Skip to main content
Log in

How performance of top companies are related on Global Competitiveness Index?

  • Research
  • Published:
Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Given the role and importance of competitiveness indicators for businesses’ performance and profitability, the question arises why no research has been undertaken internationally in this regard. Therefore, the main purpose of the present study is to investigate the impact of competitiveness index on the financial performance of top companies in the world using performance theory and to evaluate the validity of Global Competitiveness Index data. For this purpose, 176 top companies in the world from 2013 to 2018 that were profitable among the top 200 companies each year were selected as the statistical population. World Bank annual reports, Global Competitiveness Index, and Fortune site were used to collect the data. Also, the data analysis was done according to the panel data method using Eviews10 software. The results show that in general, there is a positive relationship between competitiveness index and financial performance of top companies in the world. On the other hand, the per capita income of the countries in which the top companies belonged was considered a control variable and the results show that the per capita income has a positive and significant relationship with the financial performance of the top companies in the world.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

GCI:

Global Competitiveness Index

GDP:

gross domestic product

UK:

United Kingdom

Lab:

labor market efficiency

Fin:

financial system

Tech:

technology adoption

Eco:

macroeconomic environment

Ms.:

market size

GDPPC:

gross domestic product per capita

GLS:

generalized least square

OLS:

ordinary least square

LLC:

Levin, Lin, and Chu

d.f.:

degree of freedom

Prob.:

probability

References

  • Allred, C. R., Fawcett, S. E., Wallin, C., & Magnan, G. M. (2011). A dynamic collaboration capability as a source of competitive advantage. Decision Sciences, 42(1), 129–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2014). Entrepreneurial finance and technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Ulrich, D. (2001). The HR scorecard: Linking people, strategy and performance. Harvard Business School Press.

  • Besley, T. (2015). Law, regulation, and the business climate: The nature and influence of the World Bank Doing Business project. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camison, C., & Villar-Lopez, A. (2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2891–2902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chorev, S., & Anderson, A. R. (2006). Success in Israeli high-tech start-ups: Critical factors and process. Technovation, 26(2).

  • Datta, S., Iskandar, M. V., & Singh, V. (2013). Product market power, industry structure, and corporate earnings management. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37, 3273–3285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirguc-kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (1998). Law, finance and firm growth. The Journal of Finance, 53(6), 2107–2137.

  • Dewi, V. , Soei, C. and Surjoko, F.(2019). The impact of macroeconomic factors on firms’ profitability (evidence from fast moving consumer good firms listed on Indonesian stock exchange). Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 23(1).

  • Foster, A. D., and Rosenzweig, M. R.(2010). Microeconomics of technology adoption. Economic growth CENTER, 984.

  • GCI (2017). The Global Entrepreneurship Report. World Economic Forum.

  • GCI (2018). The Global Entrepreneurship Report. World Economic Forum.

  • Gujarati, D. (1995). Basic econometrics. 3rd edition.

  • Lan, S., Gao, X., Wang, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Public policy environment and entrepreneurial activities: Evidence from China. China & World Economy, 26(3), 88–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. P. (2010). Extending the environment-strategy-performance framework: The roles of multinational corporation network strength, market responsiveness, and product innovation. Journal of International Marketing, 18(4), 58–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leischnig, A., Geigenmueller, A., & Lohmann, S. (2014). On the role of alliance management capability, organizational compatibility and interaction quality in inter organizational technology transfer. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1049–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, R., )2000(. Bank-based or martket-based financial systems: Which is better?, mimeo.

  • Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011). How information management capability influences firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moghimi, M. (2007) . The Surrey of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and entrepreneurship culture in governmental organizations, Management Culture, No.13.

  • Ottesen, G. G., & Gronhaug, K. (2004). Exploring the dynamics of market orientation in turbulent environments: A case study. European Journal of Marketing, 38(8), 956–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paladino, A. (2007). Investigating the drivers of innovation and new product success: A comparison of strategic orientations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 534–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronald, C. and Porter, M.(2000), Microeconomic competitiveness: Finding from executive survey. World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotemberg, J., & Scharfstein, D. (1990). Shareholder-value maximization and product market competition. Review of Financial Studies, 3, 367–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roxas, B., Ashill, N., & Chadee, D. (2017). Effects of entrepreneurial and environmental sustainability orientations on firm performance: A study of small businesses in the Philippines. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(1), 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). ‘HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human resource practices: correspondence between research and practice. Human Resource Management 42; 149–174.

  • Sandeep, V., & Harpreet, S. B. (2016). Are subjective business performance measures justified? International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(5), 603–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A. (2004). Does competition destroy ethical behavior? American Economic Review, 94, 414–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, A., Bartle, C., Stockport, G., Smith, B., Jane, E., Klobas, E., & Sohal, J. A. (2015). Business leaders’ views on the importance of strategic and dynamic capabilities for successful financial and non-financial business performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(7), 908–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoneman, P., & Kwon, M. J. (1996). Adoption and firm profitability. The Economic Journal, 106(437), 952–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski, D. M., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1993). An analysis of the market share-profitability relationship. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, E.F. (2014). Platform-based product design and environmental turbulence: The mediating role of strategic flexibility. European Journal of Innovation Management 17(1).

  • Trkman, P., & McCormack, K. (2009). Supply chain risk in turbulent environments: A conceptual model for managing supply chain network risk. International Journal of Production Economics, 119, 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, D. (2009). Measuring performance in small and medium enterprises in the information and communication technology industries, Unpublished PhD thesis submitted to School of Management College of Business, RMIT University.

  • Zahra, S.(1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4).

  • Zhang, C. (2017). Top manager characteristics, agglomeration economies and firm performance. Small Business Economics, 48, 543–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K., & Yim, C. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology- and market-based break through innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 42–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Availability of data and materials

Data on the Global Competitiveness Index are extracted from the GCI Annual Reports between years 2013 and 2018. Countries’ GDPPC data are also extracted from World Bank reports between the years 2013 and 2018.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Mehdi Khazaei performed the data collection and analysis, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. Mohammad Azizi helped write the paper and collect the data. Mohamadreza Zali helped with data analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Azizi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khazaei, M., Azizi, M. & Zali, M. How performance of top companies are related on Global Competitiveness Index?. J Glob Entrepr Res 11, 129–139 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40497-021-00276-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40497-021-00276-z

Keywords

Navigation