Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Discovering the evolution of resource-based theory: Science mapping based

on bibliometric analysis☆
Yucheng Zhang a, Zhongwei Hou a, Feifei Yang b, *, Miles M. Yang c, Zhiling Wang a
a
School of Economics and Management, Hebei University of Technology, China
b
Asia Europe Business School, Faculty of Economics and Management, East China Normal University, China
c
Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A great number of papers published on resource-based theory (RBT) have shaped its popularity and usefulness as
Resource-based theory (RBT) a strategic approach. This study contributes to the literature by reviewing and evaluating the development of
Bibliometrics RBT research. Using a bibliometric analysis, we analyzed 2771 primary focal articles published between 1991
Science mapping
and 2020 and 103,796 secondary references. Our research reveals the status of RBT research by identifying the
Evolution
influential publications, authors, countries, institutions, and journals in this field. Based on the bibliometric
analysis results, we suggest the future agenda of RBT research. Complementing previous qualitative literature
reviews and quantitative meta-analyses, our study provides a systematic and dynamic understanding of RBT
research.

1. Introduction
As one of the most influential theories in management, resource-
based theory (RBT) was developed to explain the sources of sustain­
able competitive advantage at the firm level (Barney, 1991; Kraaijen­
brink, Spender, & Groen, 2010). According to RBT, firms that possess
valuable, rare, inimitable, and nonsubstitutable (VRIN) resources can
achieve sustainable competitive advantage and, consequently, superior
performance. Since Barney, Wernerfelt, Rumelt, and other scholars
conducted their pioneering studies (Barney, 1991; Rumelt, 1987; Wer­
nerfelt, 1984), numerous subsequent research works have extended RBT
to include core competencies (Hamel and Prahalad, 1994), the natural-
resource-based view (NRBV) (Hart, 1995; Hart and Dowell, 2011), the
knowledge-based view (Grant, 1996), and dynamic capabilities (Teece
et al., 1997). In their efforts to answer the foundational question of why
firms in the same industry systematically vary in performance, RBT-
related articles have made substantial contributions to knowledge
advancement in management.
Multiple review articles summarizing the critical issues in the
development of RBT (e.g. Barney, Ketchen, Wright, Barney, et al., 2011;
Barney, Ketchen, Wright, Sirmon, et al., 2011; Barney & Arikan, 2005;
Barney, Ketchen, Wright, Coff, & Kryscynski, 2011; Barney, Ketchen,
Wright, Hart, & Dowell, 2011; Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010) have been
published. While prior reviews have improved our understanding of
RBT, they have several limitations due to their narrative nature. Spe­
cifically, the sample sizes of literature reviews using qualitative methods
are often small. For example, Armstrong and Shimizu (2007) reviewed
empirical work of RBT based on 125 studies. Furthermore, qualitative
literature reviews are constrained by researchers’ subjective bias and
often lack rigor (Zupic and Čater, 2015; Verma and Gustafsson, 2020).
Finally, considering that the nature of accumulated knowledge is dy­
namic and evolving, qualitative literature reviews are unable to visually
show the evolution of RBT.
To overcome these limitations, we adopted a quantitative method,
namely science mapping based on bibliometric analysis (Zupic and
Čater, 2015), to comprehensively review the evolution of RBT. Biblio­
metric analysis employs a quantitative approach to describe and eval­
uate scientific fields, and it complements qualitative reviews in multiple
ways. First, bibliometric analysis is widely used for performance anal­
ysis (Cobo et al., 2011). Performance analysis aims to evaluate the
publication performance of individuals and institutions. To evaluate the
performance of RBT research, we address the first research question

This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant 71972065 and 71602163), General Program of Natural Science Foundation of
☆

Hebei Province (Grant G2019202307), and the Shanghai Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science (2019EGL009).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: feifei.yang@outlook.com (F. Yang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.055
Received 7 May 2020; Received in revised form 21 August 2021; Accepted 25 August 2021
Available online 4 September 2021
0148-2963/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Y. Zhang et al.
(RQ1): what is the status of RBT research? Second, bibliometric analysis
also includes science mapping to disclose the intellectual structure and
dynamics of knowledge space (Boyack and Klavans, 2014), which can
help us address the second research question (RQ2): what are the
evolutionary trajectories of the knowledge structure of RBT research? Based
on RQ1 and RQ2, we address the third research question (RQ3): what are
the future directions for RBT research?
Our study makes three contributions. First, we use quantitative re­
view methods to clarify the current research status of the RBT literature
in a systematic and comprehensive manner. To some extent, we over­
come the two limitations (i.e., the small sample size and the influence of
subjective bias) of qualitative literature reviews. Second, based on a
sample of 2771 articles, we use science mapping methods to visualize
the evolutionary trajectory of RBT research. It is difficult for a qualita­
tive literature review to visualize the evolutionary trajectory. By using
science mapping methods, we uncover the dynamics of the knowledge
structure of RBT research. Third, based on the results of bibliometric
analysis, our research suggests future avenues for RBT research.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 pro­
vides a brief literature review of RBT. Then, we describe the research
methodology in Section 3. We next present and discuss the results of the
bibliometric analysis in Section 4. Future research avenues are identified
in Section 5, and in Section 6, our conclusions are presented.
2. Literature review of RBT
Resources are generally defined as “all assets, capabilities, organi­
zational processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge, etc.
controlled by a firm” (Barney, 1991: 101). Shifting the research focus
from external analysis in traditional industrial–organization economics
(Bain, 1959), RBT focuses on an internal analysis of the variance in
resource endowments to explain the heterogeneity in firm performance
(Barney, 1991; Miller and Shamsie, 1996). Building on pioneering works
that explore ways to gain abnormal rents or competitive advantage
Miller and Shamsie (1996), Penrose (1959) Rumelt (1987) and Barney
(1991) proposed the early theoretical framework of RBT named the
resource-based view (RBV). The core tenet of the RBV is that VRIN re­
sources attributes generate sustainable competitive advantage (Barney,
1991).
Since the theoretical framework was proposed in 1991, RBT has
entered a rapid growth stage. Multiple landmark papers were published
in the 1990s to further enrich the elements of the theory (e.g. Amit and
Schoemaker, 1993; Peteraf, 1993; Miller and Shamsie, 1996). Since
2001, RBT has started to attract criticism. For example, Priem and Butler
(2001) criticized that the early RBT framework was tautological and
static, and RBT could not gain legitimacy as a theory. Although Barney
(2001) responded to the views of Priem and Butler (2001), the debates
over RBT continue. Kraaijenbrink et al. (2010) summarized the criti­
cisms of the early RBT framework and classified them into eight cate­
gories. Despite these controversies and criticisms, Barney et al. (2011)
identified 38 influential articles and gave positive recommendations on
the future development of RBT research.
RBT has stimulated the development of multiple pertinent research
streams, such as those concerning the knowledge-based view (Grant,
1996), the NRBV (Hart, 1995; Hart and Dowell, 2011), core compe­
tencies (Hamel and Prahalad, 1994), and dynamic capabilities (Teece
et al., 1997). Extending RBT, many scholars examine ways to gain VRIN
resources in different contexts, from an internal perspective such as
innovation (Keupp et al., 2012) and organizational learning (Zollo and
Winter, 2002) to an external perspective such as internationalization
(Peng, 2001), strategic alliances (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1996;
Lavie, 2006), and mergers and acquisitions (Barney et al., 2001; Lavie,
2006). Furthermore, more research attention has been paid to the
mechanisms and boundary conditions of RBT, such as Peteraf (1993),
Campbell et al. (2012), and Helfat and Winter (2011).
With the development of RBT, multiple retrospective assessments
501
Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516
have been published, including an examination of empirical research on
RBT (Armstrong and Shimizu, 2007), a review of RBT critiques (Kraai­
jenbrink et al., 2010), meta-analyses of RBT’s central tenets (Crook
et al., 2008; Karna et al., 2016), and an assessment of resource-based
theorizing on firm growth (Nason and Wiklund, 2018). Taken
together, these review articles provide an in-depth analysis of the
literature and advance the development of RBT. However, these articles
could not avoid subjective bias and the limitations of the small sample
size to provide a complete picture of RBT. Therefore, regarding RBT
research, there is an urgent need to identify its development trends, the
evolutionary trajectory of its knowledge structure, and its future di­
rections. We adopted a quantitative method, namely, science mapping
based on bibliometric analysis (Chen, 2006; Zupic and Čater, 2015), to
evaluate and advance RBT research.
3. Methodology
3.1. Science mapping based on bibliometric analysis
Science mapping based on bibliometric analysis is used to quanti­
tatively collect and analyze the key characteristics (e.g., titles, authors,
abstracts, keywords, and references) of publications in scientific fields
(Verbeek et al., 2002; Chen, 2006; Zupic and Čater, 2015). By analyzing
the extracted information, researchers can identify the research status of
a specific topic, including the number of published articles and the most
influential authors, articles, journals, institutions, and countries. Re­
searchers can also visualize the evolutionary trajectory of the knowledge
structure using software, such as CiteSpace and VOSviewer (Chen, 2003;
Shafique, 2013; Singh, Verma, & Chaurasia, 2020). In addition, keyword
co-occurrence analysis and citation burst analysis can help identify
keywords that appear frequently and articles that have experienced a
surge in citations to predict future research trends (Chen, 2006; Zhu
et al., 2019). In recent years, an increasing number of studies in the
strategic management research domain have adopted bibliometrics to
evaluate the research status, knowledge structure, and evolution of a
topic. For example, Verma and Gustafsson (2020) used science mapping
based on bibliometric analysis to investigate emerging COVID-19
research trends. Considering the need for science mapping to improve
our understanding of RBT research, we followed the workflow of science
mapping using bibliometric methods proposed by Zupic and Čater
(2015) as guidelines. We utilized CiteSpace software developed by Chen
(2006) to conduct the bibliometric analysis. Many articles have been
published based on this software (e.g. Chen, 2003; Zhu, Song, Zhu, &
Johnson, 2019).
3.2. Sample identification
To obtain appropriate sample articles for analysis, we first deter­
mined the databases we would use and the criteria for sample selection.
Following the suggestions of Zupic and Čater (2015) and Singh et al.
(2020), we selected Web of Science and Scopus as the data sources given
their widespread recognition in prior bibliometric analysis research
(Kent Baker et al., 2020; Gupta et al., 2021). Drawing data from two
databases rather than relying on a single database provides broad
coverage of the research area. The bibliometric software package that
we utilized could effectively support the importing of data from these
two databases.
After determining the databases, we selected the sample based on the
following criteria: (1) the time interval was set from 1991 to 2020. The
start time was selected because Barney first explicitly proposed the RBT
research framework in 1991. Since then, most research on RBT has been
based on the theoretical framework proposed by Barney (1991). (2) The
following keywords appeared in the titles, abstracts, and keywords of
the papers: resource-based view, resource-based theory, resource based
view, resource based theory, resource-based perspective, resource based
perspective, RBV, RBT, VRIN, competitive advantage, and sustainable
Y. Zhang et al.
competitive advantage. These keywords were determined based on the
RBT framework proposed by Barney (1991). (3) Following the Academic
Journal Guide 2018 (AJG 2018), we chose six research fields (entre­
preneurship and small business; general management; international
business and area studies; innovation and technology change manage­
ment; organization studies; and business strategy) and 251 journals. (4)
We input the query syntax in each database as follows: for Web of Sci­
ence, TS= (“keyword 1” OR “keyword 2” OR…) AND SO= (“journal title
1” OR “journal title 2” OR…); for Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“keyword 1”
OR “keyword 2” OR…) AND SRCTITLE (“journal title 1” OR “journal
title 2” OR…). (5) We set the searched papers as journal articles and the
language as English.
Fig. 1. Methodology of this study.
502
Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516
3.3. Data collection
After identifying an appropriate sample, we began to download data.
Although we carefully chose the search terms, there were studies that
fell beyond the scope of our review. Therefore, we further cleaned the
data. Specifically, two independent researchers manually checked the
papers’ titles, abstracts, and keywords and deleted duplicate articles or
articles that were irrelevant to the subject. After data cleaning, the final
sample size was 2771. To improve the accuracy of the CiteSpace soft­
ware calculations, we then converted the data from the two databases
into a consistent format. Based on 2771 primary focal articles and
103,796 secondary references, we conducted science mapping based on
bibliometric analysis.
Y. Zhang et al.
3.4. Data analysis
Fig. 1 shows the workflow of this study. As described in the intro­
duction, we identified three research questions and chose the analytical
methods accordingly. To address these three questions, we focused on
five analytical methods (i.e., descriptive analysis, co-citation analysis,
co-authorship analysis, keyword co-occurrence analysis, and citation
burst analysis) based on the bibliometric analysis that was conducted.
To answer RQ1 regarding the status of RBT research, we analyzed the
publication trend in RBT research using descriptive analysis, co-citation
analysis, and co-authorship analysis approaches. Co-citation analysis
and keyword co-occurrence analysis were used to discover the evolu­
tionary trajectories of the knowledge structure of RBT to address RQ2.
RQ3 aimed to identify future directions for RBT research. Thus, to
answer RQ3, we combined keyword co-occurrence analysis with citation
burst analysis to set the future research agenda based on quantitative
evidence.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. The status of RBT research
In this section, we present the three analyses that we conducted to
determine the status of RBT research. First, through descriptive analysis,
we identified the number of RBT research articles, the distribution of the
articles in the six fields noted above, and the levels of the journals in
which these articles were published. Second, through co-authorship
analysis, we identified the most influential countries and institutions
in the area of RBT. Third, through co-citation analysis, we identified the
most influential RBT authors, publications, and journals.
4.1.1. The general publication trend in RBT research
Fig. 2 shows the trends of articles published between 1991 and 2020.
In general, an increasing number of articles on RBT has been published
since 1991. However, the growth trends in published articles vary
within each ten-year interval. From 1991 to 2000, the increase in the
number of RBT articles was relatively slow. During the 2001–2010
period, the number of RBT articles began to grow rapidly. After 2011,
the number of published RBT articles grew faster than before 2011.
There may be several reasons for these observations. First, as an
emerging theory, RBT required a process of recognition between 1991
and 2001. Second, scholars have been influenced by the guidance of top
journals. For example, the Journal of Management published two special
issues on RBT development in 2001 and 2011. Third, many different
450
400
350
Number of Publication
300
250
200
150
100
49
50 21
6
0
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Year
Fig. 2. The annual trends of RBT- related publications.
503
Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516
RBT-related research streams, such as the streams on the resource
orchestration view (Sirmon, Hitt, Ireland, & Gilbert, 2011) and dynamic
capabilities (Teece, 2014), have been significantly developed since
2011.
Table 1 lists the most influential RBT publications during the
1991–2020 period according to co-citation index and their key contri­
butions. According to Table 1, among the 50 most influential RBT
publications, 41 (82%) were published in grade 4* journals. A book
titled “Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in orga­
nizations”, written by Helfat et al. (2007), is among them. Most of these
publications focus on topics such as theoretical legitimacy (e.g. Barney,
2001; Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010; Priem & Butler, 2001), the definitions
and classifications of resources and capabilities (e.g. Teece et al., 1997;
Helfat and Winter, 2011; Helfat and Martin, 2015), and the mechanism
of the relationship between resources (or capabilities) and competitive
advantage (e.g. Lin & Wu, 2014; Morgan, Vorhies, & Mason, 2009;
Schilke, 2014a).
4.1.2. The publication trend of RBT research in six fields
Then, we conducted a field segmentation analysis. The 2771
collected published articles were classified into six fields based on the
journal classification standard of the AJG 2018 to understand the cur­
rent research status of published articles in these fields. Fig. 3 presents
the number of RBT research publications in the six fields. Overall, the
distribution of RBT publications in these six areas was uneven. Specif­
ically, the highest number of RBT publications were concentrated in two
areas: general management (37.71%) and business strategy (18.87%).
The next two areas in terms of the concentration of published articles
were international business and area studies (14.07%) and entrepre­
neurship and small business (12.05%). The two areas with the lowest
number of published articles were innovation and technology change
management (11.19%) and organization studies (6.10%).
Interestingly, the number of published articles in the business strat­
egy field ranked second, while the highest number of published articles
were in the general management field. We did not expect this result
since RBT originated from the strategic management field. The reasons
may be that based on the AJG 2018 classification of journals, journals in
the general management field (83 journals) far outnumber journals in
the business strategy field (18 journals). Considering the average num­
ber of published articles in each journal, the number of published arti­
cles per journal in the business strategy field (29.06 articles per journal)
is far greater than that in the general management field (12.59 articles
per journal).
Next, given the differences in the number of published articles in the
312
238
133
63
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516

Table 1
The top 50 influential publications on RBT.
Reference Co- Journal AJG Key Contributions
citation
2018
Index

Teece et al. (1997) 54 Strategic Management 4* Explained the definition and nature of dynamic capabilities; distinguished the links and differences
Journal between resources, capabilities, core competitiveness and dynamic capabilities.
Priem and Butler 43 Academy of 4* Criticized RBV from four perspectives (nonfalsifiable, no practical significance, neglecting
(2001) Management Review environmental factors, and unclear mechanism), and made suggestions for improvement.
Peteraf (1993) 43 Strategic Management 4* Proposed four essential conditions for sustainable competitive advantage—superior resources, ex post
Journal limits to competition, imperfect resource mobility, and ex ante limits to competition—and integrated
them into RBV framework.
Teece (2007) 42 Strategic Management 4* Proposed the framework of dynamic capability and explained the nature and microfoundations of
Journal capabilities; integrated the combined effects of the environment, firm, and managers into a framework
that expanded RBV.
Newbert (2007) 42 Strategic Management 4* Reviewed 55 empirical documents related to RBV; found that only 53% of all studies provided empirical
Journal support for RBV; found that the level of empirical support varied with the independent variable.
Sirmon et al. (2007) 41 Academy of 4* Proposed a dynamic resource management model for value creation; tried to combine resource
Management Review management and value creation in a dynamic environment to explore the mechanism of RBV.
Helfat et al. (2007) 38 NA NA A book that fully explained the framework of dynamic capabilities and provided numerous examples;
explained the basis and source of dynamic capabilities and the relationship between dynamic capabilities
and RBV, etc.
Kraaijenbrink et al. 38 Journal of Management 4* Summarized the criticisms of the early RBV framework and classified them into eight categories; also
(2010) provided suggestions for resolving these criticisms.
Barney (1991) 35 Journal of Management 4* Identified the heterogeneous distribution of resources in the industry and was the first to explicitly
propose the research framework for RBT; described four attributes of resources and explained the
relationships between resources and competitive advantage and sustainable competitive advantage.
Helfat and Peteraf 34 Strategic Management 4* Introduced “managerial cognitive capability” into the framework of dynamic capability; distinguished
(2015) Journal the effects of specific types of cognitive capabilities on dynamic managerial capabilities, and explained
their impact on organizational strategic changes.
Amit and Schoemaker 33 Strategic Management 4* Clearly distinguished the organization’s resources with capabilities; tried to integrate the industry
(1993) Journal analysis, RBV and behavioral decision theory into one framework.
Schilke (2014a) 33 Strategic Management 4* Empirically tested the nonlinear and inverse U-shaped moderating effect of a firm’s external environment
Journal on the mechanism between the dynamic capability and competitive advantage.
Barney (2001) 31 Academy of 4* Refuted the assertion that RBT was tautology; explained the practical contributions of RBT; proposed
Management Review using dynamic methods to conduct empirical studies.

Reference Co- Journal AJG Key Contributions

citation
Index 2018

Barney et al. (2001) 30 Journal of Management 4* Reviewed some achievements and challenges of different stages of RBT and provided some influential
papers on RBT; briefly summarized the contributions of the articles in the third special issue in the
Journal of Management; provided suggestions for the development of RBT.
Lin and Wu (2014) 30 Journal of Business 3 Empirically tested the mediating effect of dynamic capabilities on the mechanism between a firm’s VRIN
Research and non-VRIN resources and corporate performance within the framework of RBT
Eisenhardt and 27 Strategic Management 4* Defined dynamic capabilities based on RBT; emphasized that sustainable competitive advantage came
Martin (2000) Journal from managers’ use of dynamic capabilities to deploy resources to implement valuable strategies and not
from capabilities themselves; explored the boundary conditions of RBT in such contexts moderately
dynamic markets and high-velocity markets.
Helfat and Peteraf 27 Strategic Management 4* Based on the fact that organizational capabilities and resources changed over time, attempted to better
(2003) Journal develop the dynamic resource-based view in conjunction with the concept of the capability lifecycle
(CLC).
Helfat and Winter 26 Strategic Management 4* Distinguished dynamic capabilities from operational capabilities; proposed the flexible use of dynamic
(2011) Journal capabilities and operational capabilities to conduct effective transformation; discussed the applicability
of dynamic capabilities in short-term or relatively calm external environments.
Lavie (2006) 26 Academy of 4* Discussed the applicability of the RBT framework in the context of cooperative networks (alliance
Management Review environment); extended the RBT framework based on the alliance environment.
Li and Liu (2014) 26 Journal of Business 3 Redefined dynamic capabilities under the background of emerging economies such as China; empirically
Research tested the relationship among dynamic capabilities, competitive advantage and environmental
dynamism.
Mahoney and 25 Strategic Management 4* Reviewed the developments of RBT from three research perspectives (i.e., mainstream strategy research,
Pandian (1992) Journal organizational economics, and industrial organization research) in the field of strategic management;
provided some insights into the future development of RBV from these three perspectives.
Conner (1991) 24 Journal of Management 4* Reviewed the five schools in the Industrial Organization Economics (i.e., neoclassical theory’s perfect
competition model, Bain-type IO, the Schumpeterian and Chicago responses, and transaction cost
theory); compared these theories with RBT; discussed the differences and the rationality of RBT as a new
theory.
Campbell et al. 24 Academy of 4* Defined three boundary conditions of a company’s specific human capital as the source of the company’s
(2012) Management Review competitive advantage; proposed a comprehensive framework for the human capital-based advantage.
Peteraf et al. (2013) 22 Strategic Management 4* Conducted a comparative analysis of two papers (i.e., Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Teece, Pisano, and
Journal Shuen, 1997) on the distinctions and contradictions of the construct’s core elements of the dynamic
capability and gave some possible reasons for their findings; proposed solutions to resolve the structural
obstacles of these contradictions.

504
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516

Reference Co- Journal AJG Key Contributions

citation
2018
Index

Wamba et al. (2017) 22 Journal of Business Research 3 Defined a big data analytics capability (BDAC) model based on RBT; empirically tested the
relationships among the three variables: process-oriented dynamic capabilities, big data analytics
capability, and firm performance.
Hart and Dowell ( 22 Journal of Management 4* Reviewed the development of NRBV during the period from 1995 to 2011; refined the theoretical
2011) model of NRBV.
Felin et al. (2015) 22 Academy of Management 4 Reviewed the movements of the microfoundations in strategic management; called on scholars not
Annals to separate the macro and micro foundations; emphasized the interaction effects between micro
level and macro level in strategic management research.
Armstrong and 21 Journal of Management 4* Reviewed the empirical studies related to RBT from 1991 to 2005; proposed that scholars should
Shimizu (2007) pay attention to the contextual effects of specific resources and unobserved heterogeneity among
enterprises; described several ways to expand RBT research.
Ray et al. (2004) 21 Strategic Management 4* Empirically tested a claim that the effectiveness of business process rather than corporate
Journal performance as a dependent variable may be more appropriate with the logic of RBT in some cases.
Teece (2014) 21 Journal of International 4* Proposed a dynamic capabilities-based theory of a multinational enterprise.
Business Studies
Teece (2014) 21 Academy of Management 3 Reinterpreted the framework of dynamic capabilities; distinguished the different roles of
Perspectives entrepreneurs’ individual actions and resources of dynamic capabilities; distinguished among
strategy, ordinary capabilities, and dynamic capabilities.
Newbert (2008) 20 Strategic Management 4* Empirically tested the relationship between the two attributes of resources (value, rareness),
Journal competitive advantage and corporate performance that was proposed by Barney in 1991.
Drnevich and 20 Strategic Management 4* Empirically tested the effects of ordinary ability and dynamic ability on relative firm performance;
Kriauciunas (2011) Journal tested the moderating effects of heterogeneity and environmental dynamism on these effects.
Kozlenkova et al. 20 Journal of the Academy of 4* Reviewed the developments of RBT in the field of marketing; distinguished the specific application
(2014) Marketing Science characteristics of RBT in the field of marketing from four perspectives.
Coff and Kryscynski 19 Journal of Management 4* Explained the microfoundation of competitive advantage based on human capital; called for a
(2011) multilevel solution to the human capital dilemma.
Conner and Prahalad 19 Organization Science 4* Conducted a comparative analysis of the knowledge-based RBT and opportunism-based
(1996) transaction-cost theory.
Helfat and Martin 18 Journal of Management 4* Reviewed influential publications on dynamic managerial capabilities; integrated empirical studies
(2015) on the relationship between dynamic managerial capabilities and strategic change, and proposed a
future research agenda.
Barreto (2010) 18 Journal of Management 4* Reviewed the different research streams on dynamic capabilities; integrated the concept of
dynamic capabilities; discussed the construction, mechanism, and boundaries of dynamic
capabilities.

Reference Co- Journal AJG Key Contributions

citation
2018
Index

Miller and Shamsie 18 Academy of Management 4* Distinguished between attribute-based and knowledge-based resources; empirically tested the
(1996) Journal effects of the two kinds of resources on performance.
Makadok (2001) 17 Strategic Management 4* Integrated RBT and dynamic capability theory; distinguished between two mechanisms for creating
Journal economic rent—resource selection and capacity building—and explored the interaction between
the two mechanisms.
Zollo and Winter 17 Organization Science 4* Defined dynamic capabilities and proposed that dynamic capabilities came from three different
(2002) learning mechanisms: experience accumulation, knowledge articulation, and knowledge
codification.
Ambrosini and 17 International Journal of 3 Explored the root causes of the confusion in the definition of dynamic capabilities; proposed a
Bowman (2009) Management Reviews process for creating dynamic capabilities; suggested the use of a qualitative approach to conduct the
empirical research.
Grant (1991) 16 California Management 3 Proposed a framework for the use of RBT in strategic analysis.
Review
Lavie (2007) 16 Strategic Management 4* Used panel data to empirically test the relationship between alliance portfolios and firms’
Journal performance, and broadened the application context of RBT.
Kor and Mesko 16 Strategic Management 4* Linked dynamic capabilities to a firm’s dominant logic; explained the effects of CEO functions on
(2013) Journal this mechanism.
Zahra et al. (2006) 16 Journal of Management 4 Distinguished between substantive and dynamic capabilities; proposed the moderating role of
Studies organizational knowledge and skills in the relationship between dynamic capabilities and value
creation; identified differences in dynamic capabilities between new and old enterprises.
Sirmon et al. (2011) 16 Journal of Management 4* Conducted a comparative analysis of resource management and asset orchestration; discussed the
roles of managers in RBT; recommended the use of asset orchestration to extend RBT from three
perspectives (i.e., breadth, depth, and firm life cycle).
Dierickx and Cool 16 Management Science 4* Discussed the relationship between asset stock accumulation and sustainable competitive
(1989) advantage.
Winter (2003) 16 Strategic Management 4* Defined dynamic capabilities as higher-order capabilities and distinguished them from the “zero-
Journal level” capabilities (ordinary capabilities) of an organization.
Morgan et al. (2009) 15 Strategic Management 4* Explored the relationship among market orientation, market capacity, their interaction, and
Journal company performance based on the traditional RBT framework and its extension: dynamic
capabilities theory.

Note: The co-citation index is the publication index in the co-citation analysis. The higher the value is, the more influential the publication.

505
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516

1200 1045
(37.71%)

Number of Publication
1000

800
523
600 (18.87%)
390
334 (14.07%) 310
400 (12.05%) (11.19%)
169
(6.10%)
200

0
Entrepreneurship General International Innovation and Organization Business Strategy
and Small Management Business Technology Studies
Business and Area Studies Change
Management
Field

Fig. 3. RBT-related publications in six fields.

six fields above, we explored the dynamic changes in the published ar­
ticles in these different fields. Fig. 4 shows the growth trend for pub­
lished RBT articles in the six areas at different times. In general, the
number of publications in the six fields has increased greatly. However,
the growth trends have differed. First, the number of publications in the
general management field has grown rapidly. This may be because the
journals in this field cover a high number of research topics. Second,
business strategy and international business and area studies were the
fields with the next highest rates of growth. In the field of organization
studies, the number of publications has grown relatively slowly. This is
because journals in this field, such as Organizational Research Methods
and Research in Organizational Behavior, have a greater focus on micro-
individual research methods. Notably, since 2009, the number of RBT
publications in the entrepreneurship and small business field and the
innovation and technology change management field has grown rapidly.
To further understand the quality of articles in these six areas, we
took three steps to analyze the levels of the journals in which these ar­
ticles were published based on the journal classification guideline pro­
vided by the AJG 2018. First, we classified the 2771 published articles
into five levels: 4*, 4, 3, 2, and 1. Journals marked 4* are of the best
quality. Second, to identify the distribution of articles with different
levels of quality in each field, we conducted a field analysis to determine
the percentages. As Table 2 shows, for the business strategy field, the
percentage of articles published in level 4* journals was 60.42%, while
the percentage of articles published in level 1 journals was 5.16%. This
result means that in the field of business strategy, it is relatively easy to
publish RBT articles in high-quality journals. In contrast, for interna­
tional business and area studies, the smallest proportion of articles
(7.69%) were published in 4* journals. Most of the RBT articles in this
field were published in journals rated as levels 3 (49.49%), 2 (12.31%),
and 1 (30.51%). In the field of organization studies, the percentage of
articles published in level 2 journals rated was 38.46%, accounting for
the largest proportion. However, the percentage of articles published in
level 4* journals was 36.69%. This result shows that in this field, there
was a large difference in the quality of RBT articles. In addition, to better
compare the percentages of articles at different quality levels among
fields, we determined the percentages of articles published in journals of
the same level for each field. As Table 2 shows, among the articles
published in level 4* journals, business strategy articles comprised the
largest percentage (approximately 51.13%). At levels 4, 3, and 2, gen­
eral management articles comprised the greatest proportion of all arti­
cles; the percentages of general management articles at these three
journal levels were 42.36%, 49.47%, and 40.80%, respectively. At level
1, articles in international business and area studies accounted for the
largest percentage (35.74%).

120
Entrepreneurship and
Small Business
100 General Management
Number of Publication

International Business
80
and Area Studies

Innovation and Technology

60 Change Management

Organization Studies

40
Business Strategy

20

0
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Year

Fig. 4. Publication timeline of the six fields.

506
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516

4.1.3. The most influential countries and institutions conducting RBT

among fields
research

Percentage
Regarding the global status of RBT research, we conducted a co-

18.62%

20.72%

35.74%

13.21%

3.60%
8.11%
authorship analysis through science mapping. We first established an
algorithm in CiteSpace software: (1) the time slice was set to 5; (2) the
threshold was set to the top 50 to highlight the most important countries
and institutions. In the figures, the results are displayed as follows: (1)
within field
Percentage

each node represents a country (Fig. 5) or an institution (Fig. 6). (2) The
6.60%

7.10%
5.16%
18.56%

30.51%

14.19%
size of the node represents the importance of the country (Fig. 5) or
institution (Fig. 6) in RBT research. (3) A purple outer ring on the edge of
119 a node indicates that the country or institution is essential in the coop­
62

69

44

12
27
eration network. (4) A connection between nodes represents a cooper­
1

ative relationship between different countries or institutions.

among fields

We first conducted a country cooperation network analysis. As Fig. 5

Percentage

shows, scholars in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada,

40.80%

17.23%

16.49%
8.84%

7.07%

9.57%
France, and Italy were the first to conduct RBT research. Additionally,
the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Spain, and Canada are the
most influential countries in RBT research. Countries such as the United
within field

Kingdom, South Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland have a vital position in

Percentage

cooperation networks because they cooperate more with other coun­

17.96%

26.51%

12.31%

37.74%

38.46%
21.41%

tries. In addition, research on RBT has developed rapidly in China,

Spain, Australia, and Germany.
Second, we conducted an institutional network analysis (see Fig. 6).
277

117

112
60

48

65

We found that the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Illinois,

2

the European Institute of Business Administration, the Copenhagen

among fields

Business School, and Texas A&M University are the most influential
Percentage

institutions in RBT research worldwide. Additionally, institutions such

14.54%

49.47%

22.63%

4.81%

0.47%
7.97%

as the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Illinois, the Uni­

Notes: NA indicates that according to the AJG2018 journal classification standard, there is no journal at this level in this field.

versity of Michigan, and Texas A&M University were the first to engage
in RBT research. Institutions such as Florida State University, Boston
within field
Percentage

University, De Montfort University, the University of Nottingham, and

2.37%
37.13%

40.38%

49.49%

13.23%

13.00%

Texas A&M University have a vital position in cooperation networks.

4.1.4. The most influential authors, articles, and journals in RBT research
To better identify the knowledge structure and evolutionary trajec­
124

422

193

41

68
3

tory of RBT research, we conducted a co-citation analysis using Cite­

Space software. Such an analysis can identify the most influential
among fields
Percentage

authors, articles, and journals during a specific period. The influence of

30.21%

42.36%

18.40%

authors, articles, and journals is measured by the co-citation index. The

9.03%

data used for the co-citation analysis were the references of the 2771
NA

NA

articles in the sample. The total number of references was 103,796. The
algorithm was as follows: the time slice was set to 5, and the threshold
within field
Percentage

was set to the top 100. For a co-citation analysis, the results are generally
26.05%

11.67%

17.10%

15.38%

displayed in the manner used in Figs. 5 and 6. However, there are two
NA

NA

differences. First, each node in Figs. 7–9 represents an author, a publi­

cation, and a journal, respectively. Second, a line between two nodes no
122

longer represents a co-citation relationship rather than a cooperative

NA

NA
87

53

26
4

relationship. The darker the line between two nodes is, the greater the
among fields

similarities between the two nodes.

Percentage

We first conducted an author co-citation analysis to identify the most

25.08%

10.03%
51.13%
4.85%

8.90%

influential authors in RBT. Fig. 7 shows the world’s most influential

NA

authors in RBT research, including Jay Barney, David Teece, Birger

Ranking and percentage of articles in six fields.

Wernerfelt, Michael Porter, Kathleen Eisenhardt, Robert Grant, Mar­

garet Peteraf, Edith Penrose, Bruce Kogut, Shaker Zahra, and Ingemar
within field
Percentage

Dierickx. The first scholars to publish in RBT research included Jay

14.83%

17.74%

36.69%
60.42%
7.69%

Barney, David Teece, Birger Wernerfelt, Michael Porter, Edith Penrose,

NA

Ingemar Dierickx, Richard Rumelt, Oliver Williamson, and Wesley

Cohen. In addition, as indicated by the nodes in Fig. 7 and their sur­
155

316
NA

30

55

62
4*

rounding purple circles, Jay Barney, Edith Penrose, Birger Wernerfelt,

Richard Rumelt, David Teece, Michael Porter, Oliver Williamson,
and Small Business

Organization Studies
Business and Area

Kathleen Eisenhardt, Stuart Hart, Bruce Kogut, Sidney Winter, Ranjay

Business Strategy.
Entrepreneurship

Gulati, Joseph Schumpeter, Robert Hoskisson, Michael Jensen, George

Innovation and
Management

Management
Technology
International

Day, and James Anderson are at the center of the entire knowledge
Change
Studies

structure of RBT.
General
Table 2

Field

Second, Fig. 8 shows the most influential publications based on co-

citation analysis. From the upper right corner to the lower left corner

507
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516

Fig. 5. The country co-authorship network of RBT-related publications.

Fig. 6. The institution co-authorship network of RBT-related publications.

of Fig. 8, the evolution of the knowledge structure of RBT research can
be tracked based on the change in color (with cold tones gradually
becoming warm). Fig. 8 shows that before 1995, the most influential
works were those by Dierick and Cool (1989), Barney (1991), Conner
(1991), Grant (1991), Mahoney and Pandian (1992), Peteraf (1993),
and Amit and Schoemaker (1993). The RBT studies that were published
during this period largely focused on the theoretical framework of RBT,
the impact of RBT, and the differences between RBT and other classic
theories such as industrial–organization economics. Influential publi­
cations that appeared during the period from 1996 to 2000 included
Conner and Prahalad (1996), Miller and Shamsie (1996), Grant (1996),
Teece et al. (1997), Dyer and Singh (1998), and Eisenhardt and Martin
(2000). During this period, these influential works constituted two main
streams of research. One expanded the theoretical framework of RBT,
such as the knowledge-based view (Grant, 1996), and the other studied
dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000).
During the period from 2001 to 2005, the most influential publications
were those by Priem and Butler (2001), Barney (2001), Makadok
(2001), Zollo and Winter (2002), Helfat and Peteraf (2003), Winter
(2003), and Ray et al. (2004). Dynamic RBV and dynamic capabilities
became the topics of discussion by scholars during this period. Scholars
such as Makadok (2001) began to try to integrate these two viewpoints.
In addition, the legitimacy of RBT as a theory was questioned by scholars
such as Priem and Butler (2001).
Regarding the RBT articles published between 2006 and 2010, the
most influential works have the following characteristics. First, the

508
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516

Fig. 7. The author co-citation network of RBT-related publications.

Fig. 8. The reference co-citation network of RBT-related publications.

dynamic capability view received intensive research attention from
scholars and dominated mainstream research, for example, that of Teece
(2007), Helfat et al. (2007), and Barreto (2010). Second, the discussion
of empirical testing of the RBT reached a peak, for example, Newbert
(2007) and Newbert (2008), Armstrong and Shimizu (2007), and
Kraaijenbrink et al. (2010). Third, several studies began to pay attention
to the role of managers in the RBT framework, including those by Teece
(2007) and Sirmon et al. (2007).
Regarding RBT research published from 2011 to 2015, two features
could be observed. First, a large number of articles focused on the
microfoundations of RBT, such as those by Coff and Kryscynski (2011),
Teece (2014), and Helfat and Peteraf (2015). Second, RBT’s insights
were integrated into other pertinent theories. For example, Teece (2014)
proposed a dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of a
multinational enterprise. In the last five years, some articles with a high
co-citation index were published. These articles mainly covered the
following four topics: (1) dynamic capabilities, as in Teece et al. (2016),
Girod and Whittington (2017), and Teece (2018); (2) big data, as in
Erevelles et al. (2016), Wassmer et al. (2017), Akter et al. (2016), and
Ji-fan Ren et al. (2017); (3) green aspects, as in Albort-Morant et al.
(2016) and Dangelico et al. (2017); and (4) empirical tests of RBT, as in
Nason and Wiklund (2018).

509
Y. Zhang et al.
Fig. 9. The journal co-citation network of RBT-related publications.
Fig. 9 shows the most influential journals in RBT research, which
include Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Management, Academy
of Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Organization
Science, Management Science, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of
Management Studies, Harvard Business Review, and Journal of Business
Research.
4.2. The evolution of topics in RBT research
We conducted a keyword co-occurrence analysis to identify the
evolutionary trajectory of topics. First, we identified the 69 keywords
that appeared most frequently in the past five years (2016–2020).
Focusing on the past five years provided the most current references,
thus permitting the identification of future directions. The CiteSpace
software algorithm was established as follows: (1) the time slice was set
to 1; and (2) the threshold was set to the top 50. Second, we classified
these keywords along two dimensions. One dimension was whether a
keyword was “sustainable” or “emerging”. Keywords with five or more
occurrences were categorized as “sustainable”, while the others were
categorized as “emerging”. For the second dimension, we divided all
keywords into three categories, “increasing”, “stable”, or “decreasing”,
based on growth rate analysis. This study divided the 69 keywords into
six categories based on the two dimensions above. Table 3 shows the
specific types and rankings of the 69 keywords.
Overall, 55 (79.7%) keywords were considered “sustainable”, while
14 (20.3%) keywords were considered “emerging”. This result reflects
the gradual maturation of RBT and indicates the high stability of topics
related to RBT. Further subdividing the keywords in the “sustainable”
dimension, we found that 15 (27.3%) keywords belong to the
“increasing and sustainable” category, such as “emerging economy” and
“small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)”. Only 8 (14.5%) keywords
fell into the “sustainable and stable” category, such as “corporate social
responsibility” and “institutional theory”. Thirty-two (58.2%) keywords
were categorized as “sustainable and decreasing”, such as “diversifica­
tion” and “multinational corporation”. When the “emerging” dimension
was further subdivided, we found that seven (50%) keywords were in
the “emerging and increasing” category, such as “environmental per­
formance” and “business model”. Five (35.7%) keywords belong to the
510
Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516
“emerging and decreasing” category, such as “export performance” and
“decision making”. Only two (14.3%) keywords fell into the “emerging
and stable” category, such as “stakeholder management” and “corporate
sustainability”. To some extent, these results show that new topics
related to RBT are still unstable.
4.3. The citation burst analysis of RBT research between 2016 and 2020
We conducted a citation burst analysis to identify articles experi­
enced a surge in citations over the past five years. This analysis allowed
us to explore emerging topics in RBT and related research fields and to
identify future trends in RBT research (Zhu et al., 2019). Table 4 lists the
publications with the strongest citation bursts from 2016 to 2020. In
Table 4, the higher the strength value is, the stronger the surge in cita­
tions. The red line represents the time interval during which citations
surged. These highly cited articles covered the following topics: (1) the
impact of institutional factors, as in Gaur, Kumar, and Singh (2014), Li
and Liu (2014), Lin and Wu (2014), Schilke (2014a), and Dangelico and
Pontrandolfo (2015); (2) the microfoundations of RBT, as in Felin et al.
(2015), Nyberg et al. (2014), and Helfat and Peteraf (2015); (3) entre­
preneurship and SMEs, as in Teece (2014), Cavusgil and Knight (2015),
Brouthers et al. (2015), and Paul et al. (2017); (4) innovation, as in West
and Bogers (2014) and Laursen and Salter (2014); (5) big data, as in
Erevelles, Fukawa, and Swayne (2016), Wamba, Edwards, Chopin, and
Gnanzou (2015); and (6) business model, as in Massa et al. (2017) and
Foss and Saebi (2017). Regarding methodology, Semadeni et al. (2014)
suggested the use of instrumental variables to alleviate concerns
regarding endogeneity.
5. Future research directions
Through keyword co-occurrence analysis and citation burst analysis,
we identified potential topics for future research. To draw more insights
from our analyses, we applied the theory, context, characteristics, and
methodology (TCCM) framework (Paul & Rosado-Serrano, 2019; Sri­
vastava, Singh, & Dhir, 2020) to analyze the results of our keyword co-
occurrence analysis and citation burst analysis.
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516

Table 3
Results of keyword co-occurrence analysis between 2016 and 2020.
Keywords 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Type
ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking

Competitive advantage 3 2 2 4 5 Decreasing &sustainable

Capability 10 7 10 8 7 Decreasing &sustainable
Knowledge management 28 74 74 25 Decreasing &sustainable
Resource based theory 59 21 35 37 27 Decreasing &sustainable
Industry 14 43 17 54 29 Decreasing &sustainable
Ownership 35 65 81 87 31 Decreasing &sustainable
Human capital 65 44 89 32 Decreasing &sustainable
Resource 17 16 31 41 38 Decreasing &sustainable
Technology 18 19 32 42 39 Decreasing &sustainable
Exploration 54 94 72 46 Decreasing &sustainable
Collaboration 102 71 50 47 Decreasing &sustainable
Corporate governance 44 66 60 60 49 Decreasing &sustainable
Stakeholder theory 105 73 105 53 Decreasing &sustainable
Diversification 77 31 54 Decreasing &sustainable
Entry mode 82 105 55 Decreasing &sustainable
Strategic management 15 13 13 34 62 Decreasing &sustainable
Integration 45 36 50 64 66 Decreasing &sustainable
Foreign direct investment 70 86 67 Decreasing &sustainable
Evolution 46 71 67 36 70 Decreasing &sustainable
Empirical analysis 60 56 73 74 Decreasing &sustainable
Investment 61 100 77 Decreasing &sustainable
Strategic alliance 53 22 20 53 81 Decreasing &sustainable
Environment 63 32 57 85 Decreasing &sustainable
Network 22 33 40 17 86 Decreasing &sustainable
Technological innovation 77 105 Decreasing &sustainable
Joint venture 31 78 Decreasing &sustainable
Alliance 76 98 51 Decreasing &sustainable
Acquisition 48 40 99 Decreasing &sustainable
Culture 72 89 Decreasing &sustainable
Multinational corporation 78 57 Decreasing &sustainable
Organizational capability 96 89 28 Decreasing &sustainable
Economic performance 92 67 84 Decreasing &sustainable
Strategic orientation 82 48 Decreasing &emerging
Export performance 36 47 100 101 Decreasing &emerging
Big data 51 65 Decreasing &emerging
Microfoundation 87 64 66 Decreasing &emerging
Structural equation model 83 Decreasing &emerging

Keywords 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Type

ranking ranking ranking ranking ranking

Knowledge 7 10 7 7 9 Stable &sustainable

Corporate social responsibility 33 35 11 25 17 Stable &sustainable
Green 58 68 44 27 28 Stable &sustainable
Exploitation 58 103 36 Stable &sustainable
Social responsibility 56 83 49 44 64 Stable &sustainable
Institutional theory 74 46 95 95 Stable &sustainable
Human resource management 50 46 Stable &sustainable
Knowledge transfer 51 65 Stable &sustainable
Stakeholder management 61 Stable &emerging
Corporate sustainability 84 62 90 Stable &emerging
Resource based view 1 1 1 1 1 Increasing &sustainable
Innovation 6 4 5 3 3 Increasing &sustainable
Dynamic capability 4 5 4 5 4 Increasing &sustainable
Entrepreneurial orientation 25 12 12 11 10 Increasing &sustainable
Financial performance 13 15 18 12 11 Increasing &sustainable
SME 27 14 15 52 12 Increasing &sustainable
Entrepreneurship 40 18 25 22 15 Increasing &sustainable
Sustainability 41 49 38 14 16 Increasing &sustainable
Absorptive capacity 11 8 9 9 18 Increasing &sustainable
Market orientation 19 25 23 19 20 Increasing &sustainable
Product innovation 21 60 36 76 21 Increasing &sustainable
Information technology 39 55 16 37 Increasing &sustainable
Internationalization 30 29 77 24 40 Increasing &sustainable
Value creation 47 38 14 20 51 Increasing &sustainable
Emerging economy 20 17 24 30 103 Increasing &sustainable
Performance 2 3 3 2 2 Increasing &emerging
Business model 52 93 50 Increasing &emerging
Environmental performance 76 57 Increasing &emerging
Innovation performance 103 47 79 Increasing &emerging
Open innovation 69 49 Increasing &emerging
Meta-analysis 66 Increasing &emerging
Common method variance 75 Increasing &emerging

511
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516

Table 4
References with the strongest citation bursts between 2016 and 2020.
Reference Publication year Strength Beginning Ending 2016–2020

Schilke (2014a) 2014 8.08 2016 2020

2014 7.34 2017 2020
Lin and Wu (2014)
2015 6.66 2018 2020
Henseler et al. (2015)
2014 6.35 2016 2020
Li and Liu (2014)
2015 5.37 2017 2020
Felin et al. (2015)
2015 5.26 2018 2020
Helfat and Martin (2015)
2014 4.83 2018 2020
Gaur et al. (2014)
2014 4.63 2016 2020
Teece (2014)
2015 4.59 2017 2020
Wamba et al. (2015)
2015 3.75 2017 2020
Helfat and Martin (2015)
2015 3.69 2018 2020
Dangelico and Pontrandolfo (2015)
2015 3.69 2018 2020
Cavusgil and Knight (2015)
2014 3.5 2018 2020
West and Bogers (2014)
2014 3.44 2017 2020
Semadeni et al. (2014)
2015 3.02 2018 2020
Hair et al. (2015)
2017 2.95 2018 2020
Massa et al. (2017)
2016 2.94 2017 2020
Erevelles et al. (2016)
2015 2.9 2018 2020
Brouthers et al. (2015)
2014 2.9 2018 2020
Nyberg et al. (2014)
2014 2.9 2018 2020
Laursen and Salter (2014)
2014 2.67 2016 2020
Schilke (2014b)
2017 2.58 2018 2020
Paul et al. (2017)
2017 2.58 2018 2020
Foss and Saebi (2017)

5.1. Theory 5.2. Context

As RBT evolves, its insights tend to integrate with other theoretical
streams. While RBT aims to explain the sources of sustainable compet­
itive advantage at the firm level, there is increasing attention to the
multi-level perspectives in RBT research (Wibbens, 2019; Songs et al.,
2020). For example, Bamiatzi et al. (2016) used three theories at
different levels (i.e., institutional theory, RBT, and the industry-based
view) to empirically test the impact of economic adversity, industry
effects, and the country on profitability. Based on the analysis results
presented in Tables 3 and 4, we divided the theories related to RBT into
four levels: the institutional level, industry level, firm level, and indi­
vidual level. At the institutional level, the main theory that is the most
relevant to RBT research is institutional theory (Oliver, 1997). For
example, López-Gamero and Molina-Azorín (2016) applied institutional
theory and RBT to empirically test the relationship between internal/
external factors, proactive environmental management, and competitive
advantage. At the industry level, the industry-based view provides
insightful perspectives for enriching RBT (Su, Peng, & Xie, 2016). At the
firm level, there are many theories related to RBT, such as Penrose’s
view of resources, organizational learning theory, human capital theory,
and social network theory. For example, Nason and Wiklund (2018)
compared RBT with Penrose’s view of resources in relation to firm
growth. At the individual level, there are two theories related to RBT,
including the cognitive psychology perspective and upper echelons
theory, as discussed in Krause et al. (2016) and Raffiee and Coff (2016).
Overall, we suggest integrating theories at different levels as promising
areas for future RBT research.
From Tables 3 and 4, we suggest that there are two contexts that
warrant the attention of RBT scholars: “emerging economy” and “big
data”. First, countries and regions at different development stages show
significant differences in institutional environments. Factors based on
the different contexts of countries will affect the boundaries of RBT. For
example, Li and Liu (2014) explored the influence of the institutional
environment of emerging economies on firms’ choice and utilization of
resources. We suggest that future scholars can collect data from
emerging economies or use multiple data sources to gain insights into
the theoretical boundaries of RBT.
Second, companies worldwide are dealing with digital trans­
formation. Compared with traditional industries (e.g., the pharmaceu­
tical industry), emerging industries represented by “big data” (e.g., the
new media industry) have different resource acquisition methods and
value capture mechanisms. Traditional industries focus more on
tangible assets, while emerging industries represented by “big data” are
more concerned with customer demands and intangible assets, such as
electronic data traffic. For example, He et al. (2020) provided new in­
sights into strategic alliances under the background of open innovation,
Industry 4.0, and blockchain. We recommend that future research can
further explore the application of RBT to consider digital transformation
and big data.
5.3. Characteristics
Next, we identify future research directions on the characteristics of

512
Y. Zhang et al.
RBT. First, keywords such as “green”, “environmental management” and
“corporate social responsibility” appear frequently in Table 3, and the
paper by Dangelico and Pontrandolfo (2015) is listed in the burst
analysis. We contend that the NRBV may be a potential area for fruitful
research in the future (Hart & Dowell, 2011). For example, Tatoglu et al.
(2020) empirically tested the influence of stakeholder pressure on
voluntary environmental management practices, and Andreou and
Kellard (2020) explored the influencing factors of corporate environ­
mental proactivity based on the NRBV.
Second, keywords such as “business model” and “value creation”
appear frequently in Table 3, and regarding business value, the paper by
Foss and Saebi (2017) appears in the burst analysis. The results suggest
that a future stream of RBT research may be related to business model.
RBT focuses on factors upstream of the value chain, such as ways of
obtaining VRIN resources and capabilities (Barney, 2001). However,
business models pay more attention to value creation and value capture
downstream of the value chain, such as consumer demand (Priem et al.,
2018). Combining RBT and business model could more systematically
assess the value of resources and capabilities (Ritter and Lettl, 2018).
Although Ritter and Lettl (2018) proposed this idea, only few empirical
studies on this issue published recently. Therefore, this issue represents a
research stream that warrants future research efforts.
Third, based on Table 3, the keyword “stakeholder management” has
appeared frequently in recent years. This result also warrants scholarly
attention. In recent years, RBT studies on the topic of stakeholders have
been mostly conceptual articles, such as Barney (2018) and Jones et al.
(2018). RBT researchers can empirically test this issue in the future.
5.4. Methodology
In this section, we identify future directions of RBT research in terms
of methodology. Based on keywords such as “structural equation model”
and “meta-analysis” presented in Table 3 and publications such as Hair
et al. (2015) and Henseler et al. (2015) listed in Table 4, we suggest that
structural equation modeling will gain more attention in future research;
for example, see Gillis, Combs, and Yin (2020) and Grewatsch and
Kleindienst (2018). Furthermore, future research may see more meta-
analytical studies in the RBT area, such as Nason and Wiklund (2018).
Based on the analysis results shown in Tables 3 and 4, RBT research
faces two empirical challenges: common method variance (CMV) and
endogeneity. For CMV, there are established solutions. Scholars can
refer to articles such as Gillis et al. (2020) to address CMV concerns. RBT
researchers such as Wassmer et al. (2017) and Brahm et al. (2020) have
begun to pay attention to the endogeneity of variables. They introduced
instrumental variables and performed a two-stage instrumental variable
examination to obtain more robust estimates. We believe that the test of
variable endogeneity will become an important step in empirical RBT
research.
Finally, considering that RBT research topics may involve different
levels of analysis (e.g., the individual level, team level, firm level, or
industry level), we recommend using the hybrid approach introduced by
Certo et al. (2017) to conduct empirical tests of RBT. More recently,
there have been several articles using qualitative comparative analysis
(QCA) methods to conduct RBT research; for example, see McKnight and
Zietsma (2018) and Wang, Kung, Gupta, and Ozdemir (2019). QCA
could help researchers explore complex path relationships under
different conditions (Fiss, 2011), and thus, it may serve as a useful
method to utilize for future RBT research.
6. Conclusions
In this study, we present a bibliometric review to advance the liter­
ature development of RBT research. By using bibliometric methods (e.g.,
descriptive analysis, co-authorship analysis, co-citation analysis,
keyword co-occurrence analysis, and citation burst analysis) with a
visualization tool, we show the status, knowledge structure, and
513
Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516
evolutionary trajectory of RBT research over the past three decades. We
also suggest future research avenues to promote further research in the
RBT area.
6.1. Theoretical implications
Our research makes important theoretical contributions to the RBT
literature. First, we employ a new, emerging quantitative method and
use objective data to show the status of RBT research (see Figs. 1-6 and
Table 2). Therefore, our research advances the knowledge integration of
RBT. Second, we identify the most influential scholars, published arti­
cles, and journals through co-citation analysis to map the knowledge
structure of RBT research (see Figs. 7-9). Table 1 lists the most influ­
ential publications on RBT by co-citation index during the 1991–2020
period and their key contributions. Third, we dynamically show the
evolutionary trajectory of RBT research (see Tables 3-4). By doing so, we
complement previous retrospective assessments of RBT (e.g. Barney,
Ketchen, Wright, Barney, et al., 2011; Barney, Ketchen, Wright, Sirmon,
et al., 2011; Barney & Arikan, 2005; Barney, Ketchen, Wright, Coff, &
Kryscynski, 2011; Barney, Ketchen, Wright, Hart, & Dowell, 2011;
Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010). Fourth, we identify future research topics
through keyword co-occurrence analysis and citation burst analysis.
Moreover, to provide more detailed insights for future research di­
rections, we use the TCCM framework to integrate the analysis results
provided in Tables 3-4. Fifth, although Di Stefano et al. (2010) and Vogel
and Güttel (2013) reviewed the dynamic capabilities literature using
bibliometric methods, their studies do not show and summarize the
current status of RBT research. To complement those studies, we
conduct a literature review of RBT using bibliometric methods. Our
review helps scholars capture the overall picture of RBT by com­
plementing the reviews of research on dynamic capabilities and the
knowledge-based view.
6.2. Practical implications
Our research also has several implications for practitioners. First,
moving beyond the single focus of most empirical studies, our review
suggests the importance of a more holistic and systematic approach to
achieve competitive advantage. Managers need to take factors at
different levels into account: the institutional level, industry level, firm
level, and individual level. Second, according to our keyword co-
occurrence analysis and citation burst analysis, digital transformation
is becoming an inevitable trend for companies to achieve competitive
advantage in the future. Our research findings suggest that managers
should place more emphasis on topics such as big data and digital
transformation. Third, managers are advised to carefully evaluate the
importance of various stakeholders. Stakeholders such as employees
should not be ignored, as they are important for implementing
resources.
6.3. Limitations
Our study has several limitations. First, although we have taken a
large sample to conduct a comprehensive review of RBT research, we
collected data on business and management areas that are most relevant
to the strategic management domain. As a result, we may have lost
empirical data on other fields. To gain a more comprehensive under­
standing of RBT across other scientific disciplines, we recommend that
future studies should include other possible subdomains, such as polit­
ical science.
Second, due to the limitations of existing bibliometric methods, such
as the inability to accurately identify the contributions of second authors
and other collaborators and the inability to exclude self-citations and
negative citations (Garfield, 1979; Batistič et al., 2017), there is room for
improvement by using bibliometric methods to conduct an in-depth
literature review. We suggest that future research should carry out
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516

more detailed studies to accurately and comprehensively reflect the Certo, S. T., Withers, M. C., & Semadeni, M. (2017). A tale of two effects: Using
longitudinal data to compare within- and between-firm effects. Strategic Management
overall picture of RBT.
Journal, 38(7), 1536–1556.
Third, although our sample size was large, we faced technical limi­ Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient
tations about conducting a fine-grained content analysis of the titles, patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
abstracts, and keywords of these articles. Text mining procedures can be and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.
Chen, C. M. (2003). Mapping scientific frontiers: The quest for knowledge visualization.
implemented to automatically extract the content from a collection of London: Springer-Verlag.
text (Moro et al., 2017; Greco and La Rocca, 2020). We encourage future Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach
research to use more advanced text mining techniques to further analyze for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A
practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1),
published RBT articles. 146–166.
Coff, R., & Kryscynski, D. (2011). Invited editorial: Drilling for micro-foundations of
Declaration of Competing Interest human capital–based competitive advantages. Journal of Management, 37(5),
1429–1443.
Conner, K. R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial of thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence firm? Journal of Management, 17(1), 121–154.
Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge
the work reported in this paper. versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477–501.
Crook, T. R., Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., & Todd, S. Y. (2008). Strategic resources and
References performance: A meta-analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), 1141–1154.
Dangelico, R. M., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2015). Being ‘green and competitive’: The impact
of environmental actions and collaborations on firm performance. Business Strategy
Akter, S., Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2016). How to
and the Environment, 24(6), 413–430.
improve firm performance using big data analytics capability and business strategy
Dangelico, R. M., Pujari, D., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2017). Green product innovation in
alignment? International Journal of Production Economics, 182, 113–131.
manufacturing firms: A sustainability-oriented dynamic capability perspective.
Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Millán, A., & Cepeda-Carrión, G. (2016). The antecedents of
Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4), 490–506.
green innovation performance: A model of learning and capabilities. Journal of
Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M., & Verona, G. (2010). Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: A
Business Research, 69(11), 4912–4917.
bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a
the research domain. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 1187–1204.
useful construct in strategic management? International Journal of Management
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of
Reviews, 11(1), 29–49.
competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic
Drnevich, P. L., & Kriauciunas, A. P. (2011). Clarifying the conditions and limits of the
Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.
contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance.
Andreou, P. C., & Kellard, N. M. (2021). Corporate environmental proactivity: Evidence
Strategic Management Journal, 32(3), 254–279.
from the European Union’s emissions trading system. British Journal of Management,
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of
32(3), 630–647.
interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4),
Armstrong, C. E., & Shimizu, K. (2007). A review of approaches to empirical research on
660–679.
the resource-based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 33(6), 959–986.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic
Bain, J. S. (1959). Industrial organization. New York: Wiley.
Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105–1121.
Bamiatzi, V., Bozos, K., Cavusgil, S. T., & Hult, G. T. M. (2016). Revisiting the firm,
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic
industry, and country effects on profitability under recessionary and expansion
alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization
periods: A multilevel analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1448–1471.
Science, 7(2), 136–150.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Erevelles, S., Fukawa, N., & Swayne, L. (2016). Big Data consumer analytics and the
Management, 17(1), 99–120.
transformation of marketing. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 897–904.
Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic
Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in
management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41–56.
strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575–632.
Barney, J. B. (2018). Why resource-based theory’s model of profit appropriation must
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in
incorporate a stakeholder perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 39(13),
organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.
3305–3325.
Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation:
Barney, J. B., & Arikan, A. M. (2005). The Resource-based View: Origins and Implications,
How far have we come, and where should we go? Journal of Management, 43(1),
The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management: 123–182. Hoboken, New Jersey:
200–227.
Wiley-Blackwell.
Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4),
Barney, J. B., Ketchen, D. J., Wright, M., Barney, J. B., Ketchen, D. J., & Wright, M.
359–375.
(2011). The future of resource-based theory: Revitalization or decline? Journal of
Gaur, A. S., Kumar, V., & Singh, D. (2014). Institutions, resources, and
Management, 37(5), 1299–1315.
internationalization of emerging economy firms. Journal of World Business, 49(1),
Barney, J. B., Ketchen, D. J., Wright, M., Coff, R., & Kryscynski, D. (2011). Invited
12–20.
editorial: Drilling for micro-foundations of human capital–based competitive
Gillis, W. E., Combs, J. G., & Yin, X. (2020). Franchise management capabilities and
advantages. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1429–1443.
franchisor performance under alternative franchise ownership strategies. Journal of
Barney, J. B., Ketchen, D. J., Wright, M., Hart, S. L., & Dowell, G. (2011). Invited
Business Venturing, 35(1), 105899.
editorial: A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. Journal of
Girod, S. J. G., & Whittington, R. (2017). Reconfiguration, restructuring and firm
Management, 37(5), 1464–1479.
performance: Dynamic capabilities and environmental dynamism. Strategic
Barney, J. B., Ketchen, D. J., Wright, M., Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., &
Management Journal, 38(5), 1121–1133.
Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage:
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications
Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1390–1412.
for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114–135.
Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management
years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625–641.
Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.
Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A Review of past research and an agenda for the
Greco, F., & La Rocca, G. (2020). The topics-scape of the pandemic crisis: The Italian
future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256–280.
sentiment on political leaders. Culture e Studi del Sociale, 5(1), 335–346.
Batistič, S., Černe, M., & Vogel, B. (2017). Just how multi-level is leadership research? A
Grewatsch, S., & Kleindienst, I. (2018). How organizational cognitive frames affect
document co-citation analysis 1980–2013 on leadership constructs and outcomes.
organizational capabilities: The context of corporate sustainability. Long Range
The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 86–103.
Planning, 51(4), 607–624.
Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Creation of a highly detailed, dynamic, global
Gupta, R., Pandey, R., & Sebastian, V. J. (2021). International Entrepreneurial
model and map of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 65
Orientation (IEO): A bibliometric overview of scholarly research. Journal of Business
(4), 670–685.
Research, 125, 74–88.
Brahm, F., Parmigiani, A., & Tarziján, J. (2021). Can firms be both broad and deep?
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A primer on partial least
Exploring interdependencies between horizontal and vertical firm scope. Journal of
squares structural equation modeling. (PLS-SEM): Sage Publications.
Management, 47(5), 1219–1254.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, G. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business
Brouthers, K. D., Nakos, G., & Dimitratos, P. (2015). SME entrepreneurial orientation,
School Press.
international performance, and the moderating role of strategic alliances.
Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(5), 1161–1187.
Review, 20(4), 986–1014.
Campbell, B. A., Coff, R., & Kryscynski, D. (2012). Rethinking sustained competitive
Hart, S. L., & Dowell, G. (2011). Invited editorial: A natural-resource-based view of the
advantage from human capital. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 376–395.
firm: Fifteen years after. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464–1479.
Cavusgil, S. T., & Knight, G. (2015). The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and
capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization. Journal of
International Business Studies, 46(1), 3–16.

514
Y. Zhang et al.
He, Q., Meadows, M., Angwin, D., Gomes, E., & Child, J. (2020). Strategic alliance
research in the era of digital transformation: Perspectives on future research. British
Journal of Management, 31(3), 589–617.
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., &
Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in
organizations (1st ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2015). Dynamic managerial capabilities: Review and
assessment of managerial Impact on strategic change. Journal of Management, 41(5),
1281–1312.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability
lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the
microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6),
831–850.
Helfat, C. E., & Winter, S. G. (2011). Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities:
strategy for the (N)ever-changing world. Strategic Management Journal, 32(11),
1243–1250.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
Ji-fan Ren, S., Fosso Wamba, S., Akter, S., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2017). Modelling
quality dynamics, business value and firm performance in a big data analytics
environment. International Journal of Production Research, 55(17), 5011–5026.
Jones, T. M., Harrison, J. S., & Felps, W. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder
theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management
Review, 43(3), 371–391.
Karna, A., Richter, A., & Riesenkampff, E. (2016). Revisiting the role of the environment
in the capabilities-financial performance relationship: A meta-analysis. Strategic
Management Journal, 37(6), 1154–1173.
Kent Baker, H., Pandey, N., Kumar, S., & Haldar, A. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of
board diversity: Current status, development, and future research directions. Journal
of Business Research, 108, 232–246.
Keupp, M. M., Palmié, M., & Gassmann, O. (2012). The strategic management of
onnovation: A systematic review and paths for future research. International Journal
of Management Reviews, 14(4), 367–390.
Kor, Y. Y., & Mesko, A. (2013). Dynamic managerial capabilities: Configuration and
orchestration of top executives’ capabilities and the firm’s dominant logic. Strategic
Management Journal, 34(2), 233–244.
Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in
marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(1), 1–21.
Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J.-C., & Groen, A. J. (2010). The resource-based view: A
review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of Management, 36(1), 349–372.
Krause, R., Semadeni, M., & Withers, M. C. (2016). That special someone: When the
board views its chair as a resource. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1990–2002.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external
search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867–878.
Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the
resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 638–658.
Lavie, D. (2007). Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and
appropriation in the U.S. software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 28(12),
1187–1212.
Li, D.-Y., & Liu, J. (2014). Dynamic capabilities, environmental dynamism, and
competitive advantage: Evidence from China. Journal of business research, 67(1),
2793–2799.
Lin, Y., & Wu, L.-Y. (2014). Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm
performance under the resource-based view framework. Journal of business research,
67(3), 407–413.
López-Gamero, M. D., & Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2016). Environmental management and
firm competitiveness: The joint analysis of external and internal elements. Long
Range Planning, 49(6), 746–763.
Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, J. R. (1992). The resource-based view within the
conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5),
363–380.
Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability
views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 387–401.
Massa, L., Tucci, C. L., & Afuah, A. (2017). A critical assessment of business model
research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 73–104.
McKnight, B., & Zietsma, C. (2018). Finding the threshold: A configurational approach to
optimal distinctiveness. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4), 493–512.
Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm in two
environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of
Management Journal, 39(3), 519–543.
Morgan, N. A., Vorhies, D. W., & Mason, C. H. (2009). Market orientation, marketing
capabilities, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(8), 909–920.
Moro, S., Rita, P., & Cortez, P. (2017). A text mining approach to analyzing Annals
literature. Annals of Tourism Research, 66, 208–210.
Nason, R. S., & Wiklund, J. (2018). An assessment of resource-based theorizing on firm
growth and suggestions for the future. Journal of Management, 44(1), 32–60.
Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An
assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2),
121–146.
Newbert, S. L. (2008). Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: A
conceptual-level empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 29(7), 745–768.
515
Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516
Nyberg, A. J., Moliterno, T. P., Hale, D., & Lepak, D. P. (2014). Resource-Based
perspectives on unit-level human capital: A review and integration. Journal of
Management, 40(1), 316–346.
Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and
resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713.
Paul, J., Parthasarathy, S., & Gupta, P. (2017). Exporting challenges of SMEs: A review
and future research agenda. Journal of World Business, 52(3), 327–342.
Paul, J., & Rosado-Serrano, A. (2019). Gradual Internationalization vs Born-Global/
International new venture models: A review and research agenda. International
Marketing Review, 36(6), 830–858.
Peng, M. W. (2001). The resource-based view and international business. Journal of
Management, 27(6), 803–829.
Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Blackwell.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based
view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.
Peteraf, M., Di Stefano, G., & Verona, G. (2013). The elephant in the room of dynamic
capabilities: Bringing two diverging conversations together. Strategic Management
Journal, 34(12), 1389–1410.
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for
strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40.
Priem, R. L., Wenzel, M., & Koch, J. (2018). Demand-side strategy and business models:
Putting value creation for consumers center stage. Long Range Planning, 51(1),
22–31.
Raffiee, J., & Coff, R. (2016). Micro-Foundations of firm-specific human capital: When do
employees perceive their skills to be firm-specific? Academy of Management Journal,
59(3), 766–790.
Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. (2004). Capabilities, business processes, and
competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the
resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 23–37.
Ritter, T., & Lettl, C. (2018). The wider implications of business-model research. Long
Range Planning, 51(1), 1–8.
Rumelt, R. P. (1987). Theory, strategy and entrepreneurship. In D. Teece (Ed.), The
Competitive Challenge (pp. 137–158). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Schilke, O. (2014a). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive
advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic
Management Journal, 35(2), 179–203.
Schilke, O. (2014b). Second-order dynamic capabilities: How do they matter? Academy of
Management Perspective, 28(4), 368–380.
Semadeni, M., Withers, M. C., & Trevis Certo, S. (2014). The perils of endogeneity and
instrumental variables in strategy research: Understanding through simulations.
Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), 1070–1079.
Shafique, M. (2013). Thinking inside the box? Intellectual structure of the knowledge
base of innovation research (1988–2008). Strategic Management Journal, 34(1),
62–93.
Singh, V., Verma, S., & Chaurasia, S. S. (2020). Mapping the themes and intellectual
structure of corporate university: Co-citation and cluster analyses. Scientometrics, 122
(3), 1275–1302.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic
environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management
Review, 32(1), 273–292.
Songs, Y. H., Skarlicki, D. P., Shao, R. D., & Park, J. (2020). Reducing customer-directed
deviant behavior: The roles of psychological detachment and supervisory unfairness.
Journal of Management, forthcoming.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration
to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of
Management, 37(5), 1390–1412.
Srivastava, S., Singh, S., & Dhir, S. (2020). Culture and international business research: A
review and research agenda. International Business Review, 29(4), 101709.
Su, Z., Peng, M. W., & Xie, E. (2016). A strategy tripod perspective on knowledge
creation capability. British Journal of Management, 27(1), 58–76.
Tatoglu, E., Frynas, J. G., Bayraktar, E., Demirbag, M., Sahadev, S., Doh, J., &
Koh, S. C. L. (2020). Why do emerging market firms engage in voluntary
environmental management practices? A strategic choice perspective. British Journal
of Management, 31(1), 80–100.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations
of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13),
1319–1350.
Teece, D. J. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary
capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28
(4), 328–352.
Teece, D. J. (2014). A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the
multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1), 8–37.
Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51
(1), 40–49.
Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility:
Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California Management
Review, 58(4), 13–35.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., & Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring progress
and evolution in science and technology : The multiple uses of bibliometric
indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 179–211.
Verma, S., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends
in the field of business and management: A bibliometric analysis approach. Journal
of Business Research, 118, 253–261.
Y. Zhang et al. Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 500–516

Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2013). The dynamic capability view in strategic management: Yucheng Zhang is a professor at School of Economics and Management, Hebei University
A bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 426–446. of Technology, China. He has published papers at Journal of Management, Journal of Applied
Wamba, S. F., Edwards, A., Chopin, G., & Gnanzou, D. (2015). How “big data” can make Psychology, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Journal of Business Ethics, and Journal of
big impact: Findings from a systematic review and a longitudinal case study. Business Research. His current research interests include abusive supervision, dual career
International Journal of Production Economics, 165, 234–246. workers, big data and meta-SEM analysis. He is currently an associate editor for Business
Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S.-F., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2017). Big Ethics: A European Review.
data analytics and firm performance: Effects of dynamic capabilities. Journal of
Business Research, 70, 356–365.
Zhongwei Hou is a Ph.D. candidate at School of Economics and Management, Hebei
Wang, Y., Kung, LeeAnn, Gupta, S., & Ozdemir, S. (2019). Leveraging big data analytics
University of Technology, China. His current research interests include strategic man­
to improve quality of care in healthcare organizations: A configurational perspective.
agement, innovation, big data and meta-SEM analysis.
British Journal of Management, 30(2), 362–388.
Wassmer, U., Li, S., & Madhok, A. (2017). Resource ambidexterity through alliance
portfolios and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), 384–394. Feifei Yang is an assistant professor at Asia Europe Business School, Faculty of Economics
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5 and Management, East China Normal University. Her research interests include organi­
(2), 171–180. zational goals, organizational control, and turbulent environments. Her research has been
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of published at Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Business and Psychology, and Information &
research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), Management.
814–831.
Wibbens, P. D. (2019). Performance persistence in the presence of higher-order
Miles M. Yang is a senior lecturer at Department of Management, Macquarie University,
resources. Strategic Management Journal, 40(2), 181–202.
Australia. His publications appear in Organization Science, Journal of World Business, and
Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,
Journal of Business and Psychology. His current research interests include strategic man­
24(10), 991–995.
agement, innovation management, and international business strategy.
Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic
capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43
(4), 917–955. Zhiling Wang is a Ph.D. candidate at School of Economics and Management, Hebei Uni­
Zhu, J., Song, L. J., Zhu, L.i., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). Visualizing the landscape and versity of Technology, China. Her current research interests include dual career workers,
evolution of leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(2), 215–232. big data and meta-SEM analysis.
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic
capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization.
Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.

516