Stakeholder Orientation and Market Impact: Evidence from India
This study integrates insights from stakeholder theory and the literature on competitive dynamics and incumbent responses to entry. While research in economics and strategy has examined how market incumbents respond to new entrants, little is known about the heterogeneity in these responses to the entry of a stakeholder-oriented firm; our study addresses this research gap. Findings from a novel, longitudinal dataset of 206 granularly defined pharmaceutical markets in India suggest that stakeholder-oriented firm entry in these markets is associated with an impact on prices and product differentiation with heterogeneous responses from high-end and low-end incumbents. Specifically, entry by a stakeholder-oriented firm results in a reduction in prices and dosage sizes from high-end incumbents, whereas low-end incumbents respond in the opposite direction.
KeywordsStakeholder orientation Market-entry Incumbent response Industrial organization Pharmaceuticals
The authors are grateful to the Section Editor, Julie Nelson and two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. The authors also thank Ernie Berndt, Iain Cockburn, Pilar García-Gómez, Maitreesh Ghatak, Ilze Kivleniece, Vineet Kumar, Richard Manning, Anita McGahan, Philipp Meyer-Doyle, Lilach Nachum, Enrico Pennings, Ivan Png, Rajnish Rai, Mike Scherer, Ken Shadlen, Jasjit Singh, K. Sudhir, Minyuan Zhao and the participants at the Academy of Management, Ghoshal Conference at the London Business School, Israel Strategy Conference, Asian Meetings of the Econometrics Society, SMS India Special Conference, DRUID Barcelona, Erasmus School of Economics seminar series (Health Group), INSEAD seminar series, Tilburg seminar series and NBER Productivity Lunch for their feedback and suggestions. Data from IMS Health India is gratefully acknowledged. Chatterjee acknowledges the Young Faculty Research Chair and Research Grant #7307A at IIM Bangalore and the Bharti Institute and Max Institute Research Fellowship at the Indian School of Business for this study. Usual disclaimers apply. Corresponding author can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The authors declare that none of the authors of this study are affiliated with the company, Mankind, in any way, and this study reflects their unbiased evaluation of the company for the time period covered in this study.
This study is funded by Indian School of Business & IIM Bangalore Grant Number #7307A.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declares that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Bennett, D., & Yin, W. (2018). The market for high-quality medicine: Retail chain entry and drug quality in India. Review of Economics and Statistics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
- Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.Google Scholar
- Besley, T., & Ghatak, M. (2017a). Profit with purpose? A theory of social enterprise. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 9(3), 19–58.Google Scholar
- Besley, T., & Ghatak, M. (2017b). Pro-social motivation and incentives. Annual Review of Economics, 18 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
- Bhaskarabhatla, A., Chatterjee, C., Anurag, P., & Pennings, E. (2016). Mitigating regulatory impact: The case of partial price controls on metformin in India. Health Policy and Planning, 32(2), 194–204.Google Scholar
- Bisserbe, N. (2009). Testing Times for Mankind Pharma: The rising star needs new strategies to sustain its robust growth. BusinessWorld, November Issue.Google Scholar
- Business Standard. (2012). Mankind Pharma set to tap core drugs market, July 19.Google Scholar
- Deshpande, R., & Winig, L. 2006. Cipla. Harvard Business School Case 503 – 085.Google Scholar
- Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2004). The diffusion of ideas over contested terrain: The (non) adoption of a shareholder value orientation among German firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(4), 501–534.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13, 32–33.Google Scholar
- Grilo, I. (1994). Mixed duopoly under vertical differentiation. Annals of Economics and Statistics, 33, 91–112.Google Scholar
- Hansmann, H. B. (1987). Economic theories of non-profit organizations. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The non-profit sector: A research handbook (pp. 27–42). Bellevue, WA: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Kakkar, H. (2011). A giant leap for mankind: From small beginnings, mankind is set to take the pharma sector by storm. Outlook Business Magazine, December 24.Google Scholar
- Kapczynski, A. (2009). Harmonization and its discontents: A case study of TRIPS implementation in India’s pharmaceutical sector. California Law Review, 97, 1571–1650.Google Scholar
- Newhouse, J. P. (1970). Toward a theory of nonprofit institutions: An economic model of a hospital. American Economic Review, 60(1), 64–74.Google Scholar
- Perloff, J. M., Suslow, V. Y., & Seguin, P. J. (2005). Higher prices from entry: pricing of brand name drugs. Working Paper http://are.berkeley.edu/~perloff/PDF/match05.pdf.
- Personal Interview. (2014). Telephone interviews with Arjun Juneja and Sanjiv Kaul, May 5.Google Scholar
- Selvaraj, S., Hasan, H., Chokshi, M., Sengupta, A., Guha, A., Shiva, M., Srinivasan, S., Phadke, A., Gopakumar, K. M., Santhosh, M. R., & Menghaney, L. (2012). Pharmaceutical pricing policy: A critique. Economic and Political Weekly, 97(4), 20–23.Google Scholar
- The Telegraph India. (2013). Drug price control covers too little, riddled with loopholes, November 22.Google Scholar
- Wilson, R. (1992). Strategic models of entry deterrence. In R.J. Aumann & Hart, S. (Eds.), Handbook of game theory (Vol. 1, pp. 305–329). New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar