See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335402091

Organizational Competitiveness: The Conceptualization and Its Evolution

Article · June 2019

DOI: 10.15640/jthm.v7n1a19

CITATIONS READS
2 1,616

3 authors:

Alexander Zuñiga-Collazos Marysol Castillo Palacio

San Buenaventura University San Buenaventura University
45 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   72 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lina Marcela Padilla-Delgado

San Buenaventura University
4 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Desarrollo del Sistema de Información Turística del Valle del Cauca - Colombia View project

reading for teaching in classroom View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lina Marcela Padilla-Delgado on 26 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management
June 2019, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 195-211
ISSN: 2372-5125 (Print), 2372-5133 (Online)
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved.
Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development
DOI: 10.15640/jthm.v7n1a19
URL: https://doi.org/10.15640/jthm.v7n1a19

Organizational Competitiveness: The Conceptualization and Its Evolution

Alexander Zuñiga-Collazos1, Ph.D., Marysol Castillo-Palacio2, PhD, Lina Marcela Padilla-Delgado3

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine the conceptualization and evolution of the construct of
Organizational Competitiveness. The present study analyzed the existing literature about Competitiveness
between 2009 and 2018, starting with the theoretical proposals for the concept presenting the evolution
during the last decade, variables affecting competitiveness both internal and externals, dimensions and
measurement proposal in order to study the progress of the construct of Organizational Competitiveness in
different sectors. The analysis focused on recognized journals around the topic according to Scimago Journal
& Country Rank (SJR) and the database of Scopus. The results of the present research show varied
information about qualitative, quantitative and multidimensional approaches analyzed through the time, also
the gaps around the topic, for promoting future research and a deeper consideration around a concept, that
have an importance influence in the evolution of the companies.

Keywords: Organizational Competitiveness, Firm Competitiveness, Competitive advantage, Market

Competition.
1. Introduction
The changeable environment, globalization and international competition demands complex requirements of
companies. Competitiveness at the firm level, constitute an important matter for practitioners in order to create and
develop abilities, a proper performance of recourses and management of factors that influence the results in the
market place. If a company wants to survive and being superior, obtaining sustainable competitive advantages and
superior performance over competitors is crucial.
Different perspectives have analyzed the concept, but in general, studies can be divided into two major
literature streams, the industry based perspective or the recourse based approach. Based on the above, researches
establishes competitiveness as a dynamic construct, which is influence by several factors. The factors could be
controlled and non-controlled by the firm and represent the complexity of this construct. The challenge of companies
is to identify the specific factors and to analyze how to manage them strategically (Camison & Fores, 2015). In
literature, Organizational Competitiveness (OC) has been understood as a difficult construct for being measure, due
to the lack of consensus in the method, several empirical researches consider OC as one-dimensional construct, while
during the last decade, other authors understand OC as multidimensional concept.
In order to analyze the progress and nature of research in Organizational Competitiveness, and develop a study
on the state of the matter, it has been realized a literature review of the 10 years (2009-2018) immediately prior to
the development of this work. This paper aims to analyze the evolution of the construct during the last decade.
Consequently, we have been able to verify publications in recognized journals in JCR about the research on this
topic. The study used the electronic database Scopus, which is considered the largest database of abstracts and
citation of scientific literature, and stablished three basic criteria: 1) the keywords used were “Organizational
Competitiveness”,

1 Research Professor, Universidad de San Buenaventura, Cali (Colombia), Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, E-mail: azuniga01@usbcali.edu.co
2 Research Professor, Universidad de San Buenaventura, Cali (Colombia), Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, E-mail: mcastillop@usbcali.edu.co
3 Universidad de San Buenaventura, Cali (Colombia), Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, E-mail: joveninvfce2@usbcali.edu.co
196 Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2019

“Firm competitiveness”, “Competitiveness” and “Competitive advantages” which should be found in the tittle,
summary or keywords of the publication. 2) The year publication should be between 2009 and 2018. 3) The
subject areas in Business management and accounting, engineering, social sciences and economics, econometrics
and finance. The search throw 119 articles fulfilling the criteria, but were excluded 25 articles for not finding the
document.
The present article includes different sections; it will starts presenting some of the main definitions of the
construct. Secondly, such conceptualization allows as identifying the different levels and approaches of
competitiveness. Although competitiveness is a construct of different levels, the study focuses only on the firm level.
Thirdly, the study analyze internal and external factors proposed by literature that mainly influence the development
of this concept. Fourth, we analyze the main measurement proposals of the last ten years, including the description of
the measurement, the variables, dimension and method used. Finally, comprehending the complexity of this concept,
the authors present conclusions of the research.
2. Conceptualization of Organizational Competitiveness
Nowadays organizations face globalizations, faster environmental changes, higher competition and complex
requirements of clients. This tendency of constant change, rivalry and open markets increase competitive pressure
around all the firms that participate in the industry, introducing concepts such as innovation, flexibility and
differentiation from competitors (Baker & Sinkula, 1999).
Academics and practitioners have studied competitiveness from different levels: National, regional or industry
and firm level. The first level analyzed the competitiveness of a nation, which according to Porter (1980) focuses on
the concept of productivity, with the objective of achieving a better level of life for residents of a nation. Another
definition is proposed by the World Economic Forum (2017-2018), considering competitiveness at this level as a set
of institutions, policies and determinants factors of productivity of a country. This level understands the construct
from a macro-level. The second level, analyzed the Competitiveness as a region, industry or cluster, the objective is
achieving a better performance and obtaining competitive advantages. These levels understand and analyze the
importance of collective associations of people, companies and public institutions for developing competitiveness at
this level (Ilpes, 2003).
Newbert (2008) defined competitive advantage as „„the implementation of a strategy not currently being implemented by
other firms that facilitates the reduction of costs, the exploitation of market opportunities, and/or the neutralization of competitive threats”
(p. 749). At this level competitiveness consider different factors that affects the results, such as innovation and
technology (Kotler & Keller, 2009), Profitability, cost reduction and product differentiation (Camison & Fores, 2015;
Kuo, Lin & Lu, 2017), among others. Below we present a timeline chart with some of the definitions proposed for
the construct of organizational competitiveness.
Table 1: Conceptualization of Organizational Competitiveness (OC)

Proposal Authors Decade

For the author OC is having an advantage in market trends, managing Ansoff (1965) 1960
better the supply chain according to trend in comparison with other
competitors.

OC is the capability to operate in the market in a strategic way based Porter (1980) 1980
on the pressure of competition in the industry.

The author considered OCas the capacity of design, produce and Alic (1987)
introduce products to international markets in competition with
international firms.

The authors affirmed that OC is the result of a better performance Cohen & 1990
obtained through the organization capabilities and knowledge Levinthal (1990)
management.

OC depends of the ability to obtain sustained competitive advantages Barney (1991)

using different sources as capabilities, knowledge, processes, among
Zuñiga-Collazos, Castillo-Palacio & Padilla-Delgado 197

Proposal Authors Decade

others.

OC is the firm ability to compete successfully in global markets. Kogut (1993)

OC is a result of the performance of 5 factors: dependability, costs, Slack, Chambers

flexibility, quality and speed. Achieving superior performance over the & Johnston
competitors in market. (1997)

OC is a construct that leads to a competitive position through the Eisenhardt & 2000
relationship of the set of resources that a company may have. Martin (2000)

OC is a set of determinants that influence its performance. The Berumen (2006)

determinants include: prices, costs, quality, technological and
organizational improvements, efficiency, relationships among
companies, public sector and academy, human capital and I+R+D.

The authors refer OC as having superior performance and capabilities Orozco, Serpell, 2010
in comparison with competitors. Molenaar &
Forcael (2014).

OC refers to an ability of adapting to environmental factors while Sauka (2014)

develop the company business successfully.

OC is an ability of a firm that keep or improve its competitive position Camison &
and returns. Fores (2015)

OC is the ability of obtaining organizational value in the long term. Zhu & Cheung
(2017)

2.1 Approaches of Organizational Competiveness

Competitiveness is a complex concept that had called the attention of academics and practitioners due to the
importance of developing this construct for survival to changeable environments and highly competition. In literature,
there are different approaches for analyzing the competitiveness at the firm level; the industry-based perspective
(Porter, 1980) and the Resource Based View (Barney, 1991) leads the main research streams in this topic.
The industry-based model analyzes the competitiveness at the firm level from the perspective of industry
conditions that could generate competitive advantages and the Resource Based View examine competitiveness from
the internal attributes and resources of a company as the way for achieving superior performances. Every stream
research comprehends factors that may influence organizational competitiveness through the interaction with internal
and external conditions.
Table 2: Approaches of Organizational Competitiveness

Model Description Attributes Authors

Industry-based The model focuses on industry-base Porter as one of the main Porter
perspective factors, analyzing how competitiveness contributors of this proposal. The (1980,
is developed and strategically achieve. author argued that competitiveness 1985); Bai
The model come from the traditional depends about the interaction of &Sarkis,
competitive analysis, which focus the the five forces model. The five (2012);
attention to external factor or industry forces analyses external factors in Bruno,
factors as a way of obtaining competitive the industry like entry barriers, Esposito,
advantages. Competitive strategies are power or influence of clients and Genovese
the result of understanding the rules of supplies, rivalry among competitors &
competition of an industry. or product substitutes. From the Simpson,
198 Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2019

Model Description Attributes Authors

value-chain is necessary to examine (2016).

In recent studies, focuses also in from the suppliers to the final
analyzing the value-chain (Bai & Sarkis, client, in order to understand the
2012; Bruno, Esposito, Genovese & value proposal.
Simpson, 2016), considering the The model analyzes a position-
importance of its management as a way based competition where
to obtain competitive advantages in the competitiveness is led by the ability
industry. of maintaining and improving the
position of the company from
actual or potential competitors in
the industry.

A Resource- A resource based approach focus on From the resource based approach, Barney
based internal recourses or attributes of a firm, there are four attributes necessaries (1991)
approach and comprehends competitive positions for obtaining competitive
as the efficacy on the use and interaction advantages:
of specific capabilities or resources. *Valuable: Strategies implemented
From this approach is analyzed the by the company needs to improve
firm‟s capital (Physic, human and effectiveness.
organizational) which contributes as *Rare: Company resources that are
determinants of competitive advantages. not available to competitors.
According to Barney (1991, p.102) a firm *Imperfectly imitable: it is difficult
have competitive advantages if “it is to imitate recourses of the
implementing a value creating strategy not company.
simultaneously being implemented by any *Non-substitutable: high difficulty
current or potential competitors”. for replacement.
The model analyze the
competitiveness form a possession-
base competition where it depends
of the possession of firm recourses.

Action-based The action-based perspective analyzed This perspective analyzes Madhok &
perspective of the competitiveness from the competitiveness from a more Marques
competition entrepreneurial orientation and the dynamic nature, it does not focus (2014)
agility that a firm may have, in order to on position in the industry of
respond and adapt faster to competitive possession of recourses as a source
and changing markets that makes of competitiveness, also does not
competitive advantages obsolete. focus on specific internal or
According to Madhok & Marques (2014) external factors.
“the ABP is instead value-driven in that the The model is oriented to action, the
opportunities sensed and acted upon must offer a agility of the strategy, if focuses on
novel value proposition to the customer” (p.78) the activities that a company
For Eisenhardt and Martin, cited by perform for creating value while
Madhok & Marques (2014) “Competing assemble the recourses needed.
on action is more akin to the notion of Analyze the way company acts
dynamic capabilities” (p.79) (activities and actions) where sense
opportunities in a market.

Game Some contemporary approaches analyses These type of models do not focus Veliyath &
theoretic strategy from tactical plans, on resources or industry factors as Fitzgerald,
models understanding the strategy of the previous approaches. Game (2000)
competition as a game. theoretic models analyses the
tactics used against competitors.
Zuñiga-Collazos, Castillo-Palacio & Padilla-Delgado 199

2.2 Internal and external factors affecting Organizational Competitiveness

Organizational competitiveness is a complex construct, which can be influence by several factors. Internal
factors such as individual capabilities to operate strategically in a market derived from the pressure of competition
from the industry (Porter, 1980). Also, by external factors that are not under the control of a company and that
influence the way companies behave and operate in competitive markets (Kogut, 1993). In literature, it is found
several propositions with the main factors of analysis, which lead to understand that:
“Competitive opportunities have been identified both inside firms (exploiting useful firm resources such as learning and
knowledge of employees and speed and flexibility to carry out changes to adapt to the new environmental conditions; and
decreasing costs) and beyond (securing a good reputation with stakeholders)” (Lopez-Gamero &Molina-Azorin, 2016,
p.254)
2.2. 1 Internal Factors of OC
Internal factors when analyzing organizational competitiveness, refers to processes, systems, human capital,
structure, performance and organizational practices of every firm. Internal factors form an interaction of variables
with the objective of being competitive through obtaining superior performance and sustainable competitive
advantages. The internal factors evidenced in literature comprehends the factors of integration of supply chain,
development of human capital, quality management, knowledge, financial and organizational management,
sustainability, information and communication which constitute the base of any organization success.The way a
company interacts with every factor inside the organization, influence the development of competitive advantages and
performance, in comparison with the main competitors of the sector. Such factors become tools, paths, recourses and
assets to be use strategically. Table 3, presents the internal factors that may influence OC.
Table 3: Internal Factors of OC

Factor Variables Description of Variables Authors/Year

Integration Supply Chain Some authors proposed that supply chain management Ageron,
management influence organizational competitiveness based of the Gunasekaran &
fact that supply chain performance activities that leads Spalanzani (2012);
to value creation through different interactions until Bai & Sarkis,
the product or service arrives to the client. A correct (2012); Bruno,
management of supply chain contribute to generate a Esposito,
superior performance and creates sustainable Genovese &
competitive advantages for improving the long-term Simpson (2016).
position. Supplier selection as a part of the chain and
value creation is crucial to enhance organizational
competitiveness (Bruno, Esposito, Genovese &
Simpson, 2016)

Managing Stakeholders are a key element to achieve competitive Harrison, Bose &
Stakeholders advantages because they are a source of information Philips (2010)
that could be strategically used to obtain opportunities
on the market, and helps to build a reputation of being
a company that understand and value the stakeholders.
A proper management of stakeholders can lead to a
more competitive firm.

Human Capital Staff Human capital is an important factor that influence Gil & Meyer
Performance productivity and competitiveness of a company. (2013); Markova
Relationships inside the firm, training of high (2012); Porter
performance teams, enhancing different skills, abilities (2003); Salem &
and involvement with activities and objectives Abdien (2017)
contribute to value generation. Reducing the turnover
rate, absenteeism and increasing job satisfaction impact
cost (reductions), productivity at work, efficiency of
process and positively influence organizational
competitiveness.
200 Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2019

Factor Variables Description of Variables Authors/Year

Development Some authors argue that organizational Adhikari (2010)

of competitiveness can be achieved through the
competencies development of competencies, skills and abilities of
employees. Companies should encourage a creation of
a learning environment, in order to increase human
recourses performance as a way of obtaining
competitive advantages in globalized markets.
Implementing the correct strategy for development
competencies of human capital impact in a significant
way the organizational development.

External External personal networks are sources of unique Huber (2013)

Personal knowledge about business, which become particularly
Networks important for organizational competitiveness,
especially, for firms driven by technology.

Quality Quality Quality management is an approach that inspires high Ahuja, (2012);
Management quality products, services and process, cost reductions, Vanichchinchai &
higher customer satisfaction, superior employee Igel (2009); Yee
involvement in obtaining a better performance, and & Eze (2012)
encourage the measurement of the results, influencing
the sustainable competitiveness of a firm.

Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge is key for being a successful company. Chen & Lin,
Management Different authors have argued that knowledge (2009); Setia &
management influence positively organizational Patel (2013)
competitiveness through the ability to use knowledge
for developing capabilities, innovation and offering
superior added value to clients. A company that face
competitive environments may exploit knowledge for
meeting the market requirements, reducing risks, losses
and obtaining superior performance than competitors.
In order to endure, firms must continue to innovate
and assimilate new knowledge so that the firm acquire
competitive advantages and superior performance.

Intellectual Intellectual Capital seen as the abilities, competences, Vatamanescu,

Capital know-how and knowledge of every person in the Andrei, Dimitri &
company, constitute the capital which can turn into Leovaridis (2016)
competitive advantages contributing to superior
performance and effectiveness in adapting and
responding to environmental changes.
Organization should inspire the knowledge
development on their workers, as a force for building
an intangible assets which leads to competitive
advantages.

Financial Reasonable and In a determined market, a company could achieve Porter (1985);
Management lower costs superior performance over its competitors, thereby Kuo, Lin & Lu
creating value and producing profitability for cost (2017)
reduction or product differentiation.

Profitability A higher long-term performance and a sustained Maury (2018);

market share would be associated with the profitability Voulgaris &
that a company could achieve and could be a measure Lemonakis (2014)
of its sustainable competitive advantages. Profitability
plays a significant role in firm competitiveness with
Zuñiga-Collazos, Castillo-Palacio & Padilla-Delgado 201

Factor Variables Description of Variables Authors/Year

companies from different sectors and sizes (Voulgaris

and Lemonakis, 2014)

Financial Financial capabilities integrate firm capabilities in order Fonseka, Tian &
capabilities to deal with business activities and influence firm Li (2014)
competitiveness. Based on the recourses view, financial
capabilities allow access to key resources as equity
capital, debt financing, corporate bond, funds, working
capital necessary to enhance firm competitiveness. The
access and correct management of recourses may
produce advantages over competitors and helps
companies to remind competitive in an industry.

Organizational Organizational The way an organization is structured should be a Hernaus, Aleksic,

Management Structure and source of developing competitive advantages for & Klindzic (2013)
strategy companies. The design of process and structure
characteristics aligned with the strategy of a company
may leads to organizational competitiveness.

Organizational The development and use of organizational capabilities Torugsa,

capabilities should encourage and contribute to competitive O'Donohue, &
advantages. Some authors have argued that learning Hecker, (2012);
orientation, knowledge derived of processes, Fraj, Matute &
innovation and strategy; influence the organizational Melero (2015);
competitiveness of the firm. Appiah-Adu,
The construction of those capabilities allows firms to Okpattah &
obtain competitive advantages, which leads to superior Amoako (2017);
performance in comparison with competitors. Kuo, Kuo, Lin & Lu
Lin and Lu (2017) argued that organizations with (2017); Schriber
dynamic capabilities could employ resources and & Lowstedt
integrated services in order to keep costs low and use (2015)
assets to achieve competitiveness through viable
advantages in a changing environment.

Performance One way to obtain or influences positively the Hinkkanenn &

competitiveness of a firm is increasing a company Vaatanen (2011);
performance. From the process view, it is seen that Maury (2018);
process structure creates capabilities leading to Saranga, George,
competitive advantages as a result of a value-added Beine & Arnold,
organizational performance (Saranga, George, Beine & (2018)
Arnold, 2018). Others affirmed that higher long-term
performance and a sustained market share would be
associated with the profitability that a company could
achieve and could be a measure of its sustainable
competitive advantages.

Productivity An organization could improve its competitiveness by Oral, Cinar and

increasing productivity rapidly than competitors. Chabchoub
Productivity is one of the goals that efficiency and (1999); Eriksson
efficacy of the processes developed by the firm, which & Lindgren
enhance a better performance over the competitors. (2009)

Innovation and Some authors have argued that innovation and Al-Belushi, Stead,
technology technology have a positive effect on organizational Burgess, 2015;
performance. Empirical evidences have analyzed that Noble, Sinha, &
innovation becomes strategic for achieving success, Kumar, (2002);
adapt and respond faster to environmental changes, Fraj, Matute &
202 Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2019

Factor Variables Description of Variables Authors/Year

developing new opportunities in competitive markets, Melero (2015);

and innovative for improving products, services, Marques &
process, among others, increasing the level of Batista (2014);
competitiveness. Some authors have also argued that Appiah-Adu,
technology capability affects competitiveness of firms. Okpattah &
The superiority on this capability leads to superior Amoako (2017);
advantages. Innovation leading to reduction of Ghisetti &
materials or cost influence positively the firm‟s Rennings (2014);
competitiveness (Ghisetti & Rennings,2014). Kristianto, Ajmal,
According to Kristianto, Ajmal, Tenkorang & Hussain Tenkorang &
(2012) a faster technology adoption generates flexibility Hussain (2012);
(processes, product, operational and production) and Rodil, Vence, &
upgrade operational competitiveness for creating entry Sanchez (2016)
barriers to competitors.

Sustainability Corporate Some authors have argued that involving the company Chen, Wu & Wu
environmental in reducing the impact on the environment through the (2015); Joo, Eom
strategy and use of different models, technologies and processes & Shin, (2017)
social may lead to enhance profitability, competitive
responsibility advantages and competitiveness of a firm.
A sustainable business ecosystem could be a source of
competitiveness through the social capital.

Clean practices, Organizations face environments with higher Subramanian &

products and requirements around the topic of sustainability. A firm Gunasekaran
technologies that adapt clean practices and technologies successfully (2015);
may obtain superior profitability and performance, Aschehoug &
influencing the organizational competitiveness. Boks (2012); Tan,
Products with a sustainable component, leads to the Ochoa, Langston
generation of added value which makes companies & Shen (2015)
more competitive (Aschehoug & Boks, 2012)

Information and Information They way companies do business has changed by the Setia & Patel
Communication Management access to information through technologies. The ability (2013); Wong, Lai
and Systems to use information technologies for managing & Cheng (2014);
organizational and operational knowledge may lead to Durungo, Tiwari
organizational competitiveness. &Alcock (2013)

Factors inside the company, creates and develop capabilities that interact in a changeable environment.
Concepts like the adaptability, flexibility, productivity and competitiveness become a necessity for the company
survival, in order to obtain higher profitability, superior performance and competitive advantages as sustainable
source. Competitiveness seen from the internal factors is achieved when a company develop superior performance
while develop skills and different competences for the employees.
2.2.2 External factors of OC
Organizational competitiveness can be influence by external factors as well, based on the fact that firms are a
part of an industry and works on different environments. Even if competitiveness is conceived at a firm level,
continues to be an important concept for economic policy, government and every business in the industry. External
variables may influence the competitive position of a firm by identifying and analyzing external recourses and
capabilities that can be develop, in order to obtain competitive advantages that will enhance organizational
competitiveness.
The efficiency of the industry, the resources and infrastructure and the links between the institutions
participating in the competitive market influence the way a firm can achieve competitiveness. The development of an
adequate space for creating a superior performance of the business activity may influence competitiveness, through
the creation of comparative advantages of a firm (ex. Cost reductions) and the support of institutions and economic
or industrial policies.
Zuñiga-Collazos, Castillo-Palacio & Padilla-Delgado 203

Table 4: External Factors of OC

Variables Description Authors

Regional or industry Industry policies that focus on the creation of agglomeration Falck, Heblich &
policies of specialized skills, inter-connected knowledge, institutions Kipar (2010).
and business may lead to a positive influence competitiveness
of the firms, which benefits of the local environment and
regional concentration.

Quality of infrastructure Infrastructure is an important factor for economic Iimi (2011); Na-
development of regions; The quality of this factors influence Allah (2012)
firm competitiveness based on the accessibility to resources
as public services, the impact on operational costs and
productivity of companies.

Industry conditions Industry conditions influence the competitiveness of a firm, Porter (1979); Bai
being the only way to survive in changeable environments & Sarkis, (2012)
with highly competition. As Porter (1979) argued, the analysis
of the industry can be organized on five forces: competition
in the market, which analyses the rivalry among companies,
negotiation power of clients, the entrance of new competitors
to the industry, negotiation power of suppliers and substitute
products or services. Understanding the industry allows
company to react strategically for been competitive.

Institutionality of the The Institutionality of an industry may affects and influences Camison & Fores
industry the competitiveness of the companies participating of certain (2015); Eriksson
market, considering the influence of infrastructure, education, & Lindgren
labor market, among others, which are important (2009);
characteristics to encourage the development of Rodríguez-Pose &
organizational competitiveness. Hardy (2016).
According to Eriksson & Lindgren (2009), one factor that
influence to competitiveness is related to labor market
externalities, which may contribute for the formation of
agglomerations and interlinked economic activities.

Link between academia- The intensity of the links and support between academia, Marek & Blazek
government-firms government and firms enhance the improvement of (2016); Kveton &
organizational competitiveness constituting the base for Horak (2018);
networking, research and development, innovation and Roxas, Chadee &
accessibility to private and public sources, laws and policies Pacoy (2013)
around developing economic activities and the support of the
government to the firms of an industry.

Networking and Partnership and cooperation between companies offer Cao, Li, Wang,
cooperation between strategic connections, alliances and relationships, being Luo & Tan,
companies significant for developing organizational competitiveness. (2018); Buciuni,
The network among the firms of an industry may lead to G., Coro, G., &
enhance organizational competitiveness focusing on core Micelli, S (2013);
activities and opportunities that may be on the market. Hinkkanenn&
According to Mazzola, Bruccoleri & Perrone (2009) Vaatanen (2011);
networking contribute to gain efficiency, knowledge and Mazzola,
globalization. Bruccoleri &
Perrone (2009)

3. Measurements variables and dimensions of OC

204 Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2019

Several proposals found on literature show the lack of consensus around how to measure the competitiveness
of a firm. Measurement models have included commonly economic and performance indicators (ex. Sales return,
profitability, profits). However, competitiveness is a construct that receive influence of a combination of several
factors (Sauka, 2014). It is also conceived as important including organizational factors (ex, human recourses,
productivity, culture, innovation and technologies, even a sustainability concept that influence the performance of the
organizational competitiveness) and external factors (ex. Networking, Institutionality, industry conditions.
Organizational Competitiveness is a complex construct with a dynamic nature, which may involve different
factors that could be control or non-controlled by the organization. Some of the proposal of measurement considered
the arguments, considerations and methodologies of past studies, while others decided to build a measurement model
using different techniques like focus groups or data envelopment analysis as way to obtain a consensus.
Most of the examined studies have in common the importance of analyzing financial performance in order to
understand competitiveness at the firm level.
Researchers used qualitative and quantitative tools for developing a measure scale of the construct. Several of
the analyzed studies have identified competitiveness as a one-dimensional construct, however in the last decade, the
use of multidimensional approaches to measure the construct have increased.
During the analyzed period, empirical evidence has shown the complexity of measurement, considering
multiple factors, both internal and external, which may influence the behavior of organizational competitiveness.
Some studies analyze organizational competitiveness based on a mix of internal and external factors (ex,
Karabag, Lau & Suvankulov, 2013; Camison & Fores, 2015); while others comprehend the measurement model
focusing on internal factors only (ex, Andreeva & Kianto, 2012; Fraj, Matute & Melero, 2015; Zhu & Cheung, 2017).
It is also found that most of the methodologies used to measure the construct are quantitative using factor analysis,
structural equation models and regression models.
Table 5: Quantifying the Organizational Competitiveness Construct

Author Constructing OC Variables Dimension Methodology

Wagner (2009) The construct of competitiveness at firm level is Multi- Multiple linear
measure trough four dimensions identified in a dimensional regression analysis
factor analysis. The dimensions are related to market,
satisfaction, profitability and financial risks. Every
dimension have items related measured with a five-
point scale.

Laureti & The authors used a DEA to create a firm One- Data Envelopment
Viviani (2011) competitiveness indicator, which is a weight average dimensional Analysis (DEA)
of the performance indicators. The indicator approach, Tobit
comprehends the following weight average model and
performances: financial performance (return of sales, regression model
return of assets, and return on equity), labour
productivity (using as control variables the age and
legal status), the size of the firm and the economic
activity, machinery and localization.

Andreeva & The authors measured Organizational One- Exploratory and

Kianto (2012) competitiveness as a One-dimensional construct, the dimensional confirmatory
scale was build according to the proposals of analysis (SPSS and
Deshpande et al. (1993) and Drew (1997). The scale AMOS) and
has five items: successful of the organization, market Structural Equation
share, growth, profitability and innovation. Every model (SEM)
item is evaluated in comparison with the mean
competitors.

Yang, Lu, OC isconsidered a One-dimensional construct with One- Confirmatory factor

Haider, Marlow three items: Service quality, profits and productivity. dimensional analysis (AMOS)
Zuñiga-Collazos, Castillo-Palacio & Padilla-Delgado 205

Author Constructing OC Variables Dimension Methodology

(2013) The authors argued that the item with a higher factor and Structural
loading for measurement is productivity. Equation model
(SEM)

Karabag, Lau, & Comprehends organizational competitiveness as a Multi- Focus groups,

Suvankulov multidimensional construct. The measurement dimensional Exploratory factor
(2014) model used focus groups as a strategy for agreeing in analysis and paired-
measurement variables; the variables are grouped samples t-test.
through factor analysis in eight factors: Quality
management, focus on the foreign market, licensing
and non-tariff restriction, reliable access to inputs,
focus on domestic markets, networking, product
differentiation and state support.

Mellat-Parast & The authors analyzed the organizational One- Kolmogorov-

Spillan (2015) competitiveness in comparison with main dimensional Smirnov test of
competitors. The construct comprehends four normality,
variables: the company respond to the change of Confirmatory factor
needs of costumer or suppliers; the respond to analysis (AMOS),
changes of competitor‟s strategies; the development Structural equation
of new products; and the competitive position in the model.
market.

Fraj, Matute & The author analyzed organizational competitiveness One- Structural Equation
Melero (2015) from four items in comparison with their main dimensional model (SEM) and
competitors. The analyzed variables were current Partial least squares
profitability, five-year profitability, gross profit, and (PLS) with
the ability to achieve economic objectives. SMARTPLS
The variables considered have a base of previous Software.
research as (González-Benito & González-Benito,
2005; Sharma & Vredenburg, 1998).

Camison & The present study analyzes competitiveness from Multi- Multiple linear
Fores (2015) different levels: Firms global competition (analyzing dimensional regression analysis
the strength to competition). Country effect (time to
respond, hostility, diversity, novelty of changes and
demands, quality and services, costs and general
risks). Industry effect (Sales, purchase behavior,
technologies, competitors, suppliers,
commercialization, substitute products, cost savings).
Tourist district effect (Knowledge, flow of
information, communication, cooperation and
R+D). Distinctive capabilities effect (innovation and
technology, managerial capacity, human resources,
Marketing and quality). Finally, the financial
resources effect (financial cost and capacity).

Papalia, Calia & The authors proposed a multivariate index approach Multi- Multivariate
Filippucci focusing at the micro level. They understand firm dimensional inequality measures
(2015) competitiveness as a multidimensional concept,
analyzing three dimensions: Efficiency (measured
through productivity), effectiveness (measured
trough profitability) and a growth indicator of the
competitive progress.
206 Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2019

Author Constructing OC Variables Dimension Methodology

Yang, Zhang, OC is considered as a One-dimensional construct One- Multiple linear

Jiang & Sun that needs to be measure in comparison with the dimensional regression analysis
(2015) main competition. It consider 5 items: defeating
competitors in marketplace, quality of products and
services, respond to market demands, respond to
environmental changes, and networking.

Zhao, Zhao, The authors used five items to measure OC as a one- One- Structural
Zeng & Zhang dimensional construct. This measurement includes dimensional Equational Model
(2015) production cost reduction, compliance cost (SEM)
reduction, product image, corporate image and
relationship with government

Ling & Li Authors comprehends organizational One- T- test, ANOVA

(2016) competitiveness as the market position in dimensional and Pearson‟s
comparison with principal competitor. The OC is correlation
determined as a one-dimensional construct. The
measurement is compose by win projects, high-value
projects, profitability, product-service quality, client
satisfaction, good public image, and speed of
product/service delivery.

Mendieta- The measurement of OC for the hotel industry in One- Data envelopment
Peñalver, Perles- this study contains two measures. The firs is an dimensional analysis (DEA),
Ribes, Ramon- indicator of global market share (revenue) and the Mediation models
Rodriguez & second is a composite indicator (based on occupancy
Such-Devesa, rates, global present of the company, revenue per
(2016) room an total revenue)

Salem, Shawtari, The present study analyzed the OC based in past Multi- Exploratory and
Shamsudin & studies, where the construct is multidimensional. OC dimensional confirmatory
Hussain (2016) analyzed three factors: Image practices, satisfaction analysis and
and profits, with a scale of 11 items. structural
equational model
(SEM)

Sánchez- The authors used the scale proposed by Gallardo- One- Factor analysis and
Hernández, Vazquez and Sanchez-Hernandez (2012). dimensional structural
Gallardo- Understanding OC as the ability to obtain and equational model
Vázquez, Barcik sustain a favorable position and superior results in (SEM)
& Dziwinski the market. The OC construct is one-dimensional
(2016) and consider ten indicators related to human
recourse management, training an empowerment,
leadership capabilities, marketing capabilities, quality
of products, organizational management quality,
technological recourses and information systems,
financial management, values and culture and market
knowledge- Know how

Zhu & Cheung The present study analyzed the OC of construction Multi- Confirmatory
(2017) organizations, understanding OC as a dimensional analysis and
multidimensional construct, which have three Structural Equation
categories: Core competence -expertise of the model (SEM)
company- with 4 items (based on Prahalad and
Hamel, 1990); Company strategy with 14 items
Zuñiga-Collazos, Castillo-Palacio & Padilla-Delgado 207

Author Constructing OC Variables Dimension Methodology

(Porter, 1990) and Product with 15 items (Teece et

al. 1997).

Cao, Li, Wang, The construct conceived for the construction One- Method of ordinary
Luo & Tan, industry, consider two variables: Won projects and dimensional least squares
(2018) the value of the projects in comparison with main regression.
competitors.

4. Further research of the organizational competitiveness concept

Further research should focus on the gaps that actually are found in literature, specially, for creating an
approximation to new knowledge that may contribute to a consensus around the construct, and also will set a base for
analyzing OC from different perspectives and contexts, not only in development countries, also including emerging
countries and specifics sector of economy.
4.1 Ambiguity of the concept
One of the gaps identified in literature is that despite the fact that Competitiveness is a construct that is a
relevant for economy development of developed and emerging countries, based on the idea that Competitiveness
leads to superior performances and productivity, the concept is still ambiguous (Camison & Fores, 2015; Hinkkanen
& Vaatanen, 2011). In particularly, organizational competitiveness has become fundamental for practitioners, politics,
economy and the academia. However, competitiveness understood as a capability or capacity of a firm for obtaining
superior performance or resisting the competitors, it is confused or mixed with partial factors of its measurement, as it
is profitability or productivity, which are financial indicators that makes part of the whole concept but not cover the
whole definition.
4.2 The influence of internal and external factors and its analysis in different contexts
Based on the idea that organizational competitiveness it is a concept that is affected by several factors which
are not only financial. It is still under a lack of consensus about the analysis of which and how internal and external
variables have an effect on the construct (the effect could be of a specific factor of a combination of many of them).
These is one of the most controversial points, due to the amount of research about the evolution of the organizational
competitiveness concept, considering different findings and proposal that can be disconnected between each other
(Camison & Fores, 2015; Sauka, 2014). The complexity of the construct it is shown on the different models and
proposals of academics attempting to fill the gap behind the research. Despite the results of the proposals contribute
to the theoretical framework, the big picture is still unclear. Additionally, it is found that exiting literature and
empirical evidence examining the match of the internal and external factors and the organizational resources that
affects or influence the organizational competitiveness has been focused in developed economies, still little research
has examined the current propositions and findings in the context of emerging economies with a systematic review
(Hinkkanen & Vaatanen, 2011).
4.3The dimensionality of Organizational Competitiveness
Another gap identified is related to the dimensionality of the construct; Scholars comprehends
competitiveness as a multidimensional phenomenon, which is influenced in many ways by a number of methods and
perspectives, applied on microeconomics and macroeconomics levels. However, when analyzing specifically
organizational competitiveness is more complex due to the lack of consensus and the amount of factors analyzed, for
some authors this type of competitiveness is a one-dimensional concept (i.e. comparing variables with main
competitors). Others, in the last decade, comprehends the concept as a multi-dimensional notion (i.e. examined from
different internal and external factors influencing competitiveness of a firm).
Therefore, there is not a unique measurement proposal for the concept, arising statistical problems when
trying to measure competitiveness and its factors (Laureti & Viviani, 2011). More research should deep in the
conception of a synthetic measurement model considering the analysis and the influence of factors classified by the
level of relevance. Based on the above, there is still a long way to fulfill the gap, and a clear necessity of deepen in
studies measuring firm competitiveness, specially, as a multidimensional construct, considering the different
approaches and theories (Papalia, Calia & Filippucci, 2015).
208 Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2019

5. Conclusions and limitations

The research addressed important concepts, factors and measurement process in the field about
organizational competitiveness covering a period of ten years (2009 to 2018), considering the contribution of different
perspectives, especially, the contributions made by the argument of Porter (1980-1985) by the industry perspective
and Barner (1991) by the recourse-base view. These have opened contributions to several studies (theoretic and
empiric) which have developed the construct of competitiveness at the firm level, analyzed the factors that influence
the construct and providing different approximations and explanation to the development of organizational
competitiveness.
Academics and experts have considered the construct as a capability, capacity, ability or a result that leads a
company to a superior performance, competitive advantage, or to the strategic way to operate in a competitive market.
In addition, authors have identified internal and external factors that influence or affect the development of
competitiveness at the firm level. From the internal factors analysis, it is important to understand that companies have
an influence in their performance.
The way they achieved to manage the integration of the chain supply, the stakeholders, the human recourses,
networking and partnership, and also the organizational recourses (physical and intangibles) and main activities
(quality, innovation, knowledge management, performance, processes and structures, among other corporative
practices).
In addition, external factors influence organizational competitiveness seen from the perspective of support to
the industry; those factors cannot be influence by a single company. In this sense, external factors constitute the base
for developing competitiveness in an industry and creates the infrastructure, policies, Institutionality and networking
between companies and institutions like governments and academia.
Based on the above, organizational competitiveness is a complex construct that still denotes a lack of
consensus theoretically and empirically, especially when competitiveness wants to be measured. Several scholars
comprehend the construct as a one-dimensional construct that is composed by different items, while others argued
that is a multidimensional construct integrated by factors of analysis. In addition, literature found qualitative and
quantitative methods for building a scale of measurement. This situation implies that competitiveness, as a complex
construct still requires a mayor analysis for reaching a conceptual consensus by the scientific community in terms of
factors that influence competitiveness and its measurement.
Future research should analyze not only the factors that can influence organizational competitiveness, but
also, the drivers and its combination for increasing the performance. It is needed more empirical evidence for
examining the interactions of the factors and the way of measure the whole concept. In addition, future research
should analyze which factors can be more influential than others in different contexts, both in developed and
emerging countries.
The present study has some limitations. Namely, the research does not represent all the findings in literatures
around the construct of organizational competitiveness due to the time line examined between 2009 to 2018. Thus,
can be some studies that have not being studied. In addition, the authors only examined articles in English and
Spanish based on the understanding of the language.
Acknowledgment
This publication is part of the Bank of Projects funded by the Research Vice-rectory of the San Buenaventura
University, during the period of 2017-2018. The present article is part of the work developed as a junior researcher of
Colciencias, as a result of the Call 761 for young investigators and innovators 2016, in which the junior researcher
Lina Marcela Padilla Delgado was selected.

References

Adhikari, D. R. (2010). Human resource development (HRD) for performance management: The cases of Nepalese
organizations. International journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59(4), 306-324.
Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A., & Spalanzani, A. (2012). Sustainable supply management: An empirical study. International
Journal Production Economics, 140, 168-182.
Ahuja, I.S. (2012). Total quality management implementation for reducing percent process defects in a manufacturing
organization. International Journal Business Performance Management,13(1), 1–17.
Zuñiga-Collazos, Castillo-Palacio & Padilla-Delgado 209

Andreeva, T., & Kianto, A. (2012). Does Knowledge management really matter? Linking knowledge management practices,
competitiveness and economic performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(4), 617-636.
Al-Belushi, K., Stead, S., & Burgess, J. The development of marine biotechnology in Oman: Potential for capacity building
through open innovation. Marine Policy, 57, 147-157.
Alic, J. A. (1987). Evaluating industrial competitiveness at the office of technology assessment. Technology in Society, 9(1), 1-
17.
Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate Strategy: An Analytical Approach to Business Policy for Growth and expansion. Ney York: McGraw-
Hill.
Appiah-Adu, K., Okpattah, B., & Amoako, G. K. Building Capability for Organizational success; An Emerging Market
Perspective. Journal of African Business.
Aschehoug, S. H., & Boks, C. (2012). Towards a framework for sustainability information in product development.
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 6(2), 94-108.
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2012). Supply-chain performance-measurement system management using neighborhood rough sets.
International Journal of Production Research, 50(9), 2484-2500
Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational
performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 411-427.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Berumen, S. A. (2006). Una aproximación a los indicadores de la competitividad local y factores de la producción. Cuadernos
de Administración, 19(31), 145-163.
Bruno, G., Esposito, E., Genovese, A., & Simpson, M. (2016). Applying supplier selection methodologies in a multi-
stakeholder environment: A case study and a critical assessment. Expert Systems with Applications, 43, 271-285.
Buciuni, G., Coro, G., &Micelli, S. (2013). Rethinking the role of manufacturing in global values chains. An international
comparative study in the furniture industry. 10-30.
Camison, C., & Fores, B. (2015). Is tourism firm competitiveness driven by different internal or external specific factors:
New empirical evidence from Spain.Tourism Management, 48, 477-499.
Cao, D., Li, H., Wang, G., Luo, X., & Tan, D. (2018). Relationship Network structure and organizational competitiveness:
Evidence from BIM implementation practices in the construction industry. Journal of Management Engineering, 34(3),
34.
Chen, H-J., & Lin, T-C. (2009). Exploring source of the variety in organizational innovation adoption issues- An empirical
study of manager‟s label on knowledge management project issues in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 36,
1380-1390.
Chen, Y. J., Wu, Y. J., & Wu, T. (2015). Moderating effect of environmental supply chain collaboration Evidence from
Taiwan. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45(9), 959-978.
Durungo, C., Tiwari, A., & Alcock, J. R. (2013). Managing integrated information flow for delivery reliability. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 144(4), 628-651.
Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA. 2000. Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They?Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.
Eriksson, R., & Lindgren, U. (2009). Localized mobility clusters: impacts of labour market externalities on firm
performance. Journal of Economic Geography, 9, 33-53.
Falck, O., Heblich, S., & Kipar, S. (2010). Industrial innovation: Direct evidence from a cluster-oriented policy. Regional
Science and Urban Economics, 40, 574-582.
Fraj, E., Matute, J., Melero, I. (2015). Environmental strategies and organizational competitiveness in the hotel industry:
The role of learning and innovation as determinants of environmental success. Tourism Management, 46, 30-42.
Fonseka, M. M., Tian, G-L., & Li, L. (2014). Impact of Financial Capability on Firms Competitiveness and Sustainability:
Evidence from highly regulated Chinese Market.Chinese Management Studies, 8(4), 1-30.
Ghisetti, C., & Rennings, K. (2014). Environmental innovations and profitability: how does it pay to be green? An empirical
analysis on the German innovation survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 75, 106-117.
Gil, C., &Meyer, D. (2013). Union presence, employee relations and high performance work practices. Personnel Review,
42(5), 508-528.
Gonzalez-Benito, J., & Gonzalez-Benito, O. (2005). Environmental proactivity and business performance: an empirical
analysis. Omega, 33(1), 1-15.
Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and
competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 58-74.
Hinkkanen, J. J., & Vaatanen, J. (2011). Building determinants of firm Competitiveness in emerging economies. International
Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 7(4), 291-308.
Huber, F. (2013). Knowledge-sourcing of R&D workers in different job positions: Contextualizing external personal
knowledge networks. Research Policy, 42, 167-179.
210 Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2019

Iimi, A. (2011). Effects of improving infrastructure quality on business costs: evidence from firm-level data in Eastern
Europe and central Asia. The Developing Economies, 49(2), 121-147
Instituto Latinoamericano y del Caribe de Planificación Económica y Social (ILPES). (2003). Metodología para la elaboración de
estrategias de desarrollo local. Available in: https://www.cepal.org/publicaciones/xml/7/13867/sgp42.pdf
Joo, J., Eom, M. T-I., & Shin, M. M. (2017). Finding the missing link between corporate social responsibility and firm
competitiveness through social capital: A business ecosystem perspective. Sustainability, 9, 1-22.
Karabag, S. F., Lau, M. C., & Suvankulov, F. (2014). Determinants of firm competitiveness: a case of the Turkish textile and
apparel industry. The Journal of the Textile Insititute, 105(1), 1-11.
Kogut, B. (Ed.). (1993). Country competitiveness. Technology and the organizing of work. New York Oxford: University Press.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). Marketing management. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Kristianto, Y., Ajmal, M., Tenkorang, R. A., & Hussain, M. (2012). A study of technology adoption in manufacturing firms.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 21(2), 198-211.
Kuo, S-Y., Lin, P-C., & Lu, C-S. (2017). the effects of dynamic capabilities, service capabilities, competitive advantage, and
organizational performance in container shipping. Transportation Research Part A, 95, 356-371.
Kveton, V., & Horak, P. (2018). The effect of public R&D subsidies on firm‟s competitiveness: Regional and sectoral
specifics in emerging innovation systems. Applied Geography, 94, 119-129.
Laureti, T., & Viviani, A. (2011). Competitiveness and productivity: a case study of Italian firms. Applied Economics, 43(20),
2615-2625.
Ling, F. Y. Y., & Li, S. (2016). Business models for foreign firms offering construction-related consultancy services in
China. Construction Management and Economics, 34(4-5), 218-235.
Lopez-Gamero, M. D., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2016). Environmental management and firm Competitiveness: The joint
analysis of External and internal elements. Long Range Planning, 49, 746-763.
Madhok, A., & Marques, R. (2014). Towards an action-based perspective on firm competitiveness. Business Research Quarterly,
17, 77-81.
Marek, D., & Blažek, J. (2016). The challenge of breaking the academia–business firewall in Czechia: Comparing the role of
differentiated knowledge bases in collaborative R&D projects. European Planning Studies, 24, 809–831.
Markova, (2012). Building dynamic capabilities: the case of HRIS. Management Research:Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of
Management, 10(2),81 – 98.
Marqués, D. A., Batista, M. A. (2014). Mix between Satisfaction and attributes destination choice: A segmentation criterion
to understand the ski resorts consumers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17(4), 313-324.
Maury, B. (2018). Sustainable competitive advantage and profitability persistence: Sources versus outcomes for assessing
advantage. Journal of Business Research, 84, 100-113.
Mazzola, E., Bruccoleri, M., & Perrone, G. (2009). A strategic framework for firm networks in manufacturing industry: An
empirical survey. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Technology, 58, 387-390.
Mellat-Parast, M., & Spillan, J. E. (2014). Logistics and supply chain process integration as a source of competitive
advantage. International Journal of Logistics Management, 25(2), 315-333.
Mendieta-Peñalver, L. F., Perles-Ribes, J. F., Ramon-Rodriguez, A. B., & Such-Devesa, M. J. (2018). Is hotel efficiency
necessary for Tourism Destination Competitiveness: An integrated approach?Tourism Economics, 24(1), 3-26.
Na-Allah, A. (2012). Social capability deficits and productivity behavior of African manufacturing firms: Evidence from
Lesotho garment producers. Development Southern Africa, 29(2), 317-334.
Newbert, S.L. (2008). Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: a conceptual-level empirical investigation
of the resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (7), 745-768.
Noble, C., Sinha, E., & Kumar, V. (2002). Market orientation and alternative strategic orientations: a longitudinal
assessment of performance implications. Journal of Marketing, 66, 25-39.
Oral, M., Cinar, U., & Chabchoub, H. (1999). Linking industrial competitiveness and productivity at the firm level. European
Journal of Operational Research, 118, 271-277.
Orozco, F., Serpell, A., Molenaar, K., and Forcael, E. (2014). Modeling competitiveness factors and indexes for
construction companies: Findings of Chile.Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(4),
Papalia, R. B., Calia, P., & Filippucci, C. (2015). Information theoretic Competitiveness composite indicator at micro level.
Social Indicators Research, 123, 349-370.
Porter, M. E. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 1-10.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: Free Press
Porter, M. E. (2001) Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 62-78.
Porter, L.W. (2003). In organizational, work and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological
Bulletin, 80(3), 151-176.
 Zuñiga-Collazos, Castillo-Palacio & Padilla-Delgado 211

Rodil, O., Vence, X., & Sánchez, M. C. (2016). The Relationship between Innovation and export behavior: The case of
Galician firms. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 113, 248-265.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Hardy, D. (2016). Firm Competitiveness and regional disparities in Georgia. Geographical Review,
107(2), 1-28.
Rozas, B., Chadee, D., & Pacoy, E. (2013). Effects of formal institutions on business performance in the Philippines: An
exploratory study. South East Asia Research, 21(1), 27-40.
Salem, I. E-B., & Abdien, M. K. (2017). Implementation of employee cross-training during perilous conditions in hotels.
Tourism Management Perspectives, 23, 68-74
Salem, M. A., Shawtari, F. A., Shamsudin, M. F. & Hussain, H. I. (2016). The relation between stakeholder‟s integration and
environmental competitiveness. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(4), 755-769.
Sanchez-Fernandez, M. I., Gallardo-Vázquez, D., Barcik, A., & Dziwinski, P. (2016). The effect of the internal side of social
responsibility on firm competitive Success in the business services industry. Sustainability, 8, 1-15.
Saranga, H., George, R., Beine, J., Arnold, U. (2018). Resource configurations, product development capability, and
competitive advantage: An empirical analysis of their evolution. Journal of Business Research, 85, 35-50.
Sauka, A. (2014). Measuring the competitiveness of Latvian companies. Baltic Journal of Economics, 14(1-2), 140-158.
Schriber, S., & Lowstedt, J. (2015). Tangible resources and the development of organizational capabilities. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 31, 54-68.
Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively
valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 729-754.
Slack, N., Chambers, S., & Johnston, R. Administração da produção. São Paulo: Atlas, 1997.
Setia, P., & Patel, P. C. How information systems help create OM capabilities Consequents and antecedents of operational
absorptive capacity. Journal of Operations Management, 31, 409-431.
Subramanian, N., & Gunasekaran, A. (2015). Cleaner supply-chain management practices for twenty-first-century
organizational competitiveness: Practice-performance framework and research propositions. International Journal of
Production Economics, 164, 216-233.
Tan, Y., Ochoa, J-J., Langston, C., & Shen, L. (2015). An empirical study on the relationship between sustainability
performance and business competitiveness of international construction contractors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 93,
273-278.
Torugsa, N., O'Donohue, W., & Hecker, R. (2012). Capabilities, proactive CSR and financial performance in SMEs:
empirical evidence from an Australian manufacturing industry sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 483-500.
Vanichchinchai, A., & Igel, B. (2009). Total quality management and supply chain management similarities and differences.
The TQM Journal, 21(3), 249-260.
Vatamanescu, E-M., Andrei, A. G., Dumitriu, D-L., & Leovaridis, C. (2016). Harnessing network-based intellectual capital
in online academic networks. From the Organizational policies and practices towards Competitiveness. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 20(3), 594-619.
Veliyath, R. and Fitzgerald, E. (2000), Firm capabilities, business strategies, customer preferences, and hypercompetitive
arenas: The sustainability of competitive advantages with implications for firm competitiveness. Competitiveness Review,
10, 56-83.
Wagner, M. (2009). The links of sustainable competitiveness and innovation with openness and user integration: an
empirical analysis. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 4(4), 314-329.
Wong, C. W., Lai, K-H., & Cheng, T. C. Value of information integration to Supply Chain Management: Roles of Internal
and External contingencies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(3), 161-200.
World Economic Forum. (2017–2018). The Global Competitiveness Report. Available on:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2017-
2018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2017%E2%80%932018.pdf.
Yang, C-S., Lu, C-S., Haider, J. J., & Marlow, P. B. (2013). The effect of green supply chain management on green
performance and firm competitiveness in the context of container shipping in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part E,
55, 55-73.
Yang, J., Zhang, F., Jiang, X., Sun, W. (2015). Strategic flexibility, green management, and firm competitiveness in an
emerging economy. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 101, 347-356.
Yee, K. P., & Eze, U. C. (2012). The influence of quality, marketing, and knowledge capabilities in business
competitiveness. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 11(3), 288-307
Zhao, X., Zhao, Y., Zeng, S., & Zhang, S. (2015). Corporate behavior and competitiveness: impact of environmental
regulation on Chinese firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, 311-322.
Zhu, L., & Cheung, S. (2017). Harvesting Competitiveness through building Organizational innovation capacity. Journal of
Management Engineering, 33(5).

View publication stats