Abstract
The cutthroat market competition for gaining competitive advantage and, implicitly, extra profits often makes companies intervene in competition mechanisms by closing deals or initiating anticompetitive practices. In order to avoid falling under the incidence of competition law, companies should apply a competition strategy and a competition audit. Our paper sets as a general objective the analysis of how companies on the Romanian market know, understand, and apply the coordinates of a competition strategy. Specific objectives target the factorial analysis of the influencers of the business strategy of the considered companies. For the factorial analysis, we have performed nonparametric tests of the answers given by 425 managers of companies on the Romanian market to certain questions in the questionnaire, in order to assess the importance of specific factors (company size, experience in the market, etc.) on the tested aspects regarding the business and, respectively, competition strategy and the risk of getting involved in anticompetitive behaviors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
“RA theory is an evolutionary process theory of competition. It views firms and resources as the heritable, durable units of evolutionary selection, with competition for comparative advantages in resources constituting the selection process. Because the selection process focuses on firms and resources that are locally fitter, rather than maximally fittest, RA theory is non-consummatory (i.e., there is no predetermined endpoint for the process of competition). Therefore, the theory accommodates path dependencies. Thus, though RA competition is a process that is moving, it is not moving toward some ideal point (such as a Pareto-optimal, general equilibrium)” (Hunt and Duhan 2002, p. 99).
- 2.
Nonparametric tests are recommended to test whether or not the values of a particular variable differ between two or more groups (top and middle management position in the company for those persons that answered to the questionnaire).
References
Appelbaum PS et al (2009) Voluntariness of consent to research a conceptual model. Hastings Cent Rep 39(1): 30–39
Bingley P, Westergaard-Nielsen N (2004) Personnel policy and profit. J Bus Res 57(5): 557–563
Boitani A et al. (2010) Do competition and ownership matter?: evidence from local public transport in Europe. Appl Econ 45(11) (Taylor and Francis Journal). Available at: http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/2010231040134NDL2010-009.pdf
Booth ME, Philip G (1998) Technology, competencies and competitiveness: the case for reconfigurable and flexible strategies. J Bus Res 41(1): 29–40
Budzinski O, Ruhmer I (2009) Merger simulation in competition policy: a survey. University of Southern Denmark, Department of Environmental and Business Economics, series Working Papers, no. 82/09. Available at:http://www.sdu.dk/~/media/Files/Om_SDU/Institutter/Miljo/ime/wp/budzinski82.ashx
Cullmann A, Hirschhausen C (2008) From transition to competition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Econ Trans 16(2): 335–357. Available at: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0351.2008.00312.x
Delgado M et al. (2002) Firm productivity and export markets: a non-parametric approach, Elsevier. J Int Econ 57(2): 397–422. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V6D-44JD5S2-2/2/69f0fa857418bb81bdbed3446fa15a22
Felli L et al. (2011) Competition and trust: evidence from german car manufacturers. CESifo Group Munich, series CESifo Working Paper Series, no. 3358. Available at: http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/page/portal/DocBase_Content/WP/WP-CESifo_Working_Papers/wp-cesifo-2011/wp-cesifo-2011-02/cesifo1_wp3358.pdf
Forrier A, Sels L (2003) The concept employability: a complex mosaic. Int J Hum Resour Dev Manage 3(2): 102–124
Grønholdt L, Martensen A (2009) Management practices driving sustained business success. Measur Bus Excellence 13(1): 47–55
Helgesen O et al. (2009) Impacts of store and chain images on the quality–satisfaction–loyalty process in petrol retailing. J Retail Consum Serv 17(2): 109–118
Hunt SD, Duhan DF (2002) Competition in the third millennium: efficiency or effectiveness? J Bus Res 55(2): 97–102 (Elsevier)
Ishida J et al. (2008) When market competition benefits firms. Osaka School of International Public Policy. Available at : http://www.osipp.osaka-u.ac.jp/archives/DP/2008/DP2008E011.pdf
Kay JA (1993) Foundations of corporate success. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Khilji S, Wang X (2007) New evidence in an old debate: Investigating the relationship between HR satisfaction and turnover. Int Bus Rev 16(3): 377–395
Koster S, Stel A (2011) Start-up intensity, competition and regional economic development. European Regional Science Association, series ERSA conference papers, no. ersa10: 556. Available at: http://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa10/ERSA2010finalpaper556.pdf
Möller K, Svahn S (2009) How to influence the birth of new business fields—network perspective. Ind Mark Manage 38(4): 450–458
Molnár M (2010) Measuring competition in slovenian industries: estimation of mark-ups. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 787, OECD Publishing. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kmd41bjwr0q-en
Ospina S, Schiffbauer M (2010) Competition and firm productivity: evidence from firm-level data. International Monetary Fund, series IMF Working Papers, no. 10/67. Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp1067.pdf
Scopelliti A (2010) Competition and economic growth: a critical survey of the theoretical literature, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Financial Management and Accounting Craiova. J Appl Econ Sci. Available at: http://www.jaes.reprograph.ro/articles/spring2010/ScopellitiAD.pdf
Wagner J (2011) Exports, foreign direct investments and productivity: are services firms different? University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics, series Working Paper Series in Economics, no. 215. Available at: http://www.leuphana.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Forschungseinrichtungen/ifvwl
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dima, A.M. (2013). Factorial Analysis of the Correlation Between Competitive Strategy and Company’s Characteristics: The Case of Romanian Business Environment. In: Thomas, A., Pop, N., Bratianu, C. (eds) The Changing Business Landscape of Romania. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6865-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6865-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6864-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6865-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)