between profitability and investment. While the literature mostly focuses on financialisation and globalisation as the reasons behind this slowdown, I suggest adding another layer to these explanations and argue that, in conjunction with financialisation and globalisation, we need to pay attention to the increased use of intangible assets by nonfinancial corporations in the last two decades. Intangibles such as brand names, trademarks, patents and copyrights play a role in the widening of the profit–investment gap as the use of these assets enables firms to increase market power and profitability without necessarily generating a corresponding increase in fixed capital investment. After discussing the ways nonfinancial corporations use intangible assets, I look at large corporations in the USA and find the following: (i) The ratio of intangible assets to the capital stock increased in general. This increase is highest for firms in high-technology, healthcare, nondurables and telecommunications. (ii) Industries with higher intangible asset ratios have lower investment to profit ratios. (iii) Industries with higher intangible asset ratios have higher markups and profitability. (iv) The composition of the nonfinancial corporate sector has changed and the weight of high-technology and healthcare firms has increased; but this increase did not correspond to an equal increase in their investment share. The decline in the investment share of durables, nondurables and machinery is matched by an increase in the investment share of location-specific industries with low intangible asset use, most notably firms in energy extraction. In general, these firms have steadier markups and higher investment to profit ratios. (v) Yet, intangible-intensive industries’ profitability has increased faster than their share of investment or total assets. All in all, these findings are in line with the suggestion that the increased use of intangible assets enables firms to have high profitability without a corresponding increase in investment.

show abstract

“…2). The categories were adapted from the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), a widely used classification system (Phillips and Ormsby 2016). Since sectoral categorization of sharing has not been established, we used the SIC to capture a wide range of sharing practices.…”

Section: Methodsologymentioning

confidence: 99%

What and how are we sharing? A systematic review of the sharing paradigm and practices

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sharing of resources, goods, services, experiences and knowledge is one of the fundamental practices that has been widely embedded in human nature. With the advance of information and communication technology, the realm of sharing has expanded drastically, which has led to the evolution of the 'sharing paradigm'. In spite of the increasing attention on the new sharing phenomenon and its potential contribution to a sustainable and resilient society, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding of varied sharing practices in the context of sustainability and resilience. This study maps out the academic landscape of sharing studies and examines what and how we share by a systematic literature review. Based on the review of 297 peer-reviewed papers, we explore the features of varied sharing practices identified in academia. We also discuss research gaps in sharing paradigm studies and the potential contribution of sharing to building sustainable and resilient societies. Our results show regional and sectoral imbalances in the sharing studies. The findings also illustrate that sharing of manufactured goods and accommodations, and access-based sharing with monetary compensation via intermediaries such as online platforms are predominant. Our evaluation provides a bird's-eye view of existing sharing studies and practices, enabling the discovery of new opportunities for sustainable and resilient societies.

show abstract

Industry classification schemes: An analysis and review

Cited by 45 publications

References 13 publications

Reviewing Work Team Design Characteristics Across Industries: Combining Meta-Analysis and Comprehensive Synthesis

Reviewing Work Team Design Characteristics Across Industries: Combining Meta-Analysis and Comprehensive Synthesis

The role of intangible assets in explaining the investment–profit puzzle

What and how are we sharing? A systematic review of the sharing paradigm and practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About