Advertisement

Dynamische Rahmenbedingungen als Herausforderung des strategischen Marketing Managements

Corporate Political Marketing im Mobilitätssektor
  • L. Meißner
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Eine zunehmende Dynamik im politischen Umfeld, ein gestiegener Erfüllungsaufwand durch Regulierungsvorgaben und die Partikularisierung der Unternehmensinteressen stellen das moderne (Automobil-) Management vor neue (politische) Herausforderungen (Kenning & Meißner, 2015). Die steigende Prävalenz politischer Unsicherheit bei Unternehmen, Verbänden und politischen Akteuren zeigt sich im Mobilitätssektor beispielsweise bei möglichen Dieselfahrverboten, Kartellvorwürfen, der Förderung innovativer Antriebe, industrieübergreifend bei der Einschätzung der Folgen des Mindestlohns oder personellen Unruhen innerhalb des Industrie-Verbands VDA. Es zeigt sich, dass die etablierten Strukturen der kollektiven Interessensvertretung im privaten Sektor, insbesondere im Automobil- und Mobilitätssektor nicht mehr zeitgemäß sind und an ihre (verschobenen) Grenzen stoßen (García-Canal & Guillén, 2008; Joos, 2016).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Adhikari, A., Derashid, C., & Zhang, H. (2006). Public policy, political connections, and effective tax rates: Longitudinal evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(5), 574-595.Google Scholar
  2. Akhavan, P., Jafari, M., & Fathian, M. (2006). Critical success factors of knowledge management systems: a multi-case analysis. European Business Review, 18(2), 97-113.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.Google Scholar
  4. Backhaus, K. (2009). Strategisches Marketing (2., überarb. Aufl. ed.). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.Google Scholar
  5. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.Google Scholar
  6. Baron, D. P. (1995). The nonmarket strategy system. Sloan Management Review, 37(1), 73.Google Scholar
  7. Baron, D. P. (1999). Integrated market and nonmarket strategies in client and interest group politics. Business and Politics, 1(1), 7-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bauer, R. A., Pool, I. d. S., & Dexter, L. A. (1963). American business & public policy. The International Executive, 5(3), 25-27.Google Scholar
  9. Bonardi, J.-P., Holburn, G. L., & Bergh, R. G. V. (2006). Nonmarket strategy performance: evidence from US electric utilities. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1209-1228.Google Scholar
  10. Bruttin, F., & Dean, D. (2004). Managing the cost of compliance in pharmaceutical operations. IBM Business Consulting Services.Google Scholar
  11. Bundesnetzagentur. (2017). Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen: Monitoringbericht 2017. . Retrieved from Bonn:Google Scholar
  12. Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative science quarterly, 223-244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative science quarterly, 47(2), 325-357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Busch-Janser, F. (2004). Staat und Lobbyismus: eine Untersuchung der Legitimation und der Instrumente unternehmerischer Einflussnahme: poli-c-books, Fachverl. für Politische Kommunikation.Google Scholar
  15. Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1982). The concept of external validity. Journal of consumer research, 9(3), 240-244.Google Scholar
  16. Cerveny, R. P., & Sanders, G. L. (1986). Implementation and structural variables. Information & Management, 11(4), 191-198.Google Scholar
  17. Churchill, G. A. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crain, W. M., & Hopkins, T. D. (2001). The impact of regulatory costs on small firms: US Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy.Google Scholar
  19. Drope, J. M., & Hansen, W. L. (2006). Does firm size matter? Analyzing business lobbying in the United States. Business and Politics, 8(2).Google Scholar
  20. Égert, B. (2018). Regulation, institutions and aggregate investment: new evidence from OECD countries. Open Economies Review, 29(2), 415-449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Epstein, E. M. (1969). The corporation in American politics: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Faccio, M., Masulis, R. W., & McConnell, J. (2006). Political connections and corporate bailouts. The Journal of Finance, 61(6), 2597-2635.Google Scholar
  23. Faccio, M., & Parsley, D. C. (2009). Sudden deaths: Taking stock of geographic ties. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 44(3), 683-718.Google Scholar
  24. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 382-388.Google Scholar
  25. García-Canal, E., & Guillén, M. F. (2008). Risk and the strategy of foreign location choice in regulated industries. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1097-1115. http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gerhardt, V. (2012). Öffentlichkeit: die politische Form des Bewusstseins: CH Beck.Google Scholar
  27. Gerstner, W.-C., König, A., Enders, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2013). CEO narcissism, audience engagement, and organizational adoption of technological discontinuities. Administrative science quarterly, 58(2), 257-291.Google Scholar
  28. Goldman, E., Rocholl, J., & So, J. (2009). Do politically connected boards affect firm value? Review of Financial Studies, 22(6), 2331-2360.Google Scholar
  29. Grier, K. B., Munger, M. C., & Roberts, B. E. (1994). The Determinants of Industry Political Activity, 1978–1986. American Political Science Review, 88(04), 911-926.Google Scholar
  30. Grimmer, K., Häusler, J., Kuhlmann, S., & Simonis, G. (2013). Politische Techniksteuerung: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. Hadani, M., & Schuler, D. A. (2013). In search of El Dorado: The elusive financial returns on corporate political investments. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 165-181.Google Scholar
  32. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.Google Scholar
  33. Hambrick, D. C., & Quigley, T. J. (2014). Toward more accurate contextualization of the CEO effect on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(4), 473-491.Google Scholar
  34. Hansen, W. L., Mitchell, N. J., & Drope, J. M. (2004). Collective action, pluralism, and the legitimacy tariff: corporate activity or inactivity in politics. Political Research Quarterly, 57(3), 421-429.Google Scholar
  35. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication monographs, 76(4), 408-420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter? Psychological science, 24(10), 1918-1927.Google Scholar
  37. Hill, M. D., Kelly, G. W., Lockhart, G. B., & Ness, R. A. (2013). Determinants and effects of corporate lobbying. Financial Management, 42(4), 931-957.Google Scholar
  38. Hillman, A. J., & Hitt, M. A. (1999). Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 825-842.Google Scholar
  39. Hillman, A. J., Zardkoohi, A., & Bierman, L. (1999). Corporate political strategies and firm performance: Indications of firm-specific benefits from personal service in the US government. Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), 67-81.Google Scholar
  40. Holburn, G. L., & Bergh, R. G. V. (2008). Making friends in hostile environments: Political strategy in regulated industries. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 521-540.Google Scholar
  41. Homburg, C. (2015). Marketingmanagement : Strategie – Instrumente – Umsetzung – Unternehmensführung (5., überarb. und erw. Aufl. ed.): Wiesbaden : Springer Gabler.Google Scholar
  42. Homburg, C., & Bucerius, M. (2006). Is speed of integration really a success factor of mergers and acquisitions? An analysis of the role of internal and external relatedness. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4), 347-367. http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Homburg, C., Schwemmle, M., & Kuehnl, C. (2015). New product design: Concept, measurement, and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 79(3), 41-56.Google Scholar
  44. Hurrle, B., & Kieser, A. (2005). Sind key informants verlässliche Datenlieferanten? Die Betriebswirtschaft, 65(6), 584.Google Scholar
  45. Jacob, D., & Thiel, T. (2017). Politische Theorie und Digitalisierung: Nomos.Google Scholar
  46. Joos, K. (2016). Politische Stakeholder überzeugen : erfolgreiche Interessenvertretung durch Prozesskompetenz im komplexen Entscheidungssystem der Europäischen Union (1. Auflage ed.). Weinheim: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Kenning, P., & Meißner, L. (2015). Corporate Political Marketing. WISU, 2015(12), 1338-1343.Google Scholar
  48. Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural equation modeling, 10(3), 333-351.Google Scholar
  49. Kim, J.-H., & Hyun, Y. J. (2011). A model to investigate the influence of marketing-mix efforts and corporate image on brand equity in the IT software sector. Industrial marketing management, 40(3), 424-438.Google Scholar
  50. Kohler-Koch, B. (2016). Stability and Change in the Representation of Business Interests in Germany. Report to the Attention of German Business Associations. Mannheim: MZES.Google Scholar
  51. Kotler, P. (2016). Grundlagen des Marketing [Lehrbuch] (6., aktualisierte Auflage ed.). Hallbergmoos: Pearson Deutschland GmbH.Google Scholar
  52. Langbein, L. I. (1986). Money and access: Some empirical evidence. The Journal of Politics, 48(4), 1052-1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Leif, T., & Speth, R. (2006). Die fünfte Gewalt–Anatomie des Lobbyismus in Deutschland. Die fünfte Gewalt. Lobbyismus in Deutschland, 10-36.Google Scholar
  54. Lucas, H. C. (1981). Implementation the key to successful information systems. Retrieved fromGoogle Scholar
  55. Lux, S., Crook, T. R., & Woehr, D. J. (2011). Mixing business with politics: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and outcomes of corporate political activity. Journal of management, 37(1), 223-247.Google Scholar
  56. Meißner, L., & Kenning, P. (2018). Dynamic Political Capabilities as a Key Factor of Strategic Marketing Management – Construct and Measurement Development. Paper presented at the AMA Winter Conference, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  57. Milbrath, L. W. (1960). Lobbying as a communication process. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(1), 32-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Miles, R. H. (1986). Managing the corporate social environment: a grounded theory: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  59. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems research, 2(3), 192-222.Google Scholar
  60. Murthy, P., & Mantrala, M. K. (2005). Allocating a promotion budget between advertising and sales contest prizes: An integrated marketing communications perspective. Marketing Letters, 16(1), 19-35.Google Scholar
  61. NNK. (2017). Diesen Aufwand verursacht die Rechtsetzung der Bundesregierung. Retrieved from https://www.normenkontrollrat.bund.de/Webs/NKR/Content/DE/Artikel/ArtikelStartseite/monitor_ea_ausfuehrlicher_text.html
  62. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory (Vol. 2). New York.Google Scholar
  63. Olfe-Kräutlein, B. (2012). Public Affairs in der deutschen Hauptstadt. Berlin.Google Scholar
  64. Oliver, C., & Holzinger, I. (2008). The effectiveness of strategic political management: A dynamic capabilities framework. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 496-520.Google Scholar
  65. Peltzman, S. (1976). Toward a More General Theory of Regulation. The Journal of Law and Economics, 19(2), 211-240. http://doi.org/10.1086/466865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Perreault, W. D., & Leigh, L. E. (1989). Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2), 135.Google Scholar
  67. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. 1985. In: New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  68. Proff, H. (2012). Dynamisches Automobilmanagement: Strategien für international tätige Automobilunternehmen im Übergang in die Elektromobilität (2., aktualisierte und überarbeitete Auflage ed.). Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rajwani, T., & Liedong, T. A. (2015). Political activity and firm performance within nonmarket research: A review and international comparative assessment. Journal of World Business, 50(2), 273-283.Google Scholar
  70. Rhee, J., Zhao, X., & Kim, C. (2014). Effects of HRM practices on Chinese firms’ organizational performance: the moderating effect of CEO support. Asian Social Science, 10(13), 210.Google Scholar
  71. Rosenbaum, W., & Mautz, R. (2011). Energie und Gesellschaft: Die soziale Dynamik der fossilen und der erneuerbaren Energien. In Handbuch Umweltsoziologie (pp. 399-420): Springer.Google Scholar
  72. Rudy, B. C., & Johnson, A. F. (2016). Performance, aspirations, and market versus nonmarket investment. Journal of management, 42(4), 936-959.Google Scholar
  73. Sack, D., & Strünck, C. (2016). Verbände unter Druck: Protest, Opposition und Spaltung in Interessenorganisationen: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  74. Schuler, D. A., & Rehbein, K. (1997). The filtering role of the firm in corporate political involvement. Business & Society, 36(2), 116-139.Google Scholar
  75. Shaffer, B., Quasney, T. J., & Grimm, C. M. (2000). Firm level performance implications of nonmarket actions. Business & Society, 39(2), 126-143.Google Scholar
  76. Siedentopp, J. (2010). Public Affairs-Management von Großunternehmen (Vol. 11). Berlin.Google Scholar
  77. Stigler, G. J. (1971). The Theory of Economic Regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 3-21. http://doi.org/10.2307/3003160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  79. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
  80. Welfens, P. J. (2013). Internationalisierung von Wirtschaft und Wirtschaftspolitik: eine Analyse der Dynamik und Gestaltbarkeit von Wirtschaft und Politik in einer sich wandelnden Weltwirtschaft: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  81. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological methodology, 8, 84-136.Google Scholar
  82. Wu, L.-Z., Kwan, H. K., Yim, F. H.-k., Chiu, R. K., & He, X. (2015). CEO ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility: A moderated mediation model. Journal of business ethics, 130(4), 819-831.Google Scholar
  83. Yap, C., Soh, C., & Raman, K. (1992). Information systems success factors in small business. Omega, 20(5-6), 597-609.Google Scholar
  84. You, J., & Du, G. (2012). Are political connections a blessing or a curse? Evidence from CEO turnover in China. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(2), 179-194.Google Scholar
  85. Zimmer, A., & Speth, R. (2015). Einleitung. Von Interessenvertretung zu „Lobby Work “. In Lobby Work (pp. 9-27): Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Meißner
    • 1
  1. 1.Heinrich-Heine-Universität DüsseldorfDüsseldorfDeutschland

Personalised recommendations