Abstract
Business exit is only one operation among a variety of transactions that can all be summarized under the headline of corporate restructuring. Corporate restructuring implies a change along three dimensions, namely assets (i.e., asset restructuring), capital structure (i.e., financial restructuring), or management and the emergence of new organizational forms (i.e., organizational restructuring). In this context, business exit is a diversified (a so called multibusiness) firm’s divestiture of one of its business units. As compared to other asset restructuring activities, it aims at contracting firm boundaries, whereas, e.g., acquisitions are used to expand them. These details show how broad the topic actually is. Thus, for the purpose of this study the terms ‘business exit’ or ‘divestiture’ are preferred to ‘restructuring’ in order to emphasize that only a single but for research and practice highly relevant aspect of the complex restructuring phenomenon is highlighted.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Cf. Bowman & Singh (1990), p. 9 f.; Bowman & Singh (1993), p. 6; Burgelman (1996), p. 193; Hurry (1993), p. 70; Ruigrok et al. (1999), p. 44; Schendel (1993), p. 1; Singh (1993), p. 148; Villalonga & McGahan (2005), p. 1184.
“One of the current problems facing researchers working in this area is the topic’s breadth“ (Johnson 1996, p. 439).
Cf. Hoskisson et al. (1994), p. 1240.
Markides (1995), p. 4.
Cf. Bowman & Singh (1990), p. 10; Capron et al. (2001), p. 817; Steiner (1997), p. 234.
Cf. Chen & Guo (2005), p. 399.
Data for Figure 1 were adopted from Mergers & Acquisitions: The Dealermaker’s Journal, M&A Almanac section 1989–2005.
Cf. Anslinger et al. (2003), n. p.
Cf. Mulherin & Boone (2000), p. 122.
Geroski (1995), p. 424.
Cf. Dixit & Chintagunta (2007), p. 150; Dranikoff et al. (2002), p. 75; Dye et al. (2003), p. 102; Karakaya (2000), p. 665; Kelly (2002), p. 40; Middelmann & Helmes (2005), p. 503 f.; Schiereck & Stienemann (2004), p. 353.
Cf. Whetten (1980), p. 580 ff.
See, e.g., Karim (2006); Villalonga & McGahan (2005).
Cf. Kalnins et al. (2006), p. 122; Kim & Miner (2007), p. 688; Mellahi & Wilkinson (2004), p. 22.
For instance, Anslinger et al.’s (1999) title “Breaking up is good to do“ can be understood in this way.
See, e.g., Bethel & Liebeskind (1993); Gibbs (1993); Lang et al. (1995); Seward & Walsh (1996); Steiner (1997); Stienemann (2003); Wright & Ferris (1997).
See, e.g., Bergh & Lawless (1998); Hoskisson & Turk (1990); Makhija (2004). The latter two studies both draw on transaction cost theory in combination with an additional theoretical approach.
See, e.g., Bergh (1995, 1998); Capron et al. (2001); Chang & Singh (1999); Morrow et al. (2007); Villalonga & McGahan (2005). Interestingly, most of these studies do not solely rely on the resource-based view but combine it with at least one further theory.
See, e.g., Burgelman (1994, 1996); Chang (1996); Delios & Beamish (2001); Kalnins et al. (2006).
See, e.g., Bigley & Wiersema (2002); Wiersema (1992, 1995).
See, e.g., Davis et al. (1994) who focus on the de-institutionalization of the conglomerate firm, Henisz & Delios (2004) who to the impact of organizational experience on the likelihood of certain strategic responses to uncertainty, or Zuckerman (2000) who investigates the impact of securities analysts on de-diversification strategies.
For a systematic overview on empirical studies on business exit with regard to research questions, theoretical foundations, methods, and main findings, see Table 1 in Appendix 1.
Referring to the legitimacy concept in institutional theory, cf. Scott (2001), p. 58 ff. See also Suchman (1995).
Isabella (1990), p. 11.
Cf. Barnett & Freeman (2001), p. 554.
These sub-categories stem from an empirical study by Byerly et al. (2003).
Cf. Bergh (2003), p. 135. Referring to the resource-based view, see, e.g., Barney (1991) or, for a thorough and critical meta-analysis, Nothnagel (2007).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2008). Introduction. In: Legitimacy Needs as Drivers of Business Exit. Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9759-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9759-3_1
Publisher Name: Gabler
Print ISBN: 978-3-8349-0936-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-8349-9759-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)