Business strategy and firm reorganization: Role of changing environmental standards, sustainable business initiatives and global market conditions

Business Strategy and the Environment

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 123-144

  Ghosal, Vivek ^a,b,c  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b EBS BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Germany)

^c CESIFO   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cleaner production; Competitive advantage; Environmental standards; Incremental innovation; Organizational strategy; Productivity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84923406745     PISSN: 09644733     EISSN: 10990836     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bse.1815     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Audretsch D. 1995. Innovation and Industry Evolution. MIT Press: Cambridge.
2. Barsky J. 1999. Forest Industry Harvests a Green Future: Voluntary Investments in Technology are Setting Environmental Example. News World Communications: New York.
3. Bjorkman A, Paun D, Jacobs-Young C. 1997. Financial performance, capital expenditures, and international activities of the North American pulp and paper industry at mid-decade. TAPPI Journal 80: 71-84.
4. Bresnahan T, Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L. 2002. Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: firm-level evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 339-376.
5. Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L, Yang S. 2002. Intangible assets: computers and organizational capital. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1: 137-198.
6. Cenatempo D, McNutt J. 2005. State of the North American Pulp and Paper Industry: Industry Competitiveness and the Innovation Imperative, Forest Products Industry Education and Training Roundtable Discussion. Center for Paper Business and Industry Studies: Atlanta, GA.
7. Collins L. 1992. Environment versus industry: a case study of how the pulp and paper industry is responding to changing attitudes to the environment. Business Strategy and the Environment 1: 29-36.
8. Crowe D, Brennan L. 2007. Environmental considerations within manufacturing strategy: an international study. Business Strategy and the Environment 16: 266-289.
9. Denrell J, Fang C, Winter S. 2003. The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal 24: 977-990.
10. Dierickx I, Cool K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science 35: 1504-1511.
11. Dixit A. 1980. The role of investment in entry deterrence. The Economic Journal 9: 95-106.
12. Drucker P. 1995. Managing in a Time of Change. Truman Talley: New York.
13. Frondel M, Horbach J, Rennings K. 2007. End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries. Business Strategy and the Environment 16: 571-584.
14. Gabell L, Weaver P, Bloemhof-Ruwaard J, Van Wassenhove L. 1996. Life-cycle analysis and policy options: the case of the European pulp and paper industry. Business Strategy and the Environment 5: 156-167.
15. Ghosal V. 2002. Potential foreign competition in U.S. manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization 20: 1461-1489.
16. Ghosal V. 2008. Small is Beautiful but Size Matters: the Asymmetric Impact of Uncertainty and Sunk Costs on Small and Large Businesses. Georgia Institute of Technology: Atlanta.
17. Ghosal V, Nair-Reichert U. 2009. Investments in modernization, innovation and gains in productivity: evidence from firms in the global paper industry. Research Policy 38: 536-547.
18. Ghosal V, Stephan A, Weiss J. 2013. Decentralized Regulation, Environmental Efficiency, and Productivity, working paper. Georgia Institute of Technology.
19. González P. 2005. Analyzing the factors influencing clean technology adoption: a study of the Spanish pulp and paper industry. Business Strategy and the Environment 14: 20-37.
20. Gort M, Klepper S. 1982. Time paths in the diffusion of product innovations. The Economic Journal 92: 630-653.
21. Helminen R. 2000. Developing tangible measures for eco-efficiency: the case of the Finnish and Swedish pulp and paper industry. Business Strategy and the Environment 9: 196-210.
22. Ince P. 1999. Global cycle changes the rules for U.S. pulp and paper. PIMA's North American Papermaker 81: 37-42.
23. Jovanovic B, MacDonald G. 1994. The life cycle of a competitive industry. Journal of Political Economy 102: 322-347.
24. Klepper S. 1996. Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review 86: 562-583.
25. Klepper S, Graddy E. 1990. The evolution of new industries and the determinants of market structure. The RAND Journal of Economics 21: 27-44.
26. Koskela M, Vehmas J. 2012. Defining eco-efficiency: a case study on the Finnish forest industry. Business Strategy and the Environment 21: 546-566.
27. Li H, McCarthy P, Urmanbetova A. 2004. Containerboard Industry Review: 1970-2000. Center for Paper Business and Industry Studies, Georgia Institute of Technology: Atlanta.
28. Norberg-Bohm V, Rossi M. 1998. Power of incrementalism: environmental regulation and technological change in pulp and paper bleaching in the U.S. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 10: 225-245.
29. Pesendorfer M. 2003. Horizontal mergers in the paper industry. The RAND Journal of Economics 34: 495-515.
30. Porter M, van der Linde C. 1995a. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9: 97-118.
31. Porter M, van der Linde C. 1995b. Green and competitive: ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review 73: 120-134.
32. Saether B, Amundsen A. 1996. Cleaner production assessment in Norway: experiences and policy implications. Business Strategy and the Environment 5: 178-187.
33. Sarka R. 2008. Public policy and corporate environmental behaviour: a broader view. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15: 281-297.
34. Spender J, Grant R. 1996. Knowledge and the firm: overview. Strategic Management Journal 17: 5-9.
35. Teece D, Pisano G, Shuen A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18: 509-533.
36. Wagner M. 2009. National culture, regulation and country interaction effects on the association of environmental management systems with environmentally beneficial innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment 18: 122-136.
37. Zott C. 2003. Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intra-industry differential firm performance: insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal 24: 97-125.