FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1504611342> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1504611342 abstract "In 2005, the Economist Intelligence Unit conducted a survey with Chief Risk Officers worldwide across all industries and asked about the biggest threat to their businesses. Interestingly, regulatory risk ranked first. It dominated all other types of risk, be it related to reputation, IT, country, market, terrorism or many other causes (Economist, 2005). Apparently, uncertainty related to regulation is difficult for firms to accommodate and significantly influences business decisions. The motivation of the thesis is to shed light on the question of how firms cope with regulatory uncertainty. Furthermore, I want to explore whether this uncertainty is influencing investment decisions since these are key business decisions. To mitigate regulatory uncertainty a firm may address the environment and try to influence policy-makers or regulatory authorities to drive policies and decisions in the desired way. Certainly, some firms may be more successful than others in doing so. Therefore, I argue that there is a set of different capabilities that are driving the effectiveness of these nonmarket strategies that allow the firms to mitigate risk from regulatory uncertainty. The thesis hence contributes to management literature about strategies. I propose a set of capabilities that considers two different sources of value creation through strategies. First, firms can create value from their strategy by influencing the firm's non-business environment including policy-makers and regulators. Capabilities can be developed to shape policies, to influence regulatory decisions or to change regulatory institutions. I refer to these as nonmarket They help to mitigate the risk from regulatory uncertainty. My main hypothesis is that firms with stronger capabilities are less likely to withhold investment because of regulatory uncertainty. Second, firms may also create value from their strategy by adaptation or exploitation of business opportunities that result from regulatory changes. I refer to the capabilities that help firms reach the aforementioned goals as organizational They capture the value of the firm's action. Both and capabilities are analyzed empirically. The empirical analysis that was carried out in the liberalized European electricity generation market is twofold. First, interviews were conducted in the Swiss markets with the largest players. The results showed a high perceived regulatory uncertainty among the players, but with no indication that investment in generation capacity would be withheld. Investment delays are reported as well as a possible shift of upcoming investments to the bordering EU countries. The analysis of the interviews validates my proposed model since both and capabilities are developed by the Swiss players. Second, a survey was conducted into the European electricity generation market that encompasses the EU, Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland. The 300 largest generators were invited to contribute to the survey and the response rate reached nearly 30%. The survey results gave detailed information about the firms' capabilities to deal with regulatory uncertainty and with regulatory institutions, to exploit new business opportunities that result from regulatory changes and to adapt their organization to accommodate regulatory changes. About two third of the respondents agreed to the statement that strong regulatory uncertainty exists and nearly half said that they are able to cope well with this uncertainty. The majority disagreed that regulatory uncertainty would lead to reduced investments, but about 27% agreed, which is still a worrying fact. A similar pattern resulted for altered investments, i.e., that regulatory uncertainty leads to a change of investments. This change could be investing in small and more flexible generation projects instead of large and inflexible ones due to regulatory uncertainty. In terms of capabilities, the majority of respondents acknowledged their ability to shape policies or influence regulatory decisions, though a minority of 15% stated they would not be capable of even shaping regulatory institutions that affect them. In an econometric analysis hypotheses were made about the setup of each capability, i.e., which resources or capabilities are required in its establishing process. Further, hypotheses were developed on how capabilities influence investment decisions or the effectiveness of capabilities. The results of the econometric analysis validate the assumed impact on the analyzed investment decisions. First, in the case of potential future investment as stated by the firms in the Platts' PowerVision database all three defined capabilities showed significance. Second, in the case of altered investment some significance could be detected. Third, only little significance was found for the case of actually reduced investments. Consequently, the initial argument that capabilities allow firms to cope better with regulatory uncertainty and that firms are thus less likely to withhold investments could be proved for the case of potential future investment. Though, the connection could not be sufficiently proved between capabilities and actually reduced investment. Further, the impact of capabilities on capabilities to exploit business opportunities that result from regulatory changes and rapid adaptation has been analyzed. Particularly the capability to influence policies or to regulatory decisions has shown a significant impact. Firms that are able to influence their environment are also able to react faster and more adequately in their own organization. Analogously, these firms will also be able to seize business opportunities that result from regulatory changes. Organizational capabilities thus allow firms to secure their sustainable competitive advantage. Based on the results, the thesis closes with recommendations for business strategy." @default.
• W1504611342 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1504611342 creator A5006860782 @default.
• W1504611342 date "2011-01-01" @default.
• W1504611342 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1504611342 title "Regulatory Uncertainty and Nonmarket Capabilities" @default.
• W1504611342 doi "https://doi.org/10.5075/epfl-thesis-5039" @default.
• W1504611342 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W1504611342 type Work @default.
• W1504611342 sameAs 1504611342 @default.
• W1504611342 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1504611342 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1504611342 hasAuthorship W1504611342A5006860782 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C100001284 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C119008658 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C177264268 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C195534400 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C40700 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConcept C48798503 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C100001284 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C119008658 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C119857082 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C144024400 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C144133560 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C162324750 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C162853370 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C175444787 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C177264268 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C195534400 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C199360897 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C2776291640 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C36289849 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C40700 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C41008148 @default.
• W1504611342 hasConceptScore W1504611342C48798503 @default.
• W1504611342 hasLocation W15046113421 @default.
• W1504611342 hasOpenAccess W1504611342 @default.
• W1504611342 hasPrimaryLocation W15046113421 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W1551344444 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W1932675661 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W2030653007 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W2123829237 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W2138207917 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W2144941132 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W2162241374 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W2169532365 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W2286760483 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W2346892377 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W2603388718 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W2751474649 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W2892347068 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W2897936230 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W2899082524 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W3121293731 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W3122811723 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W3123927935 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W3166435385 @default.
• W1504611342 hasRelatedWork W230445972 @default.
• W1504611342 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1504611342 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1504611342 magId "1504611342" @default.
• W1504611342 workType "article" @default.