BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Kwiotkowska Anna (Silesian University of Technology, Poland), Gębczyńska Magdalena (Silesian University of Technology, Poland)
The Relationship Between Environmental Uncertainty and Enterprise Performance. A Fuzzy-Set Analysis
Multidisciplinary Aspects of Production Engineering, 2018, vol. 1, s. 809-816, tab., bibliogr. 33 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Niepewność, Zbiory rozmyte, Małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa
Uncertainty, Fuzzy sets, Small business
streszcz., summ.
The purpose of this paper is to explore causal complexity in the relationship between environmental uncertainty and firm's performance. Due to complexity in the external and internal environment, the relationship between environment and firm performance rests not only on a single attribute but on the interrelation and complementarities between multiple characteristics such as firm features and external factors. This study examines the influence of a firm's specific characteristics and the dimensions of environmental uncertainty on the company's performance. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis is used to analyze data collected via questionnaires from 58 Polish small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The results suggest that characteristics of the general business environment, as well as the firm-specific characteristics all matter to firm performance. In addition, our findings clearly demonstrate that the determination of high firm performance is underpinned by substantial interdependence among the selected conditions and complexity. Therefore, any particular condition may have a different or even opposite effect on the outcome depending on the presence or absence of other conditions. Based on this, we conclude that external environmental uncertainty characteristics, with the dimensions of competitive intensity, technological turbulence and market/demand turbulence, are not as important as the other conditions for high-performing firms. The study offers a new perspective on the relationship between environmental uncertainty and firm performance with its systematic comparative analysis of complex cases. It identifies different combinations of conditions (paths) leading to a high firm performance. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
  1. Al-Tuwaijri, S., Christensen, T. and Hughes, K. (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: a simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, pp. 447-471.
  2. Ansoff, HI (1987). The emerging paradigm of strategic behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 8, pp. 501-515.
  3. Aragón-Correa, J.A. and Rubio-López, E.A. (2007). Proactive corporate environmental strategies: myths and misunderstandings. Long Range Planning 40, pp. 357-381.
  4. Aragón-Correa, J.A. and Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), pp. 71-88.
  5. Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T. and Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), pp. 515-524.
  6. Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of ''best practices'' of environmental management on cost advantage: the role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43, pp. 663-680.
  7. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Vand de Velde, E. and Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institution. Journal of Business Venturing 20(2), pp. 183-216.
  8. Fiss, P.C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), pp. 1180-1198.
  9. Fiss, P.C. (2011). Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), pp. 393-420.
  10. Fiss, P.C., Marx, A. and Cambré, B. (Eds) (2013). Configurational theory and methods in organizational research: introduction. Configurational Theory and Methods in Organizational Research, 38, pp. 1-22.
  11. Galdeano-Gómez, E., Céspedes-Lorente, J. and Martínez-del-Río, J. (2008). Environmental performance and spillover effects on productivity: Evidence from horticultural firms. Journal of Environmental Management, 88, pp. 1552-1561.
  12. Grewal, R and Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: The role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), pp. 67-80.
  13. Hart, S and Banbury, C. (1994). How strategy-making processes can make a difference. Strategic Management Journal, 15(4), pp. 251-269.
  14. Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), pp. 53-71.
  15. Lester, D., Parnell, J. and Carraher, S. (2003). Organizational life cycle: a five-stage empirical approach. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(4), pp. 339-354.
  16. Link, S., Naveh, E. (2006), Standardization and discretion: does the environmental standard ISO 14001 lead to performance benefits? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53, pp. 508-519.
  17. López-Gamero, M.D., Molina-Azorín, J.F. and Claver-Cortés, E. (2009). The whole relationship between environmental variables and firm performance: Competitive advantage and firm resources as mediator variables. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(10), pp. 3110-21.
  18. Marx, A., Rihoux, B. and Ragin, C. (2013). The origins, development and application of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): the first 25 years. European Political Science Review, 6(1), pp. 115-142.
  19. Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  20. Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1984). A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management Science, 30(10), pp. 1161-1183.
  21. Nakao, Y.,Amano, A., Matsumura, K., Genba, K. and Nakano, M. (2007). Relationship between environmental performance and financial performance: an empirical analysis of Japanese corporations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, pp. 106-118.
  22. Quinn, R. and Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence. Management Science, 29(1), pp. 33-41.
  23. Ragin, C.C. (2000). Fuzzy Set Social Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
  24. Ragin, C.C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
  25. Ragin, C. C., Fiss, P. (2008). Net effects versus configurations: an empirical demonstration. In: C. C. Ragin (Ed.), Redesigning Social Inquiry, 1, pp. 190-212, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
  26. Ragin, C.C. and Sean, D. (2009). fs/QCA (Version 2.5). University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ.
  27. Russo, M.V. and Fouts, P.A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), pp. 534-559.
  28. Schneider, C.Q. and Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-Theoretic Methods in the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,.
  29. Shrivastava, P. (1995). Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal,16(1), pp. 183-200.
  30. Wagner, M. (2005). How to reconcile environmental and economic performance to improve corporate sustainability: corporate environmental strategies in the European paper industry. Journal of Environmental Management, 76, pp. 105-118.
  31. Wahba, H. (2008). Does the market value corporate environmental responsibility? An empirical examination. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, pp. 89-99.
  32. Vohora, A. and Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high - tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, pp. 147-135.
  33. Watson, K., Klingenberg, B., Polito, T. and Geurts, T. (2004). Impact of environmental management system implementation on financial performance. Management of Environmental Quality, 15, pp. 622-628.
Cytowane przez
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu