4.7 Article

Moderating influence of product diversification on the international diversification-performance relationship: A meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH
Volume 139, Issue -, Pages 1408-1423

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.037

Keywords

Firm performance; International diversification; Meta-analysis; Product diversification

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

International diversification has a non-linear inverted U-shaped relationship with firm performance. The dual-diversification strategy is detrimental to firm performance, while low/related product diversification benefits firm performance. There is no significant difference in the performance of firms from advanced and emerging economies, but the importance of intangible assets for diversified firms is emphasized.
Numerous studies have examined the impact of international diversification on firm performance. However, the literature is characterised by inconsistent findings, suggesting the need for a quantitative review and synthesis of the hypothesised relationships. Using a sample of 263 effect sizes from 187 primary studies between 1974 and 2021, we conduct a meta-analysis to test the relationship between international diversification and firm performance, and the moderating effect of product diversification. The results of our meta-analysis indicate that the relationship between international diversification and firm performance is non-linear inverted U-shaped. Furthermore, we find that performance is higher in firms with low/related product diversity and lower in firms with high/unrelated product diversity, suggesting that the dual-diversification strategy is detrimental to firm performance. Although there is no significant difference in the performance of firms from advanced and emerging economies, the results highlight the importance of intangible assets for diversified firms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available