Resource Immobility and Sustained Performance: A Systematic Assessment of How Immobility Has Been Considered in Empirical Resource‐based Studies

Abstract

The core notion of the resource‐based view (RBV) is that the possession of certain resources can result in superior performance and, in order for this performance to be sustained, these resources cannot be perfectly mobile. Whereas previous reviews have mainly focused on the relationship between resources and temporary performance, no studies have systematically analyzed the extent to which empirical RBV studies have specifically considered immobility of resources. By analyzing a sample of 218 empirical RBV studies, the authors found that 17% of the studies directly measured some dimension of immobility (by, for example, actually measuring the level of social complexity, unique history, tacitness or tradability). Fewer than 2% of the studies measured the outcome of resource immobility, i.e. sustained performance differences. Based on these results, this paper discusses the consequences of overlooking this key dimension of the RBV (i.e. immobility) and suggests that, and discusses how, future research should consider resource immobility to a greater extent.

A resource-based view on non-urban regional flourishing in Europe

“…The theory was developed further in order to extend the maturity phase between 1990-1999. Current leading RBT research, from year 2000-2015, is looking among others, at how immobile resources can strengthen the theory (Andersén, Jansson and Ljungqvist, 2015). The color coding in Figure 1 is as follows: the main findings are in red; the basic RBV requirements are in black; development of the RBV to RBT is in blue; development from the VRIN framework to the VRIO framework, with combined resources is in green.…”

“…New data are needed to develop the RBT further. Several researchers have studied the connection between resources and temporary profitability, but few have studied the connection with immobility, time, location and uncertainty (Andersén, Jansson and Ljungqvist, 2015;Kraaijenbrink, Spender and Groen, 2010). Previous research focused on how time, location and uncertainty can contribute to the RBT's development, but no specific suggestions were made on how location can affect value and other resource features (Kraaijenbrink, Spender and Groen, 2010).…”

“…Thereafter, new developments and renewals of RBT began with a critical examination of earlier empirical studies (Andersén, Jansson and Ljungqvist, 2015). Previously, RBT and the lack of transparent empirical results were highly criticized.…”

“…These attributes make resources more difficult to imitate (Barney, 1991). An example of inimitability is when a resource is socially embedded in internal and/or external relationships (Andersén, Jansson and Ljungqvist, 2015).…”

“…(Barney, 1986). Andersén, Jansson and Ljungqvist (2015) discuss how the two sub-dimensions of resource immobility (imitability and tradability) are factors that can limit access to resources on a factor market, including labor, capital and natural resources, the so-called "tradability limitations". The addition of tradability limitations to the inimitability concept leads to the new concept of resource immobility, where the tradability limitations and imitability of resources are examined (Andersén, Jansson and Ljungqvist, (2015).…”