IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i6p2416-d334408.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Evaluation Study of the Capabilities of Civilian Manufacturing Enterprises Entering the Military Products Market under the Background of China’s Civil–Military Integration

Author

Listed:
  • Jianzhong Xu

    (School of Economics and Management, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China)

  • Song Zhang

    (School of Economics and Management, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China)

Abstract

As the Chinese government has clearly put forward the development of civil–military integration (CMI) as a national strategy, civilian manufacturing enterprises entering the military products market (CMEE-MPM) can effectively improve China’s national defense science and technology capabilities and can also be an effective way for enterprises to enhance their sustainable development capabilities. However, due to the high standards and strict requirements of the national defense industry for supplier review, civilian manufacturing enterprises must evaluate their CMEE-MPM capabilities. In this study, a new evaluation and consideration model is proposed. Enterprises that plan to enter the military product market can use this model to evaluate their own CMEE-MPM capabilities. The evaluation model framework is composed of three successive parts: constructing an evaluation indicator system according to experts and enterprise experiences, calculating the weight of the indicators using an analytical hierarchy process (AHP), and evaluating CMEE-MPM capabilities using the method of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. Finally, this study verifies the feasibility of the application of the above model by measuring the capabilities of a civilian manufacturing enterprise that wants to enter the military products market in Harbin, China. The results show that the indicator system constructed in this paper can effectively evaluate CMEE-MPM capabilities. The findings of this research can be used as a reference for the decision making of civilian manufacturing enterprises regarding whether or not to enter the military products market, and then promote the sustainable development of enterprises.

Suggested Citation

  • Jianzhong Xu & Song Zhang, 2020. "An Evaluation Study of the Capabilities of Civilian Manufacturing Enterprises Entering the Military Products Market under the Background of China’s Civil–Military Integration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-23, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2416-:d:334408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2416/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2416/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antonio Sánchez‐Andrés, 2004. "Arms exports and restructuring in the Russian defence industry," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(5), pages 687-706.
    2. Weidenbaum, Murray L., 1961. "the military market in the 1960's," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 61-68.
    3. John Richard Edwards, 2015. "Accounting for Fair Competition between Private and Public Sector Armaments Manufacturers in Victorian Britain," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 51(3), pages 412-436, September.
    4. Reginald Masocha, 2019. "Social Sustainability Practices on Small Businesses in Developing Economies: A Case of South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-13, June.
    5. Wagner, Marcus, 2010. "The role of corporate sustainability performance for economic performance: A firm-level analysis of moderation effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1553-1560, May.
    6. Kulve, Haico te & Smit, Wim A., 2003. "Civilian-military co-operation strategies in developing new technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 955-970, June.
    7. Fotis Kitsios & Maria Kamariotou & Michael A. Talias, 2020. "Corporate Sustainability Strategies and Decision Support Methods: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, January.
    8. Molas-Gallart, Jordi, 1997. "Which way to go? Defence technology and the diversity of 'dual-use' technology transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 367-385, October.
    9. Edmund Byrne, 2007. "Assessing Arms Makers’ Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 201-217, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gholz, Eugene & James, Andrew D. & Speller, Thomas H., 2018. "The second face of systems integration: An empirical analysis of supply chains to complex product systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1478-1494.
    2. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Rosario Marín & Pedro Prats, 2013. "Factors affecting the diffusion of patented military technology in the field of weapons and ammunition," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 1-22, January.
    3. Bo Kyeong Lee & So Young Sohn, 2017. "Exploring the effect of dual use on the value of military technology patents based on the renewal decision," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1203-1227, September.
    4. Acosta, Manuel & Coronado, Daniel & Ferrándiz, Esther & Marín, M. Rosario & Moreno, Pedro J., 2020. "Civil-Military Patents and Technological Knowledge Flows into the Leading Defense Firms," MPRA Paper 123080, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrandiz & M. Rosario Marin & Pedro J. Moreno, 2018. "Patents and Dual-use Technology: An Empirical Study of the World's Largest Defence Companies," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(7), pages 821-839, November.
    6. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Rosario Marin, 2011. "Potential Dual-Use Of Military Technology: Does Citing Patents Shed Light On This Process?," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 335-349.
    7. Kartuzov Iegor, 2020. "Evaluation of dual use materials science technologies issue in Ukraine – «trick or treat»," Technology audit and production reserves, Socionet;Technology audit and production reserves, vol. 5(4(55)), pages 48-52.
    8. Federico Caviggioli & Antonio De Marco & Giuseppe Scellato, 2020. "Investigating the capabilities and the competitiveness of the EU vis-à-vis its main competitors in developing civilian technologies with critical spillovers into the defence," JRC Research Reports JRC120293, Joint Research Centre.
    9. Fiaz Ahmad Sulehri & Saba Sharif, 2022. "The Impact of Firm Sustainability on Firm Growth: Evidence from USA," Journal of Policy Research (JPR), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 8(2), pages 1-15, August.
    10. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2013_013 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Lee, Gilsoo & Cho, Sam Yul & Arthurs, Jonathan & Lee, Eun Kyung, 2020. "Celebrity CEO, identity threat, and impression management: Impact of celebrity status on corporate social responsibility," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 69-84.
    12. Wunhong Su & Liuzhen Zhang & Chao Ge & Shuai Chen, 2022. "Association between Internal Control and Sustainability: A Literature Review Based on the SOX Act Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-30, August.
    13. Block, Joern & Wagner, Marcus, 2014. "Ownership versus management effects on corporate social responsibility concerns in large family and founder firms," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 339-346.
    14. Moliterni, Fabio, "undated". "Do Global Financial Markets Capitalise Sustainability? Evidence of a Quick Reversal," SAS: Society and Sustainability 274853, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    15. Wei Liu & Han Yan, 2025. "The evaluation of ESG strategy implementation effect based on performance prism: evidence from the industrial and commercial bank of China," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    16. Roberta Troisi & Annamaria Nese & Rocío Blanco-Gregory & Monica Anna Giovanniello, 2023. "The Effects of Corruption and Innovation on Sustainability: A Firm-Level Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, January.
    17. Garcés-Ayerbe, Concepción & Cañón-de-Francia, Joaquín, 2017. "The Relevance of Complementarities in the Study of the Economic Consequences of Environmental Proactivity: Analysis of the Moderating Effect of Innovation Efforts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 21-30.
    18. Muhammad Zahid & Haseeb Ur Rahman & Musa Khan & Wajahat Ali & Fazaila Shad, 2020. "Addressing endogeneity by proposing novel instrumental variables in the nexus of sustainability reporting and firm financial performance: A step‐by‐step procedure for non‐experts," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 3086-3103, December.
    19. Abdelfeteh Bitat, 2018. "Environmental regulation and eco-innovation: the Porter hypothesis refined," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 8(3), pages 299-321, September.
    20. Udeke Huiskamp & Bauke ten Brinke & Gert Jan Kramer, 2022. "The climate resilience cycle: Using scenario analysis to inform climate‐resilient business strategies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1763-1775, May.
    21. Batara Surya & Hamsina Hamsina & Ridwan Ridwan & Baharuddin Baharuddin & Firman Menne & Andi Tenri Fitriyah & Emil Salim Rasyidi, 2020. "The Complexity of Space Utilization and Environmental Pollution Control in the Main Corridor of Makassar City, South Sulawesi, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-41, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2416-:d:334408. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.