No abstract

No abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between the strategic positioning of firms and the sustainability of firm performance. The paper argues that pursuing a differentiation strategy leads to more sustainable financial performance compared to following a cost leadership strategy. However, a differentiation strategy may also be associated with greater risk. Design/methodology/approach – To investigate the research questions, the authors utilize publicly available archival data consisting of 12,849 firm-year observations for the period 1989-2003. In the first stage of the analysis, factor analysis is used to determine firms’ strategic positioning. The resulting factor scores are subsequently used in regression analysis to investigate the sustainability of performance based on the strategic positioning of firms. Findings – The results indicate that both cost leadership and differentiation strategies have a positive impact on contemporaneous performance. However, the differentiation strategy allows a firm to sustain its current performance in the future to a greater extent than a cost leadership strategy. The differentiation strategy, though, is also associated with greater systematic risk and more unstable performance. Originality/value – Sustainability of performance refers to how much a firm's current profitability can be sustained in future periods. The main contribution of this study is the comparison of generic strategies based on the sustainability of firm performance. This aspect of the strategy-performance link has not been considered in prior work. Another contribution of the study is that it considers multiple dimensions of firm performance in order to evaluate the trade-offs involved with pursuing different strategies. In particular, the authors contribute to the literature by documenting that while differentiation leads to more sustainable earnings, it also leads to riskier and more unstable earnings.

No abstract

SUMMARY: A company’s internal audit (IA) function can be maintained in-house, outsourced to an IA service provider, or cosourced (a combination of the in-house and outsourced IA functions). This study explores the effect of these sourcing arrangements on the external auditor’s assessed quality and reliance on the IA function. We predict that external auditors consider the cosourced and outsourced IA functions to be equal in terms of assessed quality and reliance. Furthermore, we predict that the external auditors’ assessments of objectivity and competence will be greater for cosourced and outsourced IA functions compared to in-house IA functions; therefore, external auditors will have greater reliance on the cosourced and outsourced IA functions. Finally, we predict that when the IA service provider also provides additional tax services to the client, external auditor reliance is significantly decreased compared to when the service provider does not provide tax services. One hundred and eight CPAs participated in this study and were randomly assigned to one of five treatment conditions: in-house, cosource, outsource, cosource with tax services, and outsource with tax services. The results support our predictions and indicate that external auditors place more reliance on cosourced and outsourced IA functions compared to in-house IA functions. Furthermore, external auditors’ reliance on cosourced and outsourced IA functions decreases when tax services are also provided by the IA service provider.