The Effect of Institutional Factors on the Sustainable Performance of Firms

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, University of Guilan.

2 Ph.D. Student, University of Tehran, (College of Farabi)

Abstract

    Today, free zones, especially in developing countries, are used as a means to enter global markets. These areas, with strong foundation of support (resources, laws, policies, and communications, etc.), impact performance of resident companies. This paper, with a strategic approach to this economic infrastructure, from two external perspectives (institutional factors) and internal perspective (dynamic capabilities of exploration and exploitation) investigates the sustainability of firms in Anzali free trade-industrial zone. To this end, 151 active companies in Anzali free trade-industrial zone (each company a senior manager) are surveyed during the study through questionnaire. Finally, the results of the conducted analysis using structural equation modeling and Smart PLS showed that, first, institutional factors affect sustainable performance and ambidexterity (as the ability to combine the exploitation and exploration) of the firms in Anzali free trade-industrial zone. Second, ambidexterity affects sustainable performance of firms both directly and indirectly.

Keywords

References

  1. Akbari, M., Ebrahimpour, M., & Hooshmand Chayjany, M. (2015). The effect on export performance trend of entrepreneurship and innovation ambidexterity new products with the moderation of the intensity of product innovation in the automotive industry. Journal of Innovation Management, 4(4), 81-106. (In Persian)
  2. Ambos, T. C., Makela, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447.
  3. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.
  4. Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability–rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61-83.
  5. Birkinshaw, j., & Gupta, k. (2013). Clarifying the Distinctive Contribution of Ambidexterity to The Field of Organization Studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287-298.
  6. Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dorfler, V., & Nudurupati, S. (2012). Performance measurement: challenges for tomorrow. International Journal Management Review, 14(3), 305–327.
  7. Bourlakis, M., Maglaras, G., Aktas, E. & Gallear, D. (2014). Firm size and sustainable performance in food supply chains: Insights from Greek SMEs. International Journal Production Economics, 152, 112-130.
  8. Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796.
  9. Chen, Y., Okudan, G. E., & Riley, D. R. (2010). Sustainable performance criteria for construction method selection in concrete buildings. Automation in Construction, 19, 235–244.
  10. Chiu, R.-H., LIirn, T.-C., LI, C.-Y., LU, B.-Y., & Shang, K.-C. (2011). An Evaluation of Free Trade Port Zone in Taiwan. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 27(3), 423-446.
  11. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
  12. Doostar, M., & Akbari, M. (2012). Writing Scientific Research (research projects, dissertations, articles and defense session). Rasht: Dhsra publications. (in Persian)
  13. Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization design: Strategies and implementation (pp. 167–188). New York: North Holland.
  14. Gaur, A. S., Kumar, V., & Singh, D. (2013). Institutions, resources, and internationalization of emerging economy firms. Journal of World Business, 49(1), 12-20.
  15. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
  16. Gordon, J., Lee, P.-M., & Lucas Jr., H. (2005). A resource-based view of competitive advantage at the Port of Singapore. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(1), 69-86.
  17. Guo, H., Xu, E., & jacobs, M. (2014). Managerial political ties and firm performance during institutional transitions: An analysis of mediating mechanisms. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 116-127.
  18. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
  19. Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring Organizational Performance: Beyond the Triple Bottom Line. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18, 177-191.
  20. Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators, Management science, 52(11), 1661-1674.
  21. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215-233.
  22. Li, Y. H., & Huang, J. W. (2012). Ambidexterity’s mediating impact on product development proficiency and new product performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(7), 1125–1132.
  23. Lin H. E., McDonough E. F., Lin S. J., & Lin C. Y. (2013), Managing the exploitation/exploration paradox: The role of a learning capability and innovation ambidexterity, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2), 262–278.
  24. Lin, L. H., & Ho, Y. L. (2016). Institutional Pressures and Environmental Performance in the Global Automotive Industry: The Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Long Range Planning, 49(6), 764-775.
  25. Liu, W. (2006). Knowledge exploitation, knowledge exploration, and competency trap. Knowledge and Process Management, 13(3), 144-161.
  26. Lubatkin, M. H., Simesek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.
  27. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
  28. Nekuny Zadeh, M., Hosseini, S. M., Qareh cheh, M., V., & Haji Karim, A. (2014). Dynamic modeling capabilities and dynamic environment related structural path. Business Administration Perspective, 21, 85-103. (in Persian)
  29. Qareh cheh, M., Haji Karim, A.., Khoddadi Hosseini, S. H., & Makyzadh, V. (2014). Model performance of strategic alliances: capabilities-based approach. Business Administration Perspective, 21, 13-28. (in Persian)
  30. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.
  31. Russo, A., & Tencati, A. (2009). Formal vs. informal CSR strategies: evidence from Italian micro, small, medium-sized, and large Firms. Journal Bussiness Ethics, 85, 339–353.
  32. Shiva, a., Aghazadeh, H., & Haideri, A. (2016). The impact of market orientation duality and dichotomy of innovation on firm performance. Business Administration Perspective, 25, 13-32. (in Persian)
  33. Simpson, D. (2012). Institutional pressure and waste reduction: The role of investments in waste reduction resources. International Journal Production Economics, 139, 330-339.
  34. Stadler, C., Rajwani, T., & Karaba, F. (2014). Solutions to the exploration/exploitation dilemma: Networks as a new level of analysis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(2), 172-193.
  35. Tiefenbrun, S. (2013). U.S. foreign trade zones of the united states, free trade zones of the world, and their impact on the economy. Journal of international business and law, 12(2), 151-221.
  36. Zubir, A. F. M. & Habidin, N. F. (2012). The Development of Sustainable Manufacturing Practices and Sustainable Performance in Malaysian Automotive Industry. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 3(7), 130-138.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 September 2017
  • Revise Date: 23 June 2021
  • Accept Date: 31 December 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics