Vol. 6, Núm. 2, mayo-agosto 2022
Corporate Diversification and Firm Performance:
Theoretical Boundaries and Proposed Research Agenda.
Salvador Hernández Sánchez1
Recibido: 08/12/2021
Aceptado: 09/03/2022
REVISTA RELAYN, Micro y pequeña empresa en Latinoamérica
Disponible en: https://iquatroeditores.com/ revista/index.php/relayn/index
https://doi.org/10.46990/relayn.2022.6.2.580
Abstract
By applying a meta-narrative review approach and thematic analysis, 202 articles over the period 2000-2020 were evaluated to identify and collate the literature on corporate diversification and firm performance into six theoretical perspectives: in- dustrial economics, resource-based view, agency theory, financial perspective, organizational lear- ning and institutional perspective. A novel re- search agenda is proposed that suggests two alter- native explanations: the geopolitical and historical perspectives. It is concluded that these should be part to the study of corporate diversification and firm performance.
Keywords
Corporate Diversification; Review; Historical; Geopolitical
Introduction
The theoretical perspectives that explain the re- lationship between corporate diversification and firm performance are extensive and diverse. In- dustrial economic theory asserts that as firms di- versify firm performance becomes positive due to a higher market power, economies of scale and scope and factors related to industry profitability until a certain point where the performance beco- mes negative as firms becomes more diverse, theo- rizing a U-inverted relationship (Palich, Cardinal & Miller, 2000). The financial approach states that diversified firms operate with a diversification discount or at least a constant relationship with performance; diversification leads to financial synergies, risk reduction and more debt capacity that are surmounted by the higher costs of mana- ging a more diverse firm (Nippa, Pidun & Rubner, 2011). The agency theory declares that diversifi- cation has a negative relationship with firm per- formance because managers of the firms diversify to obtain private benefits and entrench themselves in the firm at the expense of overall performance (Aggarwal & Samwick, 2003). The organizational learning approach suggests that diversified firms
21
Salvador Hernández Sánchez. Corporate Diversification and Firm Performance: Theoretical Boundaries and Proposed Research Agenda.
acquired knowledge through past diversification experiences, therefore, firms that diversify multiple times show higher performance due to the learning process, thus, a positive relationship is expected (Andreou, Lou- ca & Petrou, 2016). Institutional perspective claims that diversified firms exhibit a positive performance in emerging economies by compensating for the inefficiencies of capital, labor and product markets of the country; however, this relationship becomes negative when diversified firms ope- rate in developed economies as advantages of diversification tend to disa- ppear due to institutionally stronger country environments (Benito-Oso- rio, Guerras- Martin, Zuñiga-Vicente, 2012). The resource-based view states that a diversified firm possesses a wider range of intangible and va- luable resources and capabilities that share among business developing sy- nergies and a positive influence in the relationship with firm performance (Hauschild & Knyphausen-Aufseß, 2013). These perspectives could help researchers to understand the heterogeneity of empirical results found in different studies; positive, negative, non-linear or constant relationships. Yet, these traditional approaches may not be enough to explain the nature of this relationship. Therefore, it is discussed that alternative perspectives might help to explain the heterogeneity of this linkage: the historical and geopolitical perspectives.
The purpose of this study is to identify and collate the traditional theoretical perspectivesthat helptoexplaintherelationship between corpo- rate diversification and firm performance to propose a research agenda that includes two alternative perspectives. Thus, the next question is presented:
What are the theoretical perspectives that help to explain the relationship between corporate diversification and firm performance?
This paper contributes to diversification research in at least three important ways. First, it reviews and collates the perspectives that help to explain the relationship between diversification and firm perfor- mance. Second, it identifies the theoretical rationale, main subtopics and assumptions of each approach. Third, it proposes a research agenda that offers two alternative explanations to the study of corporate diversification and firm performance.
Review Methodology
The review methodology follows the four phases and guidelines of Snyder (2019).
Phase 1: In the first phase, the literature review is designed. In designing the review, the plan is to detect the theoretical approaches that explain the diversification-performance linkage. Thus, an initial scanning of other literature reviews is performed. As the review evolved, it revealed a large body of research studied from distinct theoretical approaches with many subtopics and conducted by different groups of researchers. The- refore, a semi-systematic or meta-narrative review approach is applied. Two distinct searching strategies to select studies were employed. The
JEL: M0 Generalidades
M1 Administración de empresas
22
REVISTA RELAYN, 2022, 6(2), Mayo-Agosto, ISSN: 2594-1674
first, used the following key terms: ‘Corporate Diversification and perfor- mance’, ‘Multi-business and performance’, ‘Scope of the firm’, ‘Conglome- rates and performance’, ‘Diversification literature review’ and ’Diversifica- tion Meta-Analysis’ within 9 databases, Ebsco Business, Elsevier, Web of Knowledge, Springer, IEEE, Emerald, JSTOR, ABI/Inform and Pro-quest to identify all articles that report these words either in the title, abstract or keywords. The second strategy consists of using forward and backward citation tracking to find seminal articles iteratively. In specific, literatu- re review articles were citation-tracked to identify theoretical approaches and empirical findings. The synthesis includes articles from the last 20 years from 2000 to 2020, also, literature reviews, theoretical and empirical findings are included in the examination. In addition, articles have to be written in English and be peer-reviewed.
Phase 2: Conducting the review. The review process is tested on a smaller sample by reading the abstracts to make the appropriate selec- tion and then the full analysis of the articles later, before the final selection. In addition, references in the selected articles are mapped to identify pos- sible relevant studies. Selected articles are classified into two groups from the years 2000 to 2010 and from 2011 to 2020 to organize more clearly the data and also to identify possible trends.
Phase 3: Analysis. Given that various groups of researchers wi- thin different disciplines have used different theoretical approaches and subtopics, as well as, different methods and used distinct criteria to analyze diversification-performance linkage, a thematic analysis is applied rather than statistical techniques. This qualitative technique is applied to iden- tify and categorize the articles into each traditional theoretical approach along with their underlying subtopics. The review is conducted by reading the abstract, theoretical basis and conclusions of each article in the final sample. The theoretical rationale and main subtopics of each traditional approach are identified by coding and contrasting common features in the articles (Wong, et al., 2013).
Phase 4: Writing the review. The review is written to provide a clear summary of the theoretical perspectives, their rationale and main subtopics within each approach. The numbers of articles reviewed, number of journals and classification of the manuscripts are provided. The classi- fication is summarized in one table including their logic and assumptions and, the second table, summarizes the main subtopics and the collection of authors in the period selected.
Licencia de Creative Common Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.es
23
Salvador Hernández Sánchez. Corporate Diversification and Firm Performance: Theoretical Boundaries and Proposed Research Agenda.
Results
The final sample resulted in 202 articles matching the criteria; 17 were lite- rature review papers and 185 were theoretical and empirical studies within 91 journals. To summarize the number of documents and source of origin, the following figure is provided.
Figure 2.1
Scheme of research
The thematic analysis involved, first, familiarizing with diversi- fication research data and noting initial ideas, then, the coding process is created where common features across the articles are collected to group them into potential theoretical themes. An iterative analysis to re-define, name and synthesize properly the themes resulted in six traditional pers- pectives, their core logic and main assumptions are summarized in the next table.
JEL: M0 Generalidades
M1 Administración de empresas
24
REVISTA RELAYN, 2022, 6(2), Mayo-Agosto, ISSN: 2594-1674
Table 2.1
Summary of traditional perspectives and their core logic and assumptions.
Theoretical perspective
Core logic and assumptions
Industrial economics
Industrial economics evaluates diversification in terms of its influence on competition, industry and technical productivity.
Diversified firms may use cash generated through one business to cross-subsidize another increasing market power and generating econo- mies of scale and scope.
The benefits of diversification can be exploited to only a certain degree of diversification, stating a U-inverted relationship with performance.
Resource-ba- sed view
Resource-based view assess diversification with relation to the bundle of resources and capabilities that can be shared among business. Diversified firms develop synergies and a positive moderating impact on performance by sharing and exploiting related resources.
The benefits of diversification may increase with related resources and decrease with unrelated resources, asserting a U-inverted relationship.
Agency Theory
Agency theory considers diversification in terms of the conflicts of inte- rest that may arise between managers and stakeholders.
Firm managers diversify to obtain power and compensations, reduce individual employment risk and entrench themselves in the firm at the expense of overall performance.
Diversification reduces firm performance due to agency problems.
Financial Perspective
Financial perspective views diversification regarding its impact on finan- cial performance, debt capacity and risk reduction.
Diversified firms operate with a discount in value due to the high costs to run a diversified firm potentially overcoming financial synergies. Diversification reduces value or at least produces a constant relationship.
Organizatio- nal Learning
Organizational learning evaluates diversification in terms of the learning process from past experiences and organizational knowledge transfer. Firms that diversify multiple times have greater performance than single firms due to the learning process and prior diversification experiences. Diversification increases performance as the firm acquires experience and learns from prior diversifications.
Licencia de Creative Common Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.es
25
Salvador Hernández Sánchez. Corporate Diversification and Firm Performance: Theoretical Boundaries and Proposed Research Agenda.
Institutional perspective
Institutional perspective studies diversification emphasizing the influen- ce of institutional environment, country development and public policy. Diversified firms exhibit a positive performance in emerging economies by compensating for the inefficiencies of capital, labor and product mar- kets of the country but a negative performance in developed economies due to the potentially stronger institutions.
Diversification increases performance in emerging economies and redu- ces it in developed economies.
The analysis of others literature review studies helped to identi- fy relevant diversification trends, main subtopics and seminal papers that were citation-tracked forward and backwards (Guerras-Martin et al., 2020; Schommer et al., 2019; Lüthge, 2018; Ahuja & Novelli, 2017; Mehmood & Hillman, 2017; Picone & Dagnino, 2016; Dhir & Dhir, 2015; Erdorf et al., 2013; Weiss, 2013; Hauschild & Knyphausen-Aufseß, 2013; Purkayastha et al., 2012; Benito-Osorio et al., 2012; Wan et al., 2011; Nippa et al., 2011; Bausch & Pils, 2009; Martin & Sayrak, 2003; Palich et al., 2000).
Table 2.2
Theoretical perspectives and subtopics on the diversification-performance linkage.
Theoretical Perspectives
Main Subtopics
2000-2010
Authors
2011-2020
Industrial Economics
1. Market power
2. Industry analysis 3. Internal capital
markets
4. Economies of scope and scale 5. Conglomerates and group affi- liation
6. Technology & productivity
Liebeskind (2000);Narasimhan & Kim (2002); Maksimovic & Phillips (2002); Park (2003); Li & Greenwood (2004); Helfat & Eis- enhardt (2004); Stern &Henderson (2004); Jandik & Makhija (2005); Varanasi (2005); Wiersema & Bowen (2005, 2008); Fukui & Ushi- jima (2006); Yan (2006); Leten et al. (2007); Tan et al. (2007); Lafontaine
& Slade (2007); Doukas & Kan (2008); Tanriverdi & Lee (2008); Schmid & Walter (2009); He (2009); Ganco & Agarwal (2009); Çolak, G. (2010); Rawley (2010)
Banker, Wattal & Plehn-Du- jowich (2011); Purkayastha (2013); Zahavi & Lavie (2013); Seru (2014); Matvos & Seru (2014); Su & Tsang (2015); Hashai (2015); Sun & Govind (2017); La Rocca et al. (2018); Westerman et al. (2020)
Resource based view
1. Resources and Capabilities
2. Competitive advantage
3. Dynamic capabi- lities
4. Synergies and knowledge
5. Heterogeneity of the firm
Geringer et al. (2000); Matsusaka (2001); Galunic & Eisenhardt (2001); Valvano &Vannoni (2003); Piscitello (2004);Gary (2005);
Kor &Leblebici (2005) ; Wang & Barney (2006);Pehrsson (2006); Ng (2007); Fang et al. (2007); Chari et al. (2008);Døving & Gooder- ham (2008);Ravichandran et al. (2009);Eisenhardt &Martin (2010); Nath et al. (2010) Lichtenthaler (2010)
Liu &Hsu (2011); Villasalero (2013, 2015, 2017)
JEL: M0 Generalidades
M1 Administración de empresas
26
REVISTA RELAYN, 2022, 6(2), Mayo-Agosto, ISSN: 2594-1674
Agency Theory
1. Conflicts of interest
2. Individual em- ployment risk 3. Compensations and perquisites 4. Entrenchment incentive
Boot &Schmeits (2000); Sha- ffer &Hillman (2000); Ueng &Wells(2001);Cronqvist et al. (2001);Hyland &Diltz (2002);Tho- mas (2002); De Motta (2003);Ag- garwal &Samwick (2003);Jensen & Zajac (2004); Best et al. (2004);Gong et al. (2007); Xiaorong & Rwegasira (2008);Lim et al. (2008) ;Jiraporn et al. (2008); Lim et al. (2009)
El Mehdi &Seboui (2011); Tong(2011); Dhir & Mital (2012) Hoechle et al.(2012); La Rocca &Stagliano (2012); Goetz et al. (2013); Castañer &Kavadis (2013); Farooqi et al. (2014); Choe et al. (2014) Ataullah et al. (2014); Sta- gliano et al. (2014); Arikan & Stulz (2016); Oxley &Pandher (2016); Alhadab & Ngu- yen(2018); Mili et al. (2019)
Financial Perspective
1. Risk reduction 2. Mergers and
Acquisitions
3. Financial syner- gies
4. Corporate invest- ments
5. Financial costs 6. Stock markets 7. Debt capacity and tax shields
Chevalier (2000); Rajan et al. (2000); Lamont &Polk (2001);Hadlock et al. (2001);
Whited (2001); Mansi & Reeb
(2002); Campello (2002) Graham et al. (2002);Denis et al (2002) ;Campa &Kedia (2002); Ferris et al. (2003)
Burch &Nanda (2003); Gomes &Livdan (2004) ;Carrieri et al.
(2004) ; Villalonga (2004a, 2004b) ; Stowe &Xing (2006); Laeven &
Levine (2007); Hayden et al. (2007); Rhodes-Kropf &Robinson (2008) ; Massa &Rehman (2008); Lelyveld &Knot (2009); Akbulut & Mat- susaka (2010); Mitton & Vorkink (2010);Klein &Saidenberg (2010) ;Hoberg &Phillips (2010);Hund et al. (2010) ; Yan et al. (2010) ; Berger et al. (2010);Glase et al. (2010); Grass (2010);Elsas et al. (2010)
Anderson et al. (2011); Gatzert &Schmeiser (2011) ;Marinelli (2011); Ammann et al. (2012); Rudolph & Schwetzler (2014) ; Manrai et
al. (2014); Custodio (2014); Volkov &Smith (2015); Liang et al. (2016) Kuppuswamy & Villalonga (2016) ; Anjos & Fracassi (2018) ;Bielstein et al. (2018) ; Cheng &Wu (2018)
Licencia de Creative Common Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.es
27
Salvador Hernández Sánchez. Corporate Diversification and Firm Performance: Theoretical Boundaries and Proposed Research Agenda.
Institutional Perspective
1. nstitutional envi- ronment
2. Public policies 3. Country/region
development 4. Institutional
voids
5. Cross-country analysis
6. Legal systems
Claessens et al. (2000); Shaffer and Hillman (2000) Khanna & Rivkin (2001); Khanna &Palepu (2000); Kock &Guillen (2001); Ramirez &Espitia (2002); Lins & Servaes (2002);
Kogut et al. (2002); Mayer & Whi- ttington (2003); Wan& Hoskisson (2003); Laurila &Ropponen (2003); Li &Wong (2003); Szelesset al. (2003); Ramaswamy et al. (2004); Fauver et al. (2004); Hoskisson et al. (2005); Peng et al. (2005) Wan (2005); Chang et al. (2006); Peng & Delios (2006); Shackman (2007); Chakrabarti et al. (2007); Santalo & Becerra (2008); Delios et al. (2008); Lee, et al. (2008); Dos Santos et al. (2008); Singh et al. (2010); David et al. (2010)
Diestre &Rajagopalan (2011) ;Braakmann et al. (2011); Chen &Chu (2012) ;Nanker- vis &Singh (2012); Oyewobi et al. (2013) ; Kang (2013); Nachum (2014); Jara- Bertin et al. (2015); Akben(2015); Seifzadeh (2017); Bhatia & Thakur (2018); Brahmana et al. (2019); Zuñiga-Vicente et al. (2019); Setianto (2020)
Organizatio- nal Learning
1. Diversification experiences
2. Learning and knowledge transfer
3. Organizational issues
Tanriverdi &Venkatraman (2005) ; Bergh &Lim (2008) Hutzschenreuter &Guenther (2008) Cao &Liu (2010)
Bardolet et al. (2011); Kim et al. (2011); Chen et al. (2013); Theodorakopoulos et al. (2014) ; Mayer et al. (2014) ;Villasalero (2014)
Sohl &Vroom (2014) ; Sakhartov &Folta (2014); Andreou et al.(2016); Ryu et al. (2020)
ProposedResearch Agenda
This study wasconductedto provide anexhaustive review of theoretical and empirical articles that explain the relationship between diversification and firm performance to identify theoretical gaps that have been overlooked. In fact, the meta-narrative review approach and thematic analysis have revea- led twoimportant perspectives: the historical andgeopolitical perspectives.
Geopolitical perspective
The concept of Geopolitics was coined by Rudolf Kjellén in 1914 and then developed by German General Prof. Karl Haushofer during World War. Classical geopolitical thought is based on the political power to control and compete for geographical space (Engelbrekt, 2018). In this context policy makers sometimes encourage firms to diversify into new sectors via suggestions or global regulatory policies. Thus, diversified firms and states are constantly interrelated and influencing each other to bargain strategic positions (Abdelal, 2015; Schneider, 2009).
The geopolitical perspective may evaluate diversification in ter- ms of global externalities, geopolitical regulatory policies and strategic geography. In this perspective, natural resources, territory and intergover- nmental communities may rise as a global externalities influencing diver- sification and firm performance. It is also argued that the impact of global
JEL: M0 Generalidades
M1 Administración de empresas
28
REVISTA RELAYN, 2022, 6(2), Mayo-Agosto, ISSN: 2594-1674
regulatory policies on diversification results, as international government authorities may impose constraints to certain industries, in case of global crisis, conflict or sanitary issues. Properties of topography, allocation and transportation of products, logistic access to ports, sea lanes and cargo airports may influence the relationship between corporate diversification and firm performance. Also, the interactions between human society and ecological environment may shape the decisions to diversify. These argu- ments suggest factors that have been neglected according to this literature review, thus, the following research questions are raised:
Does the geopolitical perspective help to explain the diversifica- tion-performance linkage?
Do the global externalities, geopolitical policies and strategic geography influence the diversification-performance linkage?
Historical perspective
The history of business view involves complex interactions between indus- tries, entrepreneurs, socio-political environment and firms in their histo- rical context. In this perspective, the evolution of firms and historical re- lations contribute to have a deeper understanding of business phenomena including strategies and performance (Jong, Higgins & van Driel, 2015).
The historical perspective may view corporate diversification with regard to historical events, temporal dynamics and historical cultural traditions. A proper study of the historical context can clarify corpora- te diversification research in given historical events by finding key advice documents from the past that offers alternative explanations (Rutterford &Sotiropoulos, 2016). This perspective includes the study of temporal dy- namics prompted by innovations and technical revolutions and how they may shape the different strategies and performance (Perez, 2010). In this scenario, strategies and firm outcomes may be explained by periodical in- dustrial-technical revolutions over time. Hence, the relationship between diversification and performance may be mediated by historical trends and patterns. In this perspective, diversification may also be related to cultural and historical traditions (i.e., shared education, symbolic structures and language) as these may guide firm behavior and results. It is stated that the relationship between corporate diversification and performance draws upon a set of commonly shared meanings, discourses and symbolic struc- tures of culture that are embedded in human physical and mental daily activities. Therefore, according to these factors, historical understanding of the context might help to explain diversification and performance, thus, the next questions are presented:
Does the historical perspective help to explain the diversifica- tion-performance linkage?
Do the historical events, temporal dynamics and cultural-histo- rical traditions influence the diversification-performance linkage?
Licencia de Creative Common Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.es
29
Salvador Hernández Sánchez. Corporate Diversification and Firm Performance: Theoretical Boundaries and Proposed Research Agenda.
Summary of perspectives
Based on the narrative literature review approach and thematic analysis of 202 articles, two alternative perspectives to explain corporate diversifica- tion and performance are proposed, as summarized in the following table.
Table 2.3
roposed theoretical perspectives and subtopics on the diversification research.
Proposed theoretical perspectives
Subtopics
Geopolitical perspective
Global externalities Geopolitical policies Strategic Geography
Historical perspective
Historical events Temporal dynamic
Cultural-historical traditions
Discussion
This paper reveals six theoretical perspectives, and proposes two alternati- ve approaches to the study of the relationship between corporate diversifi- cation and firm performance. Although, the review and research method allow to develop and tailor the survey process to ensure the appropriate li- terature is covered, it may not be sufficient to properly classify the themes. The large body of research, overlap between the themes and theoretical contradictions may hinder such endeavor. However, this article highlights the lack of consideration for geopolitical and historical perspectives from previous literature review studies, theoretical and empirical papers.
This study has different implications for research and practice. In research, scholars interested in this relationship may use this review to identify the theoretical boundaries that have been discussed over the last 20 years. Also, it assistances to develop an integrated framework and promote further investigations on the subject. In practice, this study may assist corporate managers to make better diversification decisions for cor- porate planning and particularly resource allocation among business by considering the theoretical perspectives here presented. It may also help them to identify guidelines on important contingencies that may affect diversified firms.
Conclusion
The relationship between corporate diversification and firm performance cover a multidisciplinary and broad literature. Overall, research on cor- porate diversification offers a traditional set of perspectives to explain the nature of this relationship. The evidence suggests six theoretical perspec- tives to explain diversification and performance: industrial economics, resource-based view, organizational learning, institutional perspective, agency theory and financial perspective. This study suggests an historical
JEL: M0 Generalidades
M1 Administración de empresas
30
REVISTA RELAYN, 2022, 6(2), Mayo-Agosto, ISSN: 2594-1674
and a geopolitical approach and their main subtopics as alternative expla- nations. It is concluded that these perspectives should be part to the study of corporate diversification and firm performance.
Note
The theoretical and empirical studies analyzed in this review can be pro- vided upon request.
References
Abdelal, R. (2015). The multinational firm and geopolitics: Europe, Rus- sian energy, and power. Journal of Business Politics, 17(3): 553- 576.
Aggarwal R. &Samwick A. (2003). Whydo managers diversify their firms? Agency reconsidered. The Journal of Finance, 58(1), 71-118.
Ahuja, G., &Novelli, E. (2017). Redirecting research efforts on the diversi- fication-performance linkage: The search for synergy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 342–390.
Andreou, C. P., Louca, C., & Petrou, P. A. (2016). Organizational learning and corporate diversification performance. Journal of Business Research. 69(9), 3270-3284.
Bausch, A., & Pils, F. (2009). Product diversification strategy and financial performance: Meta-analytic evidence on causality and cons- truct multidimensionality. Review of Management Science, 3, 157–190.
Benito-Osorio, D., Guerras-Martin, L.A., & Zuñiga-Vicente, J.A. (2012). Four decades of research on product diversification: A literature review. Management Decision, 50(2),325–344.
Dhir, S., & Dhir, S. (2015). Diversification: Literature review and issues. Strategic Change,24(6), 569.
Engelbrekt, K. (2018). A brief intellectual history of geopolitical thought and its relevance to the Baltic Sea region. Global Affairs, 4(4), 475-485.
Guerras-Martín, L., Ronda-Pupo G., Benito-Osorio, D., & Zúñiga-Vicen- te, J. (2020). Half a century of research on corporate diversifi- cation: A new comprehensive framework. Journal of Business Research, 114, 124-141.
Hauschild, S & Knyphausen-Aufseß, D (2013). The resource-based view of diversification success: Conceptual issues, methodological flaws, and future directions. Review of Managerial Science, 7(3) 327-363.
Jong, A., Higgins, D. & van Driel H. (2015) Towards a new business his- tory? Business History, 57, 5-29.
Licencia de Creative Common Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.es
31
Salvador Hernández Sánchez. Corporate Diversification and Firm Performance: Theoretical Boundaries and Proposed Research Agenda.
Lüthge, A. (2018). The concept of relatedness in diversification research: Review and synthesis. Review of Managerial Science, 1-35.
Martin, J. D., & Sayrak, A. (2003). Corporate diversification and sharehol- der value: A survey of recent literature. Journal of Corporate Finance, 9(1), 37–57.
Mehmood, K. K., &Hilman, H. (2017). Four decades of academic research on product diversification-performance relationship: Analysis and foresight. Journal for Global Business Advancement, 10(1), 43–61.
Nippa M., & Pidun U. & Rubner H. (2011). Corporate Portfolio Manage- ment: Appraising four decades of academic research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4), 50-66.
Palich, L. E., Cardinal, L. B., & Miller, C. C. (2000). Curvilinearity in the diversification performance linkage: An examination of over three decades of research. Strategic Management Journal, 21(2), 155-174.
Perez, C. (2010) Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradig- ms. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 185–202.
Picone, P. M., & Dagnino, G. B. (2016). Revamping research on unrelated diversification strategy: Perspectives, opportunities and cha- llenges for future inquiry. Journal of Management & Governan- ce, 20(3), 413–445.
Purkayastha, S., Manolova, T. S., & Edelman, L. F. (2012). Diversification and performance in developed and emerging market contexts: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(1), 18–38.
Rutterford, J. & Sotiropoulos, D. (2016) Financial diversification before modern portfolio theory: UKfinancial advice documents in the late nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 23(6), 919-945.
Schneider, B. (2009). A comparative political economy of diversified bu- siness groups, or how states organize big business. Review of International Political Economy, 16(2), 178-201.
Schommer, M., Richter, A., & Karna, A. (2019). Does the diversifica- tion–firm performance relationship change over time? A me- ta-analytical review. Journal of Management Studies, 56(1), 270–298.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An over- view and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339.
Wan, W. P., Hoskisson, R. E., Short, J. C., &Yiu, D. W. (2011). Resource-Ba- sed Theory and Corporate Diversification: Accomplishments and Opportunities. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1335–1368.
JEL: M0 Generalidades
M1 Administración de empresas
32
REVISTA RELAYN, 2022, 6(2), Mayo-Agosto, ISSN: 2594-1674
Weiss, M. (2013). Resource-related diversification and its measures. Re- view of empirical results. Problems and Perspectives in Mana- gement, 11(3), 76–85.
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013). RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative re- views. BMC Medicine, 11, 20.
Sobre los autores
1 Profesor investigador en la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México.
ORCID: 0000-0003-1794-3163
Licencia de Creative Common Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.es
33
