IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i21p9499-d1779613.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Alliance Networks Affect Firms’ Capability of Influencing Technological Standardization? Configuration Analysis Based on the TOE Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Jinyan Wen

    (School of Business Administration, Hunan University of Technology and Business, Changsha 410205, China)

  • Donghua Tan

    (School of Business Administration, Hunan University of Technology and Business, Changsha 410205, China)

  • Honglue Wang

    (School of Business Administration, Hunan University of Technology and Business, Changsha 410205, China)

  • Yanxiao Gao

    (School of Management, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

Abstract

Standardization alliance networks serve as crucial channels for firms to sponsor standards and access external resources, exerting a substantial impact on their standard-setting competitiveness and their ability to foster a sustainable innovation ecosystem. The technology–organization–environment (TOE) framework offers an integrated theoretical perspective for studying the causal recipes of how the technological composition, the network structure, and the environment features of standardization alliance network affect firms’ capabilities to dominate and support technological standardization. Based on the data of 88 vehicle manufacturers with experience in participating in standardization alliances, the results of fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) show that: (1) large-scale networks with low density and high technological diversity can simultaneously explain firms’ high level capabilities to dominate and support standardization; (2) supporting standardization is highly dependent on network scale, as firms embedded in large-scale alliance networks with high technological diversity or proximity both enjoy advantages in supporting standardization; (3) dominating standardization shows relatively low dependence on network scale, a firm can enhance its standardization dominance by maintaining an alliance network with low technological proximity in institutional environment with high government intervention. Overall, this study contributes to the theoretical literature on cooperative standard-setting and provides managerial implications for firms looking to enhance capabilities to dominate and support standardization, thereby shaping sustainable technology trajectories and securing their long-term industrial competitiveness in a rapidly evolving technological environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinyan Wen & Donghua Tan & Honglue Wang & Yanxiao Gao, 2025. "How Do Alliance Networks Affect Firms’ Capability of Influencing Technological Standardization? Configuration Analysis Based on the TOE Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-21, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:21:p:9499-:d:1779613
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/21/9499/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/21/9499/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Du, Yunzhou & Kim, Phillip H., 2021. "One size does not fit all: Strategy configurations, complex environments, and new venture performance in emerging economies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 272-285.
    2. Ardito, Lorenzo & Peruffo, Enzo & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2019. "The relationships between the internationalization of alliance portfolio diversity, individual incentives, and innovation ambidexterity: A microfoundational approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    3. Simon Rodan & Charles Galunic, 2004. "More than network structure: how knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(6), pages 541-562, June.
    4. Ng, Peggy M.L. & Lit, Kam Kong & Cheung, Cherry T.Y., 2022. "Remote work as a new normal? The technology-organization-environment (TOE) context," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Jaffe, Adam B., 1989. "Characterizing the "technological position" of firms, with application to quantifying technological opportunity and research spillovers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 87-97, April.
    6. Junjie Liu & Xiaomeng Liu & Jiaoping Yang, 2024. "TOE Configuration Analysis of Smart City Construction in China Under the Concept of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Emanuele Colonnelli & Bo Li & Ernest Liu, 2024. "Investing with the Government: A Field Experiment in China," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(1), pages 248-294.
    8. Steffen Runge & Christian Schwens & Matthias Schulz, 2022. "The invention performance implications of coopetition: How technological, geographical, and product market overlaps shape learning and competitive tension in R&D alliances," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 266-294, February.
    9. Nooteboom, Bart & Van Haverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & Gilsing, Victor & van den Oord, Ad, 2007. "Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1016-1034, September.
    10. Wen, Jinyan & Li, Jian & Zhou, Qing & Zeng, Deming & Harms, Rainer, 2023. "How firms support formal standardization: The role of alliance portfolio and internal technological diversity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    11. de Leeuw, Tim & Gilsing, Victor & Duysters, Geert, 2019. "Greater adaptivity or greater control? Adaptation of IOR portfolios in response to technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1586-1600.
    12. van de Kaa, Geerten & Janssen, Marijn & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Standards battles for business-to-government data exchange: Identifying success factors for standard dominance using the Best Worst Method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 182-189.
    13. Ram Ranganathan & Anindya Ghosh & Lori Rosenkopf, 2018. "Competition–cooperation interplay during multifirm technology coordination: The effect of firm heterogeneity on conflict and consensus in a technology standards organization," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(12), pages 3193-3221, December.
    14. Guiju Zhu & Yuxing Peng & Changfa Shi & Sha Liu & Haiyun Liu, 2024. "Research on the Driving Paths and Evolution of Digital Innovation in Intelligent Connected Vehicle Enterprises—A Configurational Analysis Based on Dynamic fsQCA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-23, December.
    15. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel, 2016. "Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 13-24.
    16. Guan, Jian Cheng & Yan, Yan, 2016. "Technological proximity and recombinative innovation in the alternative energy field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1460-1473.
    17. Robert Axelrod & Will Mitchell & Robert E. Thomas & D. Scott Bennett & Erhard Bruderer, 1995. "Coalition Formation in Standard-Setting Alliances," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(9), pages 1493-1508, September.
    18. Kobarg, Sebastian & Stumpf-Wollersheim, Jutta & Welpe, Isabell M., 2019. "More is not always better: Effects of collaboration breadth and depth on radical and incremental innovation performance at the project level," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-10.
    19. Allan Afuah, 2013. "Are network effects really all about size? The role of structure and conduct," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 257-273, March.
    20. Nambisan, Satish, 2013. "Industry technical committees, technological distance, and innovation performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 928-940.
    21. Aija Elina Leiponen, 2008. "Competing Through Cooperation: The Organization of Standard Setting in Wireless Telecommunications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1904-1919, November.
    22. Balaji R. Koka & John E. Prescott, 2008. "Designing alliance networks: the influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 639-661, June.
    23. Henri Schildt & Thomas Keil & Markku Maula, 2012. "The temporal effects of relative and firm‐level absorptive capacity on interorganizational learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(10), pages 1154-1173, October.
    24. Alberto Urueña & Álvaro E. Arenas & Antonio Hidalgo, 2018. "Understanding workers’ adoption of productivity mobile applications: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA)," Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 967-981, January.
    25. Corey C. Phelps, 2010. "A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation," Post-Print hal-00528392, HAL.
    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. Wen, Jinyan & Li, Jian & Zhou, Qing & Zeng, Deming & Harms, Rainer, 2023. "How firms support formal standardization: The role of alliance portfolio and internal technological diversity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    2. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & Eggers, Felix & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2022. "Competing Standard-Setting Organizations: A Choice Experiment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    3. Xiuwen Chen & Qing Zhou & Zhigang Wang, 2024. "Causes of conflicts in standardization alliances related to the Belt and Road Initiative," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Geerten van de Kaa & Lieke van den Eijnden & Neelke Doorn, 2020. "Filtering Out Standard Success Criteria in the Case of Multi-Mode Standardization: Responsible Waste Water Treatment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-10, February.
    5. Wu, Yuhao & de Vries, Henk J., 2022. "Effects of participation in standardization on firm performance from a network perspective: Evidence from China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    6. Ke Feng & Bas Karreman & Deming Zeng & Enrico Pennings, 2024. "R&D collaboration, social coordination, and standardization: evidence from the Chinese automotive industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 158-190, February.
    7. Jiang, Hong & Gai, Jinlong & Chen, Chen & Yang, Jingxuan, 2024. "Influence of standards alliance coopetition relationship on enterprises’ technology innovation performance — A dual-path perspective of knowledge acquisition and routine updating," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    8. Hugo Ernesto Martínez Ardila & Julián Eduardo Mora Moreno & Jaime Alberto Camacho Pico, 2020. "Networks of collaborative alliances: the second order interfirm technological distance and innovation performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 1255-1282, August.
    9. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2017. "Multi-mode standardisation: A critical review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1370-1386.
    10. Lee, Cheng-Yu & Wang, Ming-Chao & Huang, Yen-Chih, 2015. "The double-edged sword of technological diversity in R&D alliances: Network position and learning speed as moderators," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 450-461.
    11. Martínez-Noya, Andrea & García-Canal, Esteban, 2021. "Innovation performance feedback and technological alliance portfolio diversity: The moderating role of firms’ R&D intensity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    12. Wen, Jinyan & Qualls, William J. & Zeng, Deming, 2021. "To explore or exploit: The influence of inter-firm R&D network diversity and structural holes on innovation outcomes," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    13. Hohberger, Jan & Kruger, Heidi & Almeida, Paul, 2020. "Does separation hurt? The impact of premature termination of R&D alliances on knowledge acquisition and innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    14. Zhang, Gupeng & Wang, Xiao & Duan, Hongbo & Zheng, Leven J., 2021. "How do new entrants’ pre-entry technological backgrounds impact their cross-industry innovation performances? A retrospective study of the mobile phone vendors," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    15. Ding Nan, 2024. "The influence of proximity and knowledge base on recombination innovation in R&D collaboration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(2), pages 1-28, February.
    16. Wadhwa, Anu & Phelps, Corey & Kotha, Suresh, 2016. "Corporate venture capital portfolios and firm innovation," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 95-112.
    17. Mariotti, Francesca & Haider, Sajjad, 2020. "Managing institutional diversity and structural holes: Network configurations for recombinant innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    18. Wang, Yinghuan & Zhang, Jingjing & Yan, Yan & Guan, Jiancheng, 2024. "The bidirectional causality of tie stability and innovation performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(10).
    19. Zhang, JingJing & Yan, Yan & Guan, JianCheng, 2019. "Recombinant distance, network governance and recombinant innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 260-272.
    20. Subramanian, Annapoornima M. & Bo, Wang & Kah-Hin, Chai, 2018. "The role of knowledge base homogeneity in learning from strategic alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 158-168.

    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:17:y:2025:i:21:p:9499-:d:1779613. 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.