Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

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

Half a century of research on corporate diversification: A new T

comprehensive framework
Luis Ángel Guerras-Martína, , Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupob, José Ángel Zúñiga-Vicentea,
⁎

Diana Benito-Osorioa
a
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (Spain), Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, Paseo de los Artilleros, s/n, 28032 Madrid, Spain
b
Universidad Católica del Norte (Chile), Departamento de Administración, Avenida Angamos. N° 0610, Antofagasta 1270709, Chile

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper is an initial attempt to use a bibliometric approach for an exhaustive literature review of corporate
Corporate diversification diversification in order to propose a new comprehensive framework for its study. We conduct an in-depth
Strategic management analysis of the historical evolution of research over the period 1970–2017 in six eight-year stages, shedding light
Evolution of the field on the main issues in each stage and the links among them using a sample of 1,253 articles. Attention is also paid
Literature review
to the three disciplines in this research stream: Strategic Management, Economics, and Finance. Our analysis
Comprehensive framework
reveals how the research on corporate diversification has extended the range of topics addressed and added new
Bibliometrics
theoretical approaches and methodological tools, thereby ensuring greater maturity in its development.
Emergent and prevailing research streams are identified, as they are expected to play a key role in the near
future. We conclude by recognizing the need for an integrated theory on corporate diversification.

1. Introduction comprehensive reviews considering its multidisciplinary approach that

Corporate diversification (CD) is a highly dynamic and fast-growing
field of scholarly research with a long and rich intellectual tradition.
The growing interest in exploring CD is largely because diversification
has been a dominant form of business in most industrialized economies
since the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., Basu, 2010; Mayer, Wright, & Phan,
2017; Rumelt, 1982), as well as in most emerging countries in recent
years (e.g., Kedia, Mukherjee, & Lahiri, 2006; Khanna & Palepu, 2000a,
2000b). Moreover, one of the most challenging and critical decisions a
company’s managers may face is whether or not to diversify, how far to
go, and how to do so (e.g., Aggarwal & Samwick, 2003; Goold & Luchs,
1993).
Academic interest in CD has a long track record, being considered
one of the mainstream issues in the field of Strategic Management (SM)
(Grant, 2002; Ramanujam & Varadarajan, 1989; Rumelt, Schendel, &
Teece, 1994). However, scholars from other disciplines such as Eco-
nomics and Finance have also traditionally been drawn by different
topics related to CD. Accordingly, the extant literature on CD is the
outcome of a combination of myriad disciplinary paradigms and theo-
retical perspectives, covering a wide range of issues.
Despite the breadth of the field’s scope, there is still a lack of
cover its lifecycle from its inception through to the present, albeit with
two noteworthy exceptions. Ramanujam and Varadarajan (1989) re-
view the state-of-the-art on CD from 1962–63 through to 1987, pro-
posing a general framework for classifying extant research. In turn,
Hoskisson and Hitt (1990) draw on SM, Economics, and Finance to
adopt three alternative approaches to the underpinnings and outcomes
of CD and develop a unified theoretical framework. This shortage of
comprehensive reviews is somewhat surprising because, as noted
below, there is clearly an upward trend in the number of papers pub-
lished on CD. This evidence suggests that it is still a very attractive
research issue (Furrer, Thomas, & Goussevskaia, 2008; Mawdsley &
Somaya, 2018).
This study endeavors to review the huge body of research on CD by
extending the results reported by Ramanujam and Varadarajan’s review
up to 2017. However, unlike these authors, we rely on bibliometric
techniques to conduct an overview of most of the research published
from 1970 to 2017, thus contributing to a better understanding of the
large stock of accumulated knowledge in the field. This analysis will
enable us to answer the following questions: 1) How has CD evolved over
time as a field of research? 2) Which specific topics have attracted more
attention from scholars over time? 3) Can any patterns of relationships

Corresponding author.
⁎

E-mail addresses: luisangel.guerras@urjc.es (L.Á. Guerras-Martín), gronda@ucn.cl (G.A. Ronda-Pupo), joseangel.zuniga@urjc.es (J.Á. Zúñiga-Vicente),
diana.benito@urjc.es (D. Benito-Osorio).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.037
Received 19 September 2019; Received in revised form 26 March 2020; Accepted 28 March 2020
0148-2963/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al.
Fig. 1. Research on diversification: themes and linkages. A revised version of Ramanujam and Varadarajan’s framework. Note: Thicker red lines are used for the
topics and linkages that are not in the original framework proposed by Ramanujam and Varadarajan (1989:526). In the case of new linkages, no consideration has
been given to the direction of the relationship, as the data in our networks do not enable us to do so.
between different topics actually be identified over time?, and 4) What are
each discipline’s contributions and interrelationships in this field of research?
This study is a first attempt to use bibliometrics for an exhaustive
literature review of CD. Several reasons justify its use. Firstly, a bib-
liometric method or analysis is now firmly established as a scientific
specialty, and is becoming an integral part of research evaluation
within most disciplines and fields of study (Ellegaard & Wallin, 2015),
including management studies (Zupic & Čater, 2015). Secondly, it en-
ables researchers to gather and process a huge amount of information
and documents that would be very difficult to manage using more
traditional methods. Thirdly, bibliometric analysis is based on quanti-
tative techniques, while traditional content analysis is qualitative, and
may thus involve a more objective interpretation of research findings.
Our study adds to and complements the pioneering study by
Ramanujam and Varadarajan (1989), which is based on content ana-
lysis. This research might in some way help to assess the validity and
persistence of their original framework and/or identify new issues they
did not consider because we have the benefit 30 more years: from 1988
until 2017. Finally, it is an especially pertinent way of identifying
trends within the extant literature on CD to draw conclusions on the
impact of the most widely published material, and even to identify
potential lacunas and direct further research in a more informed
manner.
2. Development of corporate diversification as a field of research:
A brief overview
The inception of CD as a research topic can be traced to four seminal
125
Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141
works by Ansoff (1957, 1958), Chandler (1962), and Gort (1962). The
studies by Ansoff are theoretical, while the studies by Chandler and
Gort are empirical. A common purpose in all four cases is their interest
in explaining both why and how companies diversify. Interestingly,
they all use US companies as their reference, being managerially or-
iented and constituting a major research shift from a deterministic one-
best-way —a characteristic of the dominant economic theory at the
time— to a more contingent view that considers a company’s need to
adapt to its external environment, at least a priori, as a critical factor of
organizational success or survival.
The subsequent research on CD has typically focused on three major
sets of issues (Grant, 2002; Rumelt et al., 1994). The first issue involves
the choice of the firm’s scope or its boundaries. The main question to be
answered here is: Why are some companies highly specialized while others
are involved in a wide range of products, markets and/or activities? The
second issue is related to the relationship between a firm’s scope and its
performance, with the main question being: Do highly specialized com-
panies perform better/worse than highly diversified ones? The third issue is
the management of multi-business firms, in terms of which is the most
appropriate organizational structure, management system and leadership
style? Or, what is the function or value added of the headquarters in di-
versified firms?
Academic interest in answering these questions has a protracted
history, not only in SM but also in Economics and Finance. For example,
for Economics: “The growing role of large, diversified, […] corpora-
tions challenged the subject’s preoccupation with markets and en-
couraged industrial economists to shift their attention from the market
towards the firm, asking fundamental questions such as […] ‘What
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al.
determines its boundaries?’” (Grant, 2002:73). In a similar vein, “Fi-
nance scholars have been especially concerned, among others, with the
following question: If individual investors can spread risk through di-
versifying their portfolios of securities, what advantages can a highly
diversified firm offer?” (Grant, 2002:77). Economics scholars, mainly in
the Industrial Organization Economics tradition, have also addressed
the effects of CD (in terms of diversity), initially on market structure,
and then on performance. In fact, it is frequently argued that one of the
most researched linkages in the fields of SM, Economics and Finance is
probably the one involving CD and performance (e.g., Benito-Osorio,
Guerras-Martín, & Zúñiga-Vicente, 2012; Palich, Cardinal, & Miller,
2000; Schommer, Richter, & Karna, 2019). Finally, understanding the
potential role that headquarters should play in diversified companies
has also received considerable attention in the literature dealing with
issues such as organizational structure, creating and managing syner-
gies, and choosing the proper direction (Chandler, 1991; Goold,
Campbell, & Alexander, 1998; Markides, 2002).
As these issues are complex, research on CD has traditionally in-
volved the confluence of different streams of literature. Fig. 1 illustrates
our revised and updated version of the framework proposed by
Ramanujam and Varadarajan (1989:526). These authors distinguish
two main types of studies; one set of studies concerned mainly with
“describing the relevant phenomenon and delineating or developing
concepts”, while the other is more interested in exploring “simple bi-
variate relationships as well as more involved contingency-type re-
lationships involving more than a pair of variables, factors, or con-
cepts”. Both types of studies are considered “mutually complementary
ways of comprehending the research on diversification” (Ramanujam &
Varadarajan, 1989:527-528).
As argued by Montgomery (1994), three of the more comprehensive
theoretical approaches used to explain CD are Market-Power View,
Agency Theory, and the Resource-Based View. Grant (2002) also in-
cludes Transaction Cost Economics —an ‘indigenous theory’ in the SM
field (Kenworthy & Verbeke, 2015) that was originally developed in
Economics. Each one of these perspectives is related, respectively, to
the three main fields in the study of CD, namely, Economics, Finance
and SM. In addition, until the mid-1980s CD was also related to the
developments of the main concepts or themes (e.g., synergies/econo-
mies of scope and dominant logic) and different tools of strategic
analysis (e.g., industry analysis).
Whereas the thinking on corporate strategy during the 1960s and
1970s was dominated by the unbounded potential of the firm’s scope,
the 1990s and 2000s witnessed the emergence of the notion of ‘focusing
upon core competences’. In this regard, ‘downsizing’ and ‘refocusing’
became major trends in the last two decades of the 20th century. The
phenomenon of ‘multimarket competition’ among firms with diversified
products and/or geographic markets is another of the topics that has
drawn considerable scholarly attention since the 1980s. Finally, the
1980s and 1990s also saw an interest in the study of alliances or net-
work forms.
Table 1 lists the main studies involving a review of the literature on
CD through to the present. It has been compiled by conducting an ex-
haustive search in the ABI-INFORM and Scopus bibliographic data-
bases. Most of the studies apply a traditional methodology of a quali-
tative nature, and only a few of them follow a quantitative methodology
Table 1
Main studies reviewing the literature on corporate diversification.
Content review
1989–2003 Ramanujam and Varadarajan (1989); Hoskisson and Hitt (1990); Datta, Rajagopalan, and Rasheed (1991); Grant (2002); Martin and
Sayrak (2003)
2004–2012 Benito-Osorio et al. (2012); Purkayastha, Manolova, and Edelman (2012); Wan, Hoskisson, Short, and Yiu (2011)
2013–2019 Erdorff, Hartmann-Wendels, Heinrichs, and Matz (2013); Hauschild & zu Knyphausen-Aufseß (2013); Weiss (2013); Dhir and Dhir
(2015); Picone and Dagnino (2016); Ahuja and Novelli (2017); Mehmood and Hilman (2017); Lüthge (2018)
126
Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141
based on a meta-analysis. In terms of content, almost all the studies
review the literature on CD and its links to performance, along with
other specific aspects. For example, while Weiss (2013) and Lüthge
(2018) analyze the concept and metrics of the businesses-resources link,
Picone and Dagnino (2016) review unrelated diversification literature,
and Ahuja and Novelli (2017) review the CD-performance relationship.
As an exception to this, Ramanujam and Varadarajan (1989) conduct a
thorough review of the major topics studied in the corresponding lit-
erature.
This general overview reveals how research on CD has grown from
somewhat simple concepts and themes —initially designed to give
managers practical advice— to the adoption of a positivist perspective
in a more complex and rigorous search for intellectual bases with
higher explanatory and predictive power, albeit in most cases without
forgoing a practical view.
Bibliometric methods have frequently been applied to the man-
agement field in general, and to SM in particular (Schonberger, Keller,
& Maffei, 2018; Zupic & Čater, 2015), although surprisingly not to the
study of CD. For example, they are used to analyze basic concepts (Nag,
Hambrick, & Chen, 2007; Ronda-Pupo & Guerras-Martín, 2012), the
content and intellectual structure of the discipline (Furrer et al., 2008;
Koseoglu, 2016; Nerur, Rasheed, & Pandey, 2016; Ramos-Rodríguez &
Ruiz-Navarro, 2004; Schonberger et al., 2018), the worldwide academic
community (Andrade-Valbuena, Merigó-Lindahl, Fernández, & Nicolas,
2019; Ronda-Pupo & Guerras-Martín, 2010) or the most relevant jour-
nals (Azar & Brock, 2008; Tahai & Meyer, 1999). There are also bib-
liometric studies on more specific aspects within SM, such as the RBV
(Acedo, Barroso, & Galan, 2006), external resources management
(Bragge et al., 2019), dynamic capabilities (Di Stefano, Peteraf, &
Verona, 2010; Vogel & Güttel, 2013) or mergers and acquisitions
(Portugal Ferreira, Carvalho Santos, Ribeiro de Almeida, & Rosa Reis,
2014).
3. Method
3.1. Database
The database on articles has been created using the core collection
of Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science (WOS). Although WOS data in-
tegrity has been questioned (de Bellis, 2009:189; van Raan, 2005:6),
the decision to use this database was based on the following reasons: 1)
it is the world’s leading database for publications and reports of cita-
tions; 2) it provides access to information on approximately 14,500 of
the world’s top-tier research journals; and 3) it includes the necessary
fields for obtaining information and creating data matrixes for quanti-
tative analyses.
Documents have been selected from five research areas: Business,
Business-Finance, Economics, Management, and Operations Research/
Management Science. We chose these areas because they are the ones
that often appear together as a category for indexing articles on CD. The
documents obtained were screened in our study according to their type
—article, review, letter and note— for two reasons: 1) they are peer-
reviewed, and 2) they are the main route for disseminating fresh
knowledge in most scientific disciplines (Adams & Gurney, 2013). Our
final database has 1,136 articles (90.7%), 58 notes (4.6%), 36 reviews
Meta-analysis
Palich et al. (2000)
Bausch and Pils (2009)
Schommer et al. (2019)
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al.
(2.9%), and 23 letters (1.8%). The search has been applied to the period
1970–2017, which means an overall timeframe of 48 years.1 The search
has been conducted in April 2018.
3.2. Search strategy
The selection of the articles is based on the use of a set of terms
related to CD, taking as a benchmark the ‘Diversification’ family of
keywords from Furrer et al. (2008). A search has therefore been made
for articles whose title contains at least one of the following terms:
conglomerate strateg*, diversification,2 diversity, dominant logic, ver-
tical integration, and vertical strateg*. This was intended to be an ex-
haustive search, so a very large database was created (4,681documents)
that included articles clearly related to CD, and others that despite
containing one or more of the search words were not (i.e., articles on
gender diversity or team diversity). This prompted the need to filter the
original database to ensure the documents were related to CD as a
strategy. The authors undertook this process manually, thus including
1,253 articles in the final database. All the data available in WOS were
retrieved for each article.
3.3. Keywords and word families
Language is a key constituent in the birth and formation of the
identity of any scientific discipline (Ronda-Pupo, 2016). This unique
language tempers the consensus/dissension dichotomy among the
members of a scientific community (Whorf, 1956). The keywords in
papers can be used as an expression of this common lexicon. There are
several techniques for matching keywords, such as Ontology, Co-word,
Cluster, and Multidimensional scaling.
The analysis of topics has considered all the keywords retrieved for
the 1,253 articles in our database, and has first involved compiling the
author’s keywords in WOS, as these are considered to be the ones that
most accurately reflect each article’s content (47.8% of the documents).
When these keywords did not exist, use has been made of the keywords
WOS has assigned to the article (20.8%).3 Finally, as regards those
articles for which WOS does not provide these data, particularly the
older ones, we have provided the keywords by using the nouns in each
article’s title (31.4%). Some keywords were discarded because they
referred to very general concepts that made no contribution (e.g.,
‘firewalls’, ‘substitution’ and ‘world’, among many others).
The final list contained 2,003 different keywords. Given the im-
possibility of working with such a large number, the keywords have
been grouped by close concepts into families, in a similar way to that
proposed by Furrer et al. (2008). We match keywords to families (re-
search lines) manually. The scholars’ expertise ensures that each key-
word belongs to a specific research line because it avoids the problem
described by Higman-Thompson groups (Lehnert & Schweitzer, 2007).
Furthermore, Occam's razor was considered when selecting the
matching procedure. As there were several techniques with similar
potentialities, we chose the method requiring the smallest number of
assumptions to replicate the study. This process has also involved the
removal of ‘false positives’; that is, the assignment of a keyword to more
1
There were two reasons behind the decision to use 1970 as the literature
review’s point of departure: firstly, the early 1970s witnessed an upturn in the
frequency of empirical research on CD. Secondly, the literature review con-
ducted by Ramanujam and Varadarajan (1989) contains only ten studies on CD
prior to 1970, with five of these being books, which means they are not in-
cluded in the WOS database. Hence, we consider that the omission of these
studies does not distort the bibliometric study conducted here.
2
The generic term ‘diversification’ includes other compounds such as CD,
business diversification, and related/unrelated diversification.
3
In 13 of the articles related to CD with keywords, none of them was valid
because they referred to highly generic concepts, so they were assigned new
keywords, as in the third group.
127
Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141
than one family because of the similarity of their terms.
This has led to the formation of 35 different word families corre-
sponding to major notions or concepts related to research on CD, such
as ‘corporate diversification’, ‘vertical integration’, and ‘organizational
issues’ (see Appendix). Each article was assigned to at least one family,
and in most cases to more than one.
3.4. Definition of stages
There is no generally accepted algorithm for the segmentation of
timeframes for a study of this nature (Ronda-Pupo & Guerras-Martín,
2012). Given that the 48-year timeframe analyzed is very long, our
study has been broken down into six eight-year stages. This breakdown
is informed by the fact that this interval caters for a dynamic and ba-
lanced yearly analysis of the development of research topics in CD.
3.5. Creation of matrices
The creation of databases and their information coding requires
several steps. First, a co-word matrix (m × n) is created with articles
(rows) and word families (columns). The values of the intersection of
each row i and column j correspond to the absence (0) or presence (1) of
the word family in each article published during the stage under ana-
lysis. Co-word analysis is a procedure introduced by Callon, Law, and
Rip (1986) that uses the patterns of words’ co-occurrence to determine
the relationship between ideas within a text. Callon, Courtial, and
Laville (1991) have generalized the use of co-word analysis to trace the
evolution of academic fields. Co-word analysis tools have been used by
Cobo, Lopez-Herrera, Herrera-Viedma, and Herrera (2011) in business
research to visualize the evolution of a research field, and its use is
widespread.
The co-word matrix is normalized using the cosine (Leydesdorff,
2008; Salton & McGill, 1983). The Cosine (Sij) or Salton's Cosine Index
is used to calculate the distance or proximity between each pair of word
families present in the network structure based on their co-appearance,
being calculated as follows:
Cij
Sij i j = n n
C2 C2
i=1 i j=1 j
where Cij is the number of co-occurrences of the word families i and j,
Ci and Cj are the number of articles in which each word family parti-
cipates, and n is the total number of word families.
The Cosine Index has been used to normalize the keyword co-oc-
currence matrices, as it constitutes the most effective similarity measure
for their analysis (Leydesdorff, 2005). The values of the normalized
matrix are used as input information to calculate each word family’s
degree centrality in the network’s structure during each stage.
Pajek software (Batagelj & Mrvar, 1998) is then used to visualize the
network’s structure, and the Kamada-Kawai algorithm (Kamada &
Kawai, 1989) is used for the spatial distribution of the information in
the graph. Once the collaboration network has been created, its struc-
ture is analyzed for each stage.
3.6. Processing word networks
To elucidate each word family’s importance in the stages analyzed,
their degree centrality was calculated according to:
cd (nij )
D (ni ) =
g 1
where D (ni ) is the degree centrality of the word family ni , cd (nij ) is the
number of word families linked to the family ni in the network, and
g 1 is the sum total of word families in the network except for the
family analyzed (ni ). This process allows establishing the most sig-
nificant word families in the network of co-words in each stage. This
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al. Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141

Table 2
Ranking of main topics, and trend in each topic by stages.
N° Research topic 1970–1977 1978–1985 1986–1993 1994–2001 2002–2009 2010–2017 Total
No. art. % No. art. % No. art. % No. art. % No. art. % No. art. % No. art. %

1 Corporate diversification 41 65.1 87 59.2 85 44.5 60 35.5 147 50.2 210 53.9 630 50.3
2 Performance 2 3.2 18 12.2 46 24.1 54 32.0 85 29.0 152 39.0 357 28.5
3 Industry analysis/competition 9 14.3 24 16.3 43 22.5 40 23.7 68 23.2 81 20.8 265 21.2
4 Vertical integration 17 27.0 48 32.7 59 30.9 30 17.8 46 15.7 64 16.4 264 21.1
5 Industries/specific companies 1 1.6 0 0.0 11 5.8 32 18.9 77 26.3 100 25.6 221 17.6
6 Methodological issues 5 7.9 6 4.0 14 7.3 25 14.8 47 16.0 74 19.0 171 13.7
7 Theoretical issues/models 2 3.2 2 1.4 17 8.9 21 12.4 48 16.4 71 18.2 161 12.9
8 M&A/alliances 1 1.6 7 4.8 17 8.9 30 17.8 31 10.6 46 11.8 132 10.5
9 Corporate governance 0 0.0 2 1.4 11 5.8 14 8.3 36 12.3 68 17.4 131 10.5
10 Accounting/financial issues 1 1.6 3 2.0 8 4.2 21 12.4 36 12.3 56 14.4 125 10.0
11 Strategy/strategic management 4 6.4 4 2.7 18 9.4 32 18.9 36 12.3 30 7.7 124 9.9
12 Innovation/technology/R&D 1 1.6 4 2.7 15 7.9 16 9.5 40 13.7 47 12.1 123 9.8
13 Risk 1 1.6 13 8.8 17 8.9 14 8.3 36 12.3 40 10.3 121 9.7
14 Assets/resources/capabilities 1 1.6 2 1.4 5 2.6 17 10.1 35 12.0 58 14.9 118 9.4
15 Organizational issues 2 3.2 2 1.4 13 6.8 23 13.6 30 10.2 38 9.7 108 8.6
16 Functional issues 2 3.2 1 0.7 12 6.3 14 8.3 28 9.6 40 10.3 97 7.7
17 Country/region 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 7.1 31 10.6 51 13.1 94 7.5
18 Firm 0 0.0 3 2.0 7 3.7 22 13.0 31 10.6 25 6.4 88 7.0
19 International diversification issues 2 3.2 3 2.0 5 2.6 10 5.9 22 7.5 46 11.8 88 7.0
20 Related/unrelated diversification/synergies 0 0.0 3 2.0 9 4.7 13 7.7 25 8.5 31 8.0 81 6.5
21 Institutional issues 0 0.0 1 0.7 5 2.6 8 4.7 18 6.1 44 11.3 76 6.1
22 Groups/conglomerates 2 3.2 3 2.0 5 2.6 10 5.9 23 7.9 27 6.9 70 5.6
23 Corporate investment 1 1.6 1 0.7 5 2.6 10 5.9 25 8.5 19 4.9 61 4.9
24 Information issues 0 0.0 4 2.7 8 4.2 11 6.5 15 5.1 19 4.9 57 4.6
25 Top management 1 1.6 2 1.4 9 4.7 11 6.5 16 5.5 16 4.1 55 4.4
26 Costs 0 0.0 1 0.7 4 2.1 5 3.0 23 7.9 14 3.6 47 3.8
27 Corporate growth/development 2 3.2 2 1.4 6 3.1 3 1.8 14 4.8 18 4.6 45 3.6
28 Kinds of organizations 3 4.8 0 0.0 3 1.6 5 3.0 17 5.8 16 4.1 44 3.5
29 Corporate restructuring 0 0.0 2 1.4 2 1.1 16 9.5 9 3.1 13 3.3 42 3.4
30 Economic system/environment 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.6 3 1.8 13 4.4 23 5.9 42 3.4
31 Contracts 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 4.7 17 5.8 15 3.9 40 3.2
32 Prices 0 0.0 2 1.4 7 3.7 4 2.4 11 3.8 15 3.9 39 3.1
33 Corporate portfolio/scope 1 1.6 2 1.4 3 1.6 2 1.2 14 4.8 15 3.9 37 3.0
34 Competitive advantage/strategy 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.6 3 1.2 11 3.8 17 4.4 34 2.7
35 Stock markets 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.1 8 4.7 9 3.1 10 2.6 29 2.3
Total appearances by stage 102 161.9 252 171.4 477 249.7 607 359.2 1,170 399.3 1,609 412.6 4,217 336.6
Number of articles by stage 63 5.0 147 11.7 191 15.2 169 13.5 293 23.4 390 31.1 1,253

Note: The overall percentage exceeds 100 percent because each paper may appear in more than one topic.

means that the main topics or research streams will have high centrality
values. Each word family’s degree centrality value may lie within the
range 0.00 to 1.00, and the network is structured accordingly into three
areas: periphery (degree centrality between 0.00 and 0.33), semi-per-
iphery (0.34 to 0.66), and core (0.67 to 1.00). This criterion helps to
assess the dynamic of each word family’s evolution (research topic) in
the stages analyzed.
4. Results
Table 2 shows constant growth in the publication of studies related
to CD —except in the fourth stage from 1994 to 2001—, which clearly
indicates its growing interest and topicality.4 The final stage accounts
for almost a third of all the studies published (31.1%) (see last row of
table 2).
4.1. Main topics
Table 2 also lists the topics addressed the most in our word families,
with the main ones being ‘corporate diversification’ (50.3%) and ‘per-
formance’ (28.5%), with the former standing head and shoulders above
the rest. There may be two reasons for this: firstly, this is the main topic
4 the fourth, to 3.99 in the fifth, and to 4.12 in the final stage. From an
While scientific output in the WOS database (considering the same cate-
gories and types of documents) grows at an average annual rate of 4.01% from
1970 to 2017, the scientific output on CD grows at an average annual rate of
11.76% in the same period (i.e., almost three times more).
analyzed in our study, and secondly, it acts as a bridge between the
different subjects analyzed in the different disciplines, as we shall see in
our network analysis.
The topics further down the list are ‘industry-analysis/competition’
(21.2%) and ‘vertical integration’ (21.1%), reflecting the importance of
economic matters in the study of CD, although the latter straddles the
fields of SM and Economics. It is also worth noting the importance of
‘industries/specific companies’ with a significant 17.6 percent, which
suggests that the application of much of the empirical research to
specific firms or industries has been an important channel for the study
of CD. As in the study by Furrer et al. (2008), these are followed by
general aspects linked to ‘methodological issues’ (13.7%) and ‘theore-
tical issues/models’ (12.9%). The last two topics that exceed 10 percent
involve development methods (‘mergers and acquisitions (M&A)/alli-
ances’) (10.5%) and ‘corporate governance’ (10.5%), which connects
the fields of Finance and SM. Other relevant topics are ‘accounting/
financial issues’ (10.0%), ‘strategy/strategic management’ (9.9%), ‘in-
novation/technology/R&D’ (9.8%), ‘risk’ (9.7%), ‘assets/resources/
capabilities’ (9.4%), and ‘organizational issues’ (8.6%) (see Table 2).
The percentages for the appearances of topics in each stage are
continuously increasing, thus suggesting a growing trend among arti-
cles to address several topics at the same time (see Table 2). Whereas
the average number of topics per article in the first stage was 1.62, in
the second stage the figure rose to 1.71, to 2.49 in the third, to 3.59 in
overall perspective, the average assignments per article have been 3.36,
fairly similar to the figure of 3.6 reported by Furrer et al. (2008).
Some topics increase constantly, or almost constantly, over the six

128
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al. Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141

Table 3
Distribution of articles by knowledge areas and stages.
Strategic management Finance Economics Total

No. % No. % No. % ARTICLES %

Stage 1: 1970–1977 9 14.29% 22 34.92% 51 80.95% 63 130.16%

Stage 2: 1978–1985 64 43.54% 20 13.61% 78 53.06% 147 110.20%
Stage 3: 1986–1993 93 48.69% 22 11.52% 89 46.60% 191 106.81%
Stage 4: 1994–2001 88 52.07% 29 17.16% 87 51.48% 169 120.71%
Stage 5: 2002–2009 127 43.34% 77 26.28% 152 51.88% 293 121.50%
Stage 6: 2010–2017 199 51.03% 99 25.38% 171 43.85% 390 120.26%
TOTAL 580 46.29% 269 21.47% 628 50.12% 1,253 117.88%

Note: The rows exceed 100 percent because some articles are classified in more than one category.

stages in terms of percentages: ‘accounting/financial issues’, ‘assets/ Management Science.

resources/capabilities’, ‘competitive advantage/strategy’, ‘corporate
governance’, ‘corporate portfolio/scope’, ‘country/region’, ‘economic
system/environment’, ‘functional issues’, ‘industries/specific compa-
nies’, ‘industry-analysis competition’, ‘innovation/technology/R&D’,
‘institutional issues’, ‘international diversification issues’, ‘methodolo-
gical issues’, ‘performance’, ‘related/unrelated diversification/syner-
gies’, and ‘theoretical issues/models’.
Other topics have remained relatively stable, such as ‘contracts’,
‘information issues’, ‘prices’, ‘risk’, ‘stock markets’, and ‘top manage-
ment’, while others have followed a U-shaped trend: they begin with
high percentages, fall off, and then recover in the final stages. Such is
the case of ‘corporate diversification’ and ‘groups/conglomerates’. A
unique case involves ‘corporate diversification’: despite being the
number one topic in all the stages, well ahead of all the others, its re-
lative weight follows a U-shaped pattern. In the first stage, it reaches 65
percent, but then falls in stages 2, 3 and 4 to 35.5 percent, a drop that
coincides with the increase in topics such as ‘performance’ and ‘in-
dustry-analysis competition’, and then rises again in the final two stages
to 53.85 percent.
A more frequent case involves topics that evolve in an inverted U-
shaped manner, as they begin with lower percentages, grow in sub-
sequent stages, and finally fall off in the final ones: ‘corporate invest-
ment’, ‘corporate restructuring’, ‘costs’, ‘firms’, ‘M&A/alliances’, ‘orga-
nizational issues’, and ‘strategy/strategic management’. Only one topic
has fallen on an almost continuous basis, and that is ‘vertical integra-
tion’, which despite its continued importance tails off in the three final
stages. ‘Corporate/growth development’ and ‘kinds of organizations’ do
not follow a clear pattern. In this latter case, specific note should be
taken of the ongoing interest in multinational corporations (MNCs), the
scant interest in public and not-for-profit organizations, and the ten-
tative appearance in the final two stages of small and medium en-
terprises (SMEs), a type of firm that has traditionally been ignored by
the research on corporate strategies.
Certain emerging topics do not appear in the first two or three
stages, but then begin to grow. Such is the case of ‘contracts’ and
‘country/region’ (absent in the first three stages, with the latter in-
creasing to a significant 13.08% in stage 6), ‘economic system/en-
vironment’ (absent in the first two stages), ‘institutional issues’ (almost
irrelevant in the first two stages, and then recording a notable 11.28
percent in the final one, which coincides with the growing interest in
institutional matters within the field of corporate strategy), and ‘stock
markets’ (although it never attains a role of any great significance).
CD has been of great interest in the management field since the
early 1970s. Nevertheless, the main focus in these early days was on
economic issues (80.95%) and finance (34.92%). As of the end of the
1970s, there was a surge in research on CD in Management, never ac-
counting for fewer than 43 percent of the articles published. Economics
topped the bill in these years, except in stages 4 and 6, when man-
agement moved ahead of it. Finance began fairly strongly in the first
stage, but then began to drop down the table, with percentages of be-
tween 11.52 and 17.16 in subsequent stages, and then it recovered to
around 25 percent, albeit a long way behind the other two areas.5
4.3. Analysis of networks by stages
In general terms, the study of networks conducted by sub-periods
reveals that the first stages (1–3) record few relationships between the
terms, and these are strong, while in the following stages (4–6), despite
an increase in their number, the strength of the relationships between
the terms wanes.6 This reasoning is consistent with the evolution of the
field of knowledge and the three areas that circumscribe it. A study of
the sub-periods has enabled us to verify that CD is a field of study that is
constantly evolving, as revealed by the continual appearance of new
subjects/topics that become consolidated over time, while others begin
to receive less attention.
To conduct this analysis, and besides the networks corresponding to
each stage, we use quantitative data to ascertain the validity of the
framework proposed by Ramanujam and Varadarajan (1989:526), and
its subsequent evolution until 2017.7 Table 4 contains the data on the
degree centrality of the main topics of analysis in each stage, as well as
whether they belong to the network’s core, semi-periphery, or per-
iphery.
4.3.1. Stage 1: 1970–1977
This initial stage lays the foundations for this field of study, espe-
cially within the scope of empirical research. This stage is defined by
the existence of only 20 nodes (word families) and the scant internal
cohesion we find in the network concentrated on ‘corporate diversifi-
cation’, located in the middle. All the other topics appear as periphery.
The structure therefore consists of the core and periphery (see Fig. 2).
This stage is dominated by studies in the area of Economics (80.95% of
articles, compared to 34.92% in Finance, and 14.29% in SM), in which
the focus is on the analysis of industry, possibly due to the influence of

4.2. Study areas
Table 3 contains the study area through which the issue of CD is
analyzed. This has involved considering each article’s WOS classifica-
tion into categories. The following study areas have therefore been
taken into account: Business-Finance, Economics, and SM, with the last
of these including Business, Management, and Operations Research/
5
The overall percentages in each stage always exceed 100 percent because
many articles are classified in more than one area in WOS, which reflects the
links between the three areas of knowledge, as well as the relatively inter-
disciplinary nature of the research into diversification.
6
The strength of the relationships among the terms is measured using Salton’s
cosine coefficient.
7
To avoid unnecessary repetitions, we shall refer to “box no.” to identify the
different boxes in Fig. 1.

129
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al. Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141

Table 4
Degree centrality by stages and topics.

Research topic 1970-1977 1978-1985 1986-1993 1994-2001 2002-2009 2010-2017

Accounting/financial issues 0.11 0.15 0.26 0.76 0.91 0.94

Assets/resources/capabilities 0.11 0.07 0.21 0.68 0.91 1.00
Competitive advantage strategy 0.12 0.24 0.74 0.74
Contracts 0.03 0.35 0.50 0.68
Corporate diversification 0.84 0.85 0.94 0.91 0.97 1.00
Corporate governance 0.07 0.56 0.71 0.88 1.00
Corporate growth/development 0.05 0.07 0.41 0.09 0.68 0.59
Corporate investment 0.11 0.07 0.24 0.65 0.82 0.82
Corporate portfolio/scope 0.07 0.15 0.24 0.59 0.71
Corporate restructuring 0.07 0.12 0.68 0.62 0.44
Costs 0.04 0.32 0.35 0.85 0.65
Country/region 0.03 0.76 0.85 0.94
Economic system/environment 0.09 0.35 0.62 0.79
Firm 0.11 0.47 0.82 0.88 0.76
Functional issues 0.11 0.07 0.32 0.71 0.88 0.91
Groups/conglomerates 0.16 0.11 0.38 0.59 0.85 0.88
Industries/specific companies 0.05 0.35 0.82 0.91 0.97
Industry analysis/competition 0.21 0.15 0.74 0.88 0.97 0.97
Information issues 0.15 0.41 0.53 0.74 0.85
Innovation/technology/R&D 0.05 0.07 0.56 0.59 0.88 0.79
Institutional issues 0.04 0.21 0.50 0.71 0.85
International diversification issues 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.56 0.82 0.85
Kinds of organizations 0.16 0.21 0.35 0.68 0.68
M&A/alliances 0.19 0.47 0.91 0.88 0.91
Methodological issues 0.11 0.19 0.53 0.82 0.94 1.00
Organizational issues 0.16 0.07 0.47 0.79 0.85 0.88
Performance 0.11 0.30 0.82 0.91 1.00 1.00
Prices 0.07 0.21 0.32 0.47 0.59
Related/unrelated diversification/synergies 0.11 0.35 0.47 0.74 0.74
Risk 0.05 0.26 0.50 0.68 0.76 0.85
Stock markets 0.12 0.50 0.59 0.56
Strategy/strategic management 0.11 0.11 0.62 0.85 0.85 0.79
Theoretical issues/models 0.05 0.04 0.59 0.76 1.00 0.88
Top management 0.05 0.15 0.26 0.56 0.68 0.65
Vertical integration 0.26 0.52 0.59 0.65 0.79 0.91
Note: Core Semi-periphery Periphery

Fig. 2. Stage 1: 1970–1977.

130
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al.
studies in Industrial Economics (see table 3).
There are three topics that stand out from the rest (three main nodes
in Fig. 2): ‘corporate diversification’ (box 4), ‘vertical integration’ (box
5), and ‘industry analysis/competition’ (box 2), which will become the
focus of attention in the following stages. According to Benito-Osorio
et al. (2012), this may be because in this first stage, scholars in the areas
of Economics and Finance have focused on the concept and degree of
diversity (box 7; Dixit & Stiglitz, 1977). Particular note should be taken
of the interest in topics linked to ‘groups/conglomerates’ connecting
‘accounting/financial issues’ to ‘groups/conglomerates’ (box 6, Levy &
Sarnat, 1970), or relating them to industry structure (Berry, 1971) as a
central issue for the Market-Power View.
Another major issue here involves the differences in the result be-
tween diversified and non-diversified firms (boxes 4 and 11), whereby
CD may sometimes be considered an industry attribute, highlighting the
clear influence of Industrial Economics (Rhoades, 1973). Indeed, ‘per-
formance’ (box 11) is directly related to ‘corporate diversification’ and
‘industry analysis/competition’, and through the latter to ‘vertical in-
tegration’ (Arrow, 1975; Vernon & Graham, 1971; Williamson, 1971).
As regards ‘methodological issues’, they are dominated by the me-
trics of CD, a basic methodological problem that is typical of an initial
stage, involving ‘product count’ or the firm’s state of diversity (box 7;
Dixit & Stiglitz, 1977). Topics related to CD’s organizational aspects
(‘organizational issues’, box 8) and the management of diversity (‘top
management’, boxes 8 and 9) also appear (Pitts, 1976, 1977). In turn,
‘functional issues’ (box 10) are closely related to ‘vertical integration’
and ‘industry analysis/competition’. There is a more modest relation-
ship between CD and internationalization (‘international diversification
issues’) as a clear forerunner of the study of geographical diversification
(Wolf, 1977). This topic is not explicitly mentioned in the framework
proposed by Ramanujam and Varadarajan (1989). There is also a
moderate relationship between ‘international diversification issues’ and
‘kinds of organizations’ (box 3), with MNCs playing a key part in this
last category.
In general, there are few linkages across most of the topics, although
there are some that can be singled out. For example, there is a re-
lationship between ‘corporate investment’ and ‘assets/resources/cap-
abilities’ (box 10) that links Finance and SM. There are other inter-
relationships, albeit more moderate that the one between ‘strategy/
strategic management’ and ‘organizational issues’, which highlight the
relevance of studies that analyze the strategy-structure linkage (boxes 4
and 8). The last of these relationships to be highlighted is between
‘vertical integration’ and ‘theoretical issues/models’, which singles out
the studies that analyze firm boundaries or theorize on vertical in-
tegration (Blois, 1972). All the other interrelationships between the
sundry topics are weak or very weak.
4.3.2. Stage 2: 1978–1985
This stage begins to see the consolidation of the research stream on
CD and the incorporation of new topics. It is defined by the appearance
of a structure involving a core and a semi-periphery, each with a re-
search stream, and a periphery with everything else (see Fig. 3). The
proportion of studies within the sphere of SM rises sharply (from
14.29% to 43.54%), although studies in Economics continue to be more
numerous (53.06%). In Finance, although the number of articles is
upheld in absolute terms, their relative weight is significantly reduced
over the previous stage (13.61% compared to 34.92%).
This stage also sees an initial interest in analyzing new issues that
did not appear in the preceding stage, albeit still at a fairly incipient
level: ‘related/unrelated diversification/synergies’, ‘corporate govern-
ance’, ‘corporate restructuring’, ‘corporate portfolio/scope’, ‘M&A/alli-
ances’ and ‘institutional issues’. Apart from the same topics addressed in
the previous stage, there is now a major interest in the ‘Choice of mode
of diversification’ (Fig. 1, box 6). In turn, there are now issues involving
‘Management of diversity’ (box 10) (functional issues, but now greater
importance is given to matters related to synergies) and ‘Firm
131
Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141
characteristics’ (e.g., ‘corporate governance’) (box 3). Almost all the
relevant issues analyzed by Ramanujam and Varadarajan (1989) are
now present, with the start of interest in institutional matters in the
general environment (box 1).
According to Booz, Allen, and Hamilton (1985), CD can now be
defined in this stage as a means by which a business base is extended to
enhance growth and/or reduce a firm’s overall risk, which includes all
investments, except for those used to directly uphold the competitive-
ness of existing businesses. What’s more, this may involve investment
targeting new products, services, customer segments or geographic
markets, and may be undertaken in different ways, such as internal
development, acquisitions, joint ventures, and licensing agreements.
These authors propose a multidimensional definition, as the focus is not
only on the direction the company takes (box 5), but also on the goals
pursued and the way of achieving diversification (box 6).
As in stage 1, the main or key nodes involve the concepts of ‘cor-
porate diversification’ and ‘vertical integration’ (Harrigan, 1985; Klein,
Crawford, & Alchian, 1978; Monteverde & Teece, 1982). ‘Industry
analysis/competition’ maintains its previous positioning in the first
stage, acting as a bridge between these two concepts. The first two
nodes account for the bulk of the topics and are linked to each other,
although each one can be considered a central point in the network
with its own network of influence over all the other topics. A further
highlight is the importance of the linkages between ‘corporate di-
versification’ and ‘performance’, one of the topics most widely analyzed
in CD studies, as will also be reflected in the networks in the following
stages (Bettis, 1981; Christensen & Montgomery, 1981; Palepu, 1985;
Rumelt, 1982). This relationship is also analyzed in terms of risk, which
constitutes a significant difference as regards the previous stage. Be-
sides ‘vertical integration’, the centrality values of these three items are
the highest in the network. Sundry issues closely related to ‘industry
analysis/competition’ continue to be relevant. This involves studies that
analyze different issues related to industry structure, a highly relevant
topic within Industrial Economics.
A greater interest is also detected in methodological aspects that
imbue the empirical studies with greater rigor, probably due to the use
of more consistent and sophisticated econometric techniques. This
academic rigor may stem from the influence of empirical studies on the
CD-performance/risk linkage. As in the prior period, the interest in
‘methodological issues’ is related to the metrics of diversification (box
7, Jacquemin & Berry, 1979; Montgomery, 1982). In the ‘theoretical
issues/models’, we can highlight certain contributions to the con-
struction of a theory of the diversified firm (Teece, 1982).
Some of the topics gaining in importance, albeit at a relatively low
level of centrality, are ‘top management’, ‘accounting/financial issues’,
‘information issues’, and ‘M&A/alliances’. Finally, interest is beginning
to be shown in the phenomenon of ‘corporate restructuring’, which will
become the preferred focus of attention for a large number of scholars
during the 1990s and first years of the new millennium. Likewise, ‘in-
ternational diversification/issues’ (box 12) appears in a very limited
manner and linked to both vertical integration (box 5) and CD in
general (box 4) (see Fig. 1).
4.3.3. Stage 3: 1986–1993
This stage is tantamount to the field of study’s consolidation, as it is
represented in all three of the network’s levels: core, semi-periphery,
and periphery. What’s more, all the topics analyzed now appear in the
network for the very first time, and this will continue in all subsequent
stages, with all the degrees centrality increasing over the previous
stage. The network’s core grows with the inclusion of two new nodes.
The semi-periphery also grows, and the streams in this position gain in
importance (see Fig. 4). An analysis of this stage reveals that a balance
is being struck between the number of studies on CD within SM
(48.69%) and Economics (46.60%), with the former prevailing slightly
over the latter for the first time. The number of studies in Finance re-
mains more or less stable, although the percentage once again drops
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al.
Fig. 3. Stage 2: 1978–1985.
slightly (11.52%).
Three topics now appear in this stage in the network’s core: ‘cor-
porate diversification’, ‘performance’, and ‘industry analysis/competi-
tion’. ‘Vertical integration’ continues to be a significant topic, albeit
hardly growing compared to the previous stage (Grossman & Hart,
1986; Hart, Tirole, Carlton, & Williamson, 1990). Something similar
happens with the CD-performance linkage (Montgomery & Wernerfelt,
1988), while ‘corporate governance’ and ‘innovation/technology/R&D’
become especially important in this stage.
Our data show the importance that both ‘methodological issues’ and
‘theoretical issues/models’ begin to acquire. Methodologically, data-
bases now have more detailed information and more sophisticated
statistical techniques. In addition, concern over measuring diversifica-
tion remains (Hoskisson, Hitt, Johnson, & Moesel, 1993). Theoretically,
the importance is probably linked to the emergence of the RBV, as it
becomes the dominant theoretical framework within SM (Chatterjee &
Wernerfelt, 1991). In turn, ‘strategy/strategic management’ is also im-
portant, which is consistent with the major activity in this area. It is also
worth emphasizing the relevance of the study by Ramanujam and
Varadarajan (1989) as one of key review articles in the literature on CD.
Fig. 4. Stage 3: 1986–1993.
132
Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141
Other topics that appear in the semi-periphery are ‘corporate
growth/development’, ‘firm’, ‘groups/conglomerates’, ‘industries/spe-
cific companies’, ‘information issues’, ‘M&A/alliances’, ‘organizational
issues’, ‘risk’, and ‘related/unrelated diversification/synergies’.
Amongst these issues, we can highlight the analysis of the role of the
top management team (TMT) in diversified firms within ‘organizational
issues’ (box 8, Michel & Hambrick, 1992; Prahalad & Bettis, 1986).
Regarding the two previous stages, some of the topics analyzed are
joining the network for the first time or returning after dropping out in
the preceding stage, albeit with a low level of centrality. Among these
topics, mention should be made of ‘competitive advantage/strategy’,
which is introducing the importance of competitive advantage linked to
corporate strategy. Further highlights are the network incorporation of
‘economic system/environment’ and the growth of ‘institutional issues’,
assigning increasingly greater relevance to aspects related to a firm’s
general environment (box 1). Also appearing for the first time are
studies applied to a country or region (‘country/region’), with the
outstanding article by Grant, Jammine, and Thomas (1988), or to a
specific industry, with a strong showing by the topic ‘industries/specific
companies’. Also growing, although remaining in the semi-periphery, is
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al.
Fig. 5. Stage 4: 1994–2001.
‘kinds of organizations’, which is probably due to the greater im-
portance of MNCs in relation to product and geographical diversifica-
tion (Geringer, Beamish, & DaCosta, 1989). Other topics appearing for
the first time in this stage are ‘stock markets’ and ‘contracts’.
We can see that this third stage finally completes the framework
proposed by Ramanujam and Varadarajan (1989), although there are
certain topics that appear to receive more attention than others. It may
therefore be posited that the study of CD from this stage on is enriched
with contributions from other theoretical frameworks that have thus far
not been considered, at least not explicitly so. At this stage, we have
also detected certain relationships that are not considered by these
authors; for example, ‘vertical integration’ (box 5) and ‘organizational
issues’ (box 8), as well as relationships between different issues that
appear in boxes 4 and 5 (see Fig. 1).
4.3.4. Stage 4: 1994–2001
This stage records significant growth in the network’s core with 17
topics, while the periphery shrinks to only four. Compared to the pre-
vious stage, there are more main topics and higher centrality values,
and the topics are more closely related to one another, thus leading to
their consolidation (see Fig. 5). It also reveals the slight prevalence of
articles in the SM category (52.07%) compared to those featuring in
Economics (46.60%), although there is a tiny drop in the number of
papers in both areas compared to the previous stage. The number of
Finance studies is increasing in step with their relative weight
(17.16%).
The now classic subject of the CD-performance linkage continues to
be of interest in this stage (Berger & Ofek, 1995; Comment & Jarrell,
1994; Lang & Stulz, 1994; Palich et al., 2000; Rajan, Servaes, &
Zingales, 2000). The studies by Comment and Jarrell (1994), Berger
and Ofek (1995) and Rajan et al. (2000) are seminal works on the di-
versification discount topic that is set to become a crucial issue in the
Finance field in the years ahead. The study by Palich et al. (2000) is also
viewed a benchmark as it involves a meta-analysis of the different
findings on the CD-performance linkage (see table 1). This sub-period is
also characterized by the powerful emergence of ‘country/region’ in
relation to the general environment, thus recording a large number of
studies that seek to examine the cases of other countries, mainly de-
veloped ones, in order to identify possible similarities and differences
with the US context, which has been particularly well covered in pre-
vious periods. Two examples of this are the paper by Khanna and
133
Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141
Palepu (2000a), analyzing diversified groups in India, and the one by
Delios and Beamish (1999), whose empirical focus involves a sample of
Japanese firms. A firm’s operating country may therefore have a sig-
nificant influence on its choices in terms of corporate strategy. It could
be interpreted as an indication of the consolidation of the topic’s im-
portance on the international stage by attracting the attention of
scholars from other countries. There also are relevant articles relating
product and geographical diversification (Hitt, Hoskisson, & Kim, 1997;
Tallman & Li, 1996).
It is a similar case with ‘industries/specific companies’ and ‘industry
analysis/competition’, which in this case involve the competitive en-
vironment, perhaps due to the greater interest in identifying the type of
sectors analyzed. The focus is more on specific industries, and even
specific firms. Other topics related to the business environment (‘eco-
nomic system/environment’ and ‘institutional issues’) also grow, albeit
it to a lesser extent, and they remain in the semi-periphery.
Nevertheless, this stage is characterized not only by a study of external
factors but by the increase in the coefficient of the term ‘assets/re-
sources/capabilities’ fostering the RBV. Other relevant topics related to
a firm’s internal aspects and the management of CD are ‘functional is-
sues’, ‘organizational issues’, ‘top management’ and, to a lesser extent,
‘related/unrelated diversification/synergies’. There is an influential
paper by Bettis and Prahalad (1995) on the ‘dominant logic’ of top
management, which is a continuation of Prahalad and Bettis (1986), as
well as one by Denis, Denis, and Sarin (1997) related to ‘corporate
governance’ from the perspective of Finance.
Benito-Osorio et al. (2012) have reported how the 1980s saw the
most diversified firms divest their unrelated businesses, restructuring
with fewer but more closely linked businesses. Hence the reason that
the term ‘corporate restructuring’ increases significantly over time,
entering the core for the first and only time, and reflecting a general
interest in the SM field (Sánchez-Riofrío, Guerras-Martín, & Forcadell,
2015). Within corporate restructuring, researchers begin to pay parti-
cular attention to the downsizing phenomenon (Datta, Guthrie, Basuil,
& Pandey, 2010).
There is also an increase in the importance given to topics involving
modes of development, especially ‘M&A/alliances’, and to a lesser ex-
tent ‘groups/conglomerates’. The study of conglomerates was a theme
of preferential attention for the Economics and Finance fields in prior
stages, but it also begins to be examined for the SM field in studies
conducted in emerging countries. There is ongoing growth in the
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al.
Fig. 6. Stage 5: 2002–2009.
importance of the topics relating CD and internationalization (‘inter-
national diversification issues’), ‘vertical integration’, and ‘stock mar-
kets’, although they all remain in the semi-periphery. Finally, there
seems to be a greater interest in ‘theoretical issues/models’ and
‘methodological issues’, which now enter the core, and they will remain
there throughout all the coming stages. This suggests a quest for greater
theoretical and empirical rigor and consistency within the discipline,
and therefore greater maturity. New relationships are also detected
among different issues; for instance, between ‘international diversifi-
cation issues’ (box 12) and ‘assets/resources/capabilities (box 10) or
‘corporate governance’ (box 14), and between ‘groups/conglomerates’
(box 6) and ‘corporate governance’ (box 14) (see Fig. 1).
4.3.5. Stage 5: 2002–2009
This sub-period has a denser network than in the preceding stage
and a higher number of central nodes. The periphery disappears.
Twenty-nine nodes record scores of more than 0.66, with eight scoring
more than 0.90. Two topics, ‘performance’ and ‘theoretical issues/
models’, attain maximum centrality (1.0). This stage sees the semi-
periphery shrink to six topics. There are also noticeably more linkages
between different terms (see Fig. 6).
There is also a significant increase in the number of articles pub-
lished on CD (73% more than the previous stage). This means that
despite a 44.3 percent increase in the number of articles in the area of
SM, the proportion of studies over the total falls to 43.34 percent. The
percentage of articles published in Economics remains relatively con-
stant (51.88%). This stage sees major growth in the number of articles
in Finance (165.5%), thereby accounting for 26.28 percent of the total,
which is consistent with the increase in the degree centrality of the
topic ‘accounting/financial issues’.
Product diversification is understood to be a corporate development
strategy, and its interest tends to focus on analyzing the effect that the
type of diversification —single business, and related and unrelated di-
versification— may have on results, regarding both ‘performance’ and
‘risk’, whose centrality values increase considerably. This topic is ana-
lyzed mainly from the sphere of Finance, with a particular focus on
diversification discount (Campa & Kedia, 2002; Goetzmann & Kumar,
2008; Laeven & Levine, 2007), but also from SM (Wan & Hoskisson,
2003). An appreciable number of papers in this discipline have thus
sought to confirm the validity of the findings reported by Rumelt
(1974), whereby it is assumed that related diversification should lead to
a better performance than unrelated one. This is consistent with the fact
134
Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141
that the coefficient of ‘related/unrelated diversification/synergies’ and
‘corporate portfolio/scope’ increases significantly.
There is now a greater interest in studying the relationships between
product and international diversification (i.e., global diversification),
which already began to acquire some significance in the preceding
stage, as reflected in a high centrality value for ‘international diversi-
fication issues’ (Denis, Denis, & Yost, 2002). This supports the greater
importance given to ‘groups/conglomerates’, probably due to the pub-
lication of a large number of studies across different countries, and
especially in Asia (mainly China, India, South Korea, and Japan) and
Latin America (mainly Chile). This is a sign of the growing interest in
studying the situation in a country or region other than the US, now
with a particular focus on emerging countries (‘country/region’). There
is also a sharp increase in ‘kinds of organizations’, driven mainly by the
greater relevance of the analysis of MNCs. Among the types of organi-
zations analyzed, and making its first appearance, is a fledgling interest
in SMEs and their global diversification processes, which had been
absent in the research conducted thus far.
The main topics in previous stages remain in the same positions.
Nonetheless, ‘theoretical issues/models’ and ‘methodological issues’
grow further; in the former case to a degree centrality of 1, which may
be interpreted as an ongoing effort to strengthen the discipline’s rigor
and consistency. There is also an interest in the general environment,
with an ever-greater focus on ‘institutional issues’, as well as major and
now definitive growth in the topic ‘assets/resources/capabilities’,
which reflects this focus’s growing significance, especially in the area of
SM. There is also a growing interest in relating CD to ‘innovation/
technology/R&D’, which is now part of the network’s core for the first
time, and some influential studies are published (Breschi, Lissoni, &
Malerba, 2003; Miller, Fern, & Cardinal, 2007).
The topic ‘vertical integration’, present in all the stages and highly
significant in the area of Economics, enters the network’s core for the
first time (Lafontaine & Slade, 2007). As an exception to the general
rule, this stage records a slight fall in the position of ‘corporate re-
structuring’. Finally, most of the topics now appear in the core, with
only six remaining in the semi-periphery, and none in the periphery
(see Table 4). The network also has new relationships between different
issues that were not hitherto examined. This is, for instance, what oc-
curs between ‘corporate governance’ (box 14) and ‘organizational is-
sues’ (box 8) or between ‘international diversification issues’ (box 12)
and ‘groups/conglomerates’ (box 6) (see Fig. 1).
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al.
Fig. 7. Stage 6: 2010–2017.
4.3.6. Stage 6: 2010–2017
The core grew significantly in this sub-period. Five topics —’cor-
porate diversification’, ‘performance’, ‘methodological issues’, ‘assets/
resources/capabilities’, and ‘corporate governance’— attained max-
imum centrality, constituting the core’s main subjects. The number of
links has grown, meaning that the intellectual structure is more con-
centrated, with most of the topics gaining in importance: 29 of them
have coefficients of more than 0.66, and 12 are above 0.90 (see Fig. 7).
This stage is the one with the highest scientific output on CD, with 390
articles accounting for 31.13 percent of the total in our database. This
means that despite being a common topic in the literature, its interest
continues to grow steadily. SM regains the leadership (51.03% of all
articles), Finance holds firm (25.38%), and Economics clearly falls in
relative terms (43.85%).
The importance given to the firm’s general environment continues
to grow, with ‘economic system/environment’ entering the network’s
core for the first time, while the centrality of ‘institutional issues’, also
in the core, increases. In turn, ‘industry analysis/competition’ remains
in the core with high values. Although most of the topics increase their
centrality, there are some that decrease. This is the case, for example,
with ‘corporate restructuring’, ‘corporate growth/development’, ‘top
management’, and ‘innovation/technology/R&D’, among the main
ones. This could be interpreted as the beginning of a realignment of the
interest in certain topics within the discipline.
The CD-performance linkage remains strong and attracts consider-
able interest, although now also related to ‘corporate governance’
(Gómez-Mejía, Makri, & Kintana, 2010; Hoechle, Schmid, Walter, &
Yermack, 2012). In addition, ‘theoretical issues/models’ loses some of
its importance, probably because the theoretical underpinnings have
now been well established. In the SM field, the RBV remains highly
important for analyzing CD (Nath, Nachiappan, & Ramanathan, 2010;
Neffke & Henning, 2013; Villasalero, 2017).
Nonetheless, ‘methodological issues’ continues to be a topic of
preferential treatment because the databases are now more compre-
hensive in terms of the data available and their longitudinal scope. This
has prompted the use of new and more sophisticated econometric
techniques, allowing for increasingly greater rigor and consistency.
Moreover, this is a period in which many empirical studies include
moderator/mediator variables or interactions, adding a touch of ori-
ginality to many studies and leading to the creation of links between
topics that might initially have gone unnoticed. Thus, researchers also
seek a better understanding of the different relationships being ex-
plored.
135
Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141
Although empirical studies were conducted in more developed
countries up to the beginning of the new millennium (Benito-Osorio
et al., 2012), this stage continues to see a growing interest in applying
this approach to increasingly varied geographical and industrial con-
texts, such as emerging and transitioning countries, mainly in Asia
(Berger, Hasan, & Zhou, 2010; Goldberg, Khandelwal, Pavcnik, &
Topalova, 2010) and Latin America. The existence of imperfections or
‘institutional vacuums’ encourages companies in these countries to opt
for the product diversification strategy as a mechanism for creating
internal markets to replace external ones, or to tackle, with certain
guarantees of success, the challenges posed by their operating en-
vironment. This is also consistent with ongoing growth in topics related
to the general environment and ‘international diversification issues’.
Continuing with the previous thread, a significant increase in levels
of CD is considered an especially appropriate strategy for responding to
the imperfections of external markets in countries with weak institu-
tions. In particular, it is assumed that the economic benefits to be ob-
tained from the internal markets created by companies themselves
through higher levels of product diversification may more than com-
pensate for the costs they also incur.
5. Discussion and conclusions
A large volume of studies on CD has been generated over the past
50 years. A review of the existing literature has identified the lack of a
study that reflects how it has evolved from its beginnings to the present.
We argue that after more than five decades of continuous research it is
now a good time to describe the state-of-the-art in some detail.
Likewise, we understand there is a need to carefully assess the extent to
which the seminal framework proposed by Ramanujam and
Varadarajan (1989) is still valid, or whether it should be updated to
include new topics/issues that over the past three decades have been
addressed by scholars from different disciplines. To this end, this study
has relied on the use of bibliometric techniques that are especially
helpful for exploring/assessing a phenomenon with a vast amount of
existing information. Overall, our findings have not only confirmed the
validity of this comprehensive framework, but also emphasized the
need to expand it to include new topics and more complex relationships
(see Fig. 1).
Our study has led to a more dynamic analysis on the evolution of the
research stream on CD, a question that was overlooked by Ramanujam
and Varadarajan (1989). Considering the networks of topics obtained
(Figs. 2–7), the cohesion of this research stream has been steadily
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al.
increasing across all the stages. The fourth stage (1994–2001) recorded
61 percent of linked topics, while 81 percent in the final stage have
some kind of relationship with each other. In turn, all the stages re-
corded a sustained drop in the average distance between topics. This
evidence confirms the maturity of the more central lines in the more
recent stages.
5.1. Main topics and their evolution
We can use Fig. 1 to highlight the appearance over time of new core
study topics (‘methodological issues’, ‘theoretical issues/models’,
‘competitive advantage/strategy’, ‘corporate governance’, and ‘inter-
national diversification issues’). In addition, it shows the greater pro-
liferation of interrelationships between the different topics.
Some topics can be considered central throughout the entire period
analyzed, as they record high degrees centrality across the different
stages (table 4): ‘corporate diversification’, ‘performance’, ‘vertical in-
tegration’, ‘methodological issues’, ‘theoretical issues/models’, and ‘in-
dustry analysis/competition’. We might refer to them as the backbone
of this research stream. Although ‘vertical integration’ records rela-
tively high values of centrality, these are not as high as among other
core topics, which may be because it is very closely linked to Eco-
nomics, and not so much to Finance and SM.
It is worth mentioning the significance of ‘methodological issues’
and ‘theoretical issues/models’, steadily gaining in centrality across
each stage, moving from an area of scant relevance in the first stage to
prominence in the last. This gives us an idea of the line’s growth and
strength, as it has been reinforced with new methodologies, models,
and concepts; nonetheless, there is a difference between them.
‘Methodological issues’ was better placed during the initial stages,
probably due to the interest in issues related to the metrics of CD that
seem to have been more or less resolved in recent years. Measuring CD
has always been a key issue, and some researchers have recently called
for new measures to better capture the degree of relatedness among the
firm’s businesses (e.g., Nigam & Gupta, 2018).
Greater attention is now being paid to methodological issues, with
increasingly more sophisticated econometric techniques for addressing
the various issues more accurately and more rigorously, specifically
responding to a critical issue, namely, the endogeneity/causality of the
different types of relationships analyzed. There are also more and more
studies exploring moderating/mediating or interactive effects. This
greater interest in methodological issues may lead not only to greater
rigor and consistency when analyzing the possible interrelationships
between the topics, but also make it easier to conduct comparative
analyses between studies.
Table 4 shows that not all the topics have formed part of the net-
work in the initial stages. We thus find some that were not important at
the beginning of the period analyzed, but have then gone on to make a
strong appearance until they have become part of the core in the later
stages. These topics are as follows: ‘economic system/environment’,
‘institutional issues’, ‘country/region’, ‘industries/specific companies’,
‘corporate governance’, ‘M&A/alliances’, ‘competitive advantage/
strategy’, ‘international diversification issues’, ‘information issues’, and
to a lesser extent, ‘stock markets.’
Some of these topics had already appeared in the overview of the
literature by Ramanujam and Varadarajan (1989), but others may be
considered newcomers. These particularly include ‘corporate govern-
ance’, ‘international diversification issues’, and ‘competitive strategy’
(see Fig. 1, boxes 12, 13, and 14). For example, ‘corporate governance’
considers the need to analyze the issues arising from conflicts of interest
between management and shareholders regarding CD decisions. In turn,
‘international diversification issues’ reflects the growing importance of
geographical diversification in itself or in interaction with more tradi-
tional product diversification (i.e., global diversification). This is also
linked to the increasingly significant role of MNCs. Finally, the ap-
pearance and growth of ‘competitive advantage/strategy’ points to the
136
Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141
need to adopt an ever more interactive approach to the analysis of is-
sues traditionally linked to a firm’s corporate strategy and those more
closely related to competitive advantage. This is related to the recent
proposal of developing an integrative theory of strategy (Zollo, Minoja,
& Coda, 2018).
Growing attention is now being paid to issues linked to an analysis
of the business environment and its influence on CD decisions.
Although the competitive environment (‘industry analysis/competi-
tion’) has featured since the start of the period analyzed, especially
within the scope of Economics, of particular relevance has been the
steady incorporation of topics related to the general environment, un-
derstanding this to be ‘economic system/environment’, and most
especially ‘institutional issues’. The latter may be informed by, among
other reasons, the growing consideration of the aforementioned geo-
graphical diversification, whereby firms are increasingly having to deal
with different institutional contexts. This fact also helps to understand
why the institutional view has become a benchmark framework in
many studies for explaining the diversifying behavior of firms in dif-
ferent countries in recent years.
Precisely related to the environment’s growing importance, there is
a noticeable increase in the application of empirical studies in contexts
other than the US (e.g., Europe, Asia, with a special focus on China, and
Latin America), as reflected by the trend in ‘country/region’. Something
similar is occurring from the industry perspective, or even regarding
specific companies, with a similar trend in ‘industries/specific compa-
nies.’
There is a growing importance of topics related to the mode of di-
versification, which is reflected in both ‘M&A/alliances’ and ‘groups/
conglomerates’. ‘M&A/alliances’ has certainly become an appealing and
frequent mode of business development adopted by managers all over
the world, whereas the focus on different aspects of conglomerates re-
mains especially interesting within the SM field in emerging countries
(e.g., Singh et al., 2018). Equally important for the management of CD
has been the growth in firms’ internal aspects, with greater centrality in
topics such as ‘assets/resources/capabilities’, ‘functional issues’, ‘in-
novation/technology/R&D’, ‘organizational issues’, and ‘top manage-
ment’. The application of the RBV has shifted the focus onto aspects of
this kind as determinants of both CD decisions and the internal man-
agement of diversified firms (‘related/unrelated diversification/syner-
gies’).
Finally, there are two topics that have followed very different paths
to the rest. One is ‘corporate growth/development’, with an uneven
pattern of sharp increases and decreases over time. The other is ‘cor-
porate restructuring’, which follows an inverted U-shaped pattern,
growing significantly in the initial stages and then steadily falling away.
The renewed interest in this topic might be explained by researchers’
desire to understand the effects of the global economic crisis in the late
2000s, whereby most companies around the world were forced to re-
structure. Moreover, the research stream in CD has also involved SMEs,
especially over the last two stages.
5.2. Study areas and their evolution
Our study clearly confirms the multidisciplinary nature of the re-
search stream on CD. It is based on three fundamental pillars or dis-
ciplines: Economics, Finance, and SM. This three-pronged structure has
been upheld, with certain modifications, throughout the period ana-
lyzed. In relative terms, the areas of Economics and SM have clearly
prevailed over Finance during this time, although the last one has
played a significant role in all the stages.
In Economics, the main topic across the six stages is related to a
firm’s boundaries, and more specifically to ‘vertical integration’. Those
aspects related to an industry analysis are also of importance in this
area, especially in the first stages. The CD-performance linkage has
received significant attention from all the disciplines. Our results show
how in the case of Finance, and besides the CD-performance linkage
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al.
with a particular focus on the issue of diversification discount, an
analysis has also been conducted on topics related to information and
risk, corporate governance, and conglomerates. Particular attention has
also been paid to the empirical study of CD within the banking and
financial sector.
Our findings also show that the range of topics analyzed in the area
of SM is broader than in the other two areas, sharing an interest in the
CD-performance linkage. Nevertheless, it also emphasizes the role top
management plays in CD decisions, the relationship between CD stra-
tegies and firm resources and capabilities, especially technological ones
—to the point that the new topic of technological diversification is now
being researched (Chen, Yang, & Lin, 2013; Leten, Belderbos, & Van
Looy, 2007; Zander, 1997)—, the relationship between product di-
versification and internationalization, and the modes of development
applied in CD processes (M&A/alliances). When we consider the ap-
proaches used in the study of CD, and in relation to those identified by
Grant (2002), recent years have also seen the major incorporation of
the institutional approach and the RBV, both in their more traditional
versions and regarding the knowledge-based view and dynamic cap-
abilities approach.
After half a century of prolific research, it is a good moment to ask
the question: is there a need to build an integrated theory on CD? A pio-
neering attempt was made by Hoskisson and Hitt (1990). Our study
introduces many more topics than initially suggested by these authors,
as a result of this field’s evolution over the past thirty years. As noted,
Zollo et al. (2018) also recognize the need to propose an integrated
theory of strategy. Our findings confirm that CD is a multifaceted
phenomenon and that the different topics related to CD seem to be
increasingly interconnected. Accordingly, the formulation of an in-
tegrated theory on CD, including contributions from Economics, Fi-
nance, and SM, would be especially useful for further advancing a
better understanding of this phenomenon.
5.3. Future lines of research
Scholars interested in CD may use this study to identify the most
relevant literature, concepts and issues from 1970 to 2017. Most im-
portantly, it can help to signal future pathways in SM literature and
highlight the importance of combining different fields, themes, per-
spectives and topics in new research. It also shows that scholars have
made an increasing effort over time to better understand the different
issues related to this research stream. However, an interesting question
that may arise in the light of our findings is as follows: what are the
major issues/challenges that may define/shape the future development of
this research stream? We contend that while the theoretical bases seem
to be relatively well-established in the different fields of study, as noted
above, an integrated theory on CD is still necessary. Likewise, we
should continue using more sophisticated econometric techniques to
better assess the different relationships. These techniques might also
help to explore more complex relationships among a growing number
of issues, which should ultimately lead to a better understanding of the
CD phenomenon. Our analysis also reveals a paucity of studies ex-
ploring dynamic aspects of CD in both its antecedents and con-
sequences. Because more longitudinal data are now available, it would
be expedient to examine the potential effects of the economic cycle or
other kinds of time disruptions (i.e., time dependencies) on most re-
lationships (Aivazian, Rahaman, & Zhou, 2019; Zúñiga-Vicente, Benito-
Osorio, Guerras-Martín, & Colino, 2019).
It would also be interesting to introduce new issues that have thus
far largely been ignored; for example, the potential links between
137
Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141
different aspects of corporate social responsibility and CD in an inter-
national context. Future studies on the CD-performance linkage might
also consider outcome measures related to ethics, sustainability or so-
cial performance, as most prior research has used accounting, market-
based, risk, productivity, growth, survival, and innovation measures
(Ahuja & Novelli, 2017). It might be convenient to explore how CD or
global diversification strategies affect human rights and employee or-
ientation disclosures (Sambharya & Goll, 2019). We also know very
little about how CD might be affected by a firm’s external relationships
with different stakeholders (Mawdsley & Somaya, 2018). Another po-
tential challenge could involve knowing how the emergence of a new
competitive model, such as collaborative economy, affects a firm’s di-
versification decisions.
There are many studies on the TMT’s potential effects on different
aspects of CD, but we have detected few that examine how most re-
lationships might also be affected by different leadership styles.
Corporate headquarters are a key part of multi-business firms, so future
studies should also explore the potential connections between the TMT
and the rest of the company to improve our understanding of the po-
tential benefits and costs involved (Foss, 2019). Furthermore, at a time
when many strong performers are defying expectations about the de-
mise of the multi-business firm, it would also be pertinent to further
investigate how top managers are handling their portfolios for success
(Pidun, Richter, Schommer, & Karna, 2019). Recent years have also
witnessed the emergence of a research stream centered on the potential
influence that political connections between top managers and state
officials have on diversified firms, mainly in emerging countries (Wang
& Luo, 2019).
We should also like to stress that the bibliometric tools’ scope for
this analysis is much broader than that used here. For example, it would
be interesting to analyze the research stream’s intellectual structure by
further exploring the relationships between the different areas of study
involved. What’s more, it would be pertinent to identify the leading
scholars and journals that have focused the most on the field, among
other significant aspects. Bearing in mind it is a research stream that
has become increasingly global in recent decades, as regards both its
empirical studies across different countries and the presence and po-
tential collaboration among scholars worldwide, it would be expedient
to draw up and analyze a map of CD research and its evolution over
time.
Finally, although we have employed bibliometric techniques that
have been widely used in most prior review studies, we are aware that
such techniques are not without their problems. For example, we re-
cognize that the search strategy could partially condition the database
used, and the building of word families could also be questioned. Future
studies might also compare our results with those obtained through
other methodologies, such as the ontological methods currently being
used in other disciplines, to see whether the results are robust (La Paz,
Merigó, Powell, Ramaprasad, & Syn, 2019).
Funding
This paper has been supported by Project RTI2018-097447-B-I00 of
the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (Spain). Any errors
are our own responsibility.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al. Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141

Appendix. Keyword families

No. Family Keywords

1 Accounting/financial-issues accounting, capital structure, cash flow, corporate finance, debt, financial leverage, financial management, financial structure, internal
(75 keywords) capital markets, LBOs, multi-source financing, options, public/private financing, real options, etc.
2 Assets/resources/capabilities absorptive capacity, asset purchases, asset sales, capabilities, competences, core competences, dynamic capabilities, experience, expertise,
(77 keywords) exploitation, exploration, knowledge, knowledge accumulation, knowledge capital, learning, organizational routines, resources, skills,
social network, specific assets, etc.
3 Competitive-advantage/strategy business model, business strategies, competitive advantage, competitive strategy, market strategy, product differentiation, segmentation,
(17 keywords) sustainable competitive advantage, etc.
4 Contracts bargaining, contract costs, contracting institutions, contracts, contractual arrangements, incomplete contracts, long-term-contracts,
(14 keywords) relational contracts, etc.
5 Corporate-diversification business diversification, corporate diversification, diversification, diversification experience, diversification patterns, diversification
(72 keywords) process, diversified and specialized firms, multibusiness firm, portfolio diversification, product diversification, etc.
6 Corporate-governance blockholder ownership, board of directors, corporate governance, corporate ownership structure, corporate social responsibility, equity,
(66 keywords) family business, foreign-capital, governance, governance and control, ownership control, ownership structure, property rights,
shareholder returns, shareholders, stakeholders, etc.
7 Corporate-growth/development business development, corporate growth, corporate life cycle, diversification firm growth, internal development, organic growth, shared
(23 keywords) growth, sustainable growth trajectory, ventures, etc.
8 Corporate-investment corporate investment, corporate venture capital, direct-investment, firm investment, firm-specific investments, investment opportunities,
(25 keywords) investment portfolios, investment strategy, investments, strategic investment, etc.
9 Corporate-portfolio/scope boundaries of the firm, business portfolio, core business, diversification and scope, diversification portfolio, firm scope, portfolio analysis,
(28 keywords) portfolio management, portfolio selection, portfolio strategy, etc.
10 Corporate-restructuring corporate restructuring, de-diversification, divestitures, geographical restructuring, portfolio restructuring, refocusing, restructuring,
(17 keywords) specialization, spinoff, vertical disintegration, etc.
11 Costs arbitrage costs, cost economies, cost structure, costs, internal economic control, opportunity costs, switching costs, etc.
(22 keywords)
12 Country/region Africa, Asia, Australia, Brazil, British manufacturing companies, Chile, China, country effects, country factors, Europe, Germany, India,
(66 keywords) Japan, Korean chaebols, Latin America, Malaysia, region, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, USA, etc.
13 Economic-system/environment economic conditions, economic control, economic crisis, economic-growth, environment, environmental dynamism, environmental
(33 keywords) transformations, exchange rates, financial crisis, financial reforms, globalization, monetary-policy, new economy, open economy,
political-economic systems, social welfare, trade policy, etc.
14 Firm business, companies, corporate, enterprise, firm, firm age, firm size, new firms, private business, private enterprises, start-up firms, etc.
(16 keywords)
15 Functional-issues brand diversification, carriers, compensation, facility management, human resource management, inventories, job design, location
(83 keywords) decisions, marketing capability, operations capability, plants, procurement, product management, production, promotion, quality, sales
and distribution channels, supply chain, value chains, etc.
16 Groups/conglomerates business group, chaebols, conglomerate firm, conglomerate performance, holding companies, keiretsu, large business groups, subsidiaries,
(31 keywords) subsidiary firms, etc.
17 Industries/specific-companies aerospace industry, automobile industry, banking activity, biotechnology, brewing industry, broadband market, building materials,
(219 keywords) business advisory services, chemical industry, commercial wine production, computers, construction industry, etc.
18 Industry-analysis/competition business cycle, collusion, competition, competitive markets, emerging economies, emerging economy, emerging market, emerging
(139 keywords) markets, energy-only markets, entry, entry and exit barriers, hypercompetition, incumbent, industry analysis, inter-industry analysis,
market concentration, market power, monopolies, multi-market competition, niche markets, oligopoly, strategic groups, substitutes,
upstream competition, etc.
19 Information-issues adverse selection, bounded rationality, corporate disclosure, information and knowledge, information asymmetries, information flow,
(27 keywords) information processing models, moral hazard, opportunism, private information, uncertainty, etc.
20 Innovation/technology/R&D core-technology competence, information technology, innovation, open innovation, patent portfolio, R&D, R&D intensity, technological
(84 keywords) change, technological diversification, technological knowledge, technology management, technology transfer, etc.
21 Institutional-issues antitrust, deregulation, European integration process, financial institutions, government, host-country institutions, institutional context,
(64 keywords) institutional reforms, institutions, investor protection, laws, legal boundaries, legal institutions, liberalization, national culture, national
innovation systems, political institutions, regulation, taxes, etc.
22 International-diversification/is- export, export diversification, foreign activities, foreign direct investment, geographic diversification, global diversification, international
sues business, international diversification, international experience, internationalization, etc.
(45 keywords)
23 Kinds-of-organizations charities, multinational companies, multinationality, multinationals, multinationals diversification, non-profit organizations, small and
(34 keywords) medium enterprises, small businesses, SMEs, state-owned enterprises, transnational corporations, etc.
24 Mergers-and-acquisitions/ acquiring firms, acquisition and divestiture, acquisitions, alliances, analysis conglomerate mergers, bid-ask spread, cooperation,
Alliances corporate-mergers, horizontal concentration, interfirm collaboration, M&A, Management Buyouts, networks, strategic alliances,
(63 keywords) takeovers, vertical alliance, vertical mergers, etc.
25 Methodological-issues Bayesian methodology, case studies, construct validity, correlation, data bases, data envelopment analysis, diversification measures,
(141 keywords) empirical study, entropy measure, event studies, generalized structural equation model, longitudinal analysis, mathematical program-
ming, mean–variance analysis, meta-analysis, panel-data, product-count, simulation, simultaneous equation model, time-series analysis,
etc.
26 Organizational-issues behavior, centralization, commitment, communication, complexity in organizations, configurations, coordination, corporate-control,
(68 keywords) corporate-headquarters, culture, hierarchies, hybrid organization, multidivisional form, organizational design, organizational evolution
and change, organizational structure, tasks, trust etc.
27 Performance bankruptcy, business performance, company value, corporate performance, diversification benefits, diversification discount, earnings,
(132 keywords) efficiency, failure, financial performance, losses, market value, performance, profit, profitability, rents, results, return on assets, returns,
revenue, survival, turnover, utilities, value creation, etc.
28 Prices automatic price adjustments, consumption prices, equilibrium pricing, input prices, option prices, price, price change, price premium,
(26 keywords) price squeezing, prices, pricing policies, product prices, tariffs, etc.
29 Related/unrelated-diversifica- actual relatedness, business synergy, concentric diversification, economies of diversification, product diversification relatedness, related
tion/Synergies diversification, related variety, related/unrelated diversification, relatedness, resource relatedness, scope, scope economies, synergies,
(29 keywords) unrelated diversification, etc.
30 Risk business risk, determinants of risk, direct and portfolio risk, diversification risks, firm-specific risk, portfolio risk, risk analysis, risk
(59 keywords) aversion, risk management, risk of failure, risk performance, risk reduction, systematic-risk, etc.

138
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al. Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141

31 Stock-markets capital markets, equity prices, international equity markets, stock markets, stock price performance, stock ratings, stock returns,
(22 keywords) stockholder diversification, etc.
32 Strategy/Strategic-management corporate policy, corporate strategy, enterprise management, firm strategy, strategic change, strategic control, strategic decision problem,
(37 keywords) strategic flexibility, strategic focus, strategic management, strategic perspective, strategy, strategy research, etc.
33 Theoretical-issues/models agency theory, conceptual framework, contingency theory, determinants, economics of organizations, evolutionary approaches, game
(95 keywords) theory, hypothesis, input output, key factors, network theory, portfolio theory, property-rights theory, resource-based view, stakeholder
theory, theory of the firm, transaction cost economics, etc.
34 Top-management CEO turnover, decision policies, decision-making, executive compensation, executive leadership style, management team characteristics,
(33 keywords) managerial behavior, managers, roles of the center, top executives, top management teams, etc.
35 Vertical-integration backward integration, downstream integration, internalization, make-or-buy, quasi-vertical integration, vertical integration, vertical
(21 keywords) marketing, vertical oligopoly, vertical relationships, vertical scope, etc.

Note: the whole list of keywords analyzed includes 2,003 different words. This appendix includes some of the most representative keywords in each
of the families. A complete list of keywords is available on request.

References
Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., & Galan, J. L. (2006). The resource-based theory: Dissemination
and main trends. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 621–636.
Adams, J., & Gurney, K. (2013). Leading research economies in a changing knowledge
network. Spain. Global research digest. Thomson Reuters. Available at: http: www.
researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/grr. [20 May 2019].
Aggarwal, R. K., & Samwick, A. A. (2003). Why do managers diversify their firms? Agency
reconsidered. The Journal of Finance, 58(1), 71–118.
Ahuja, G., & Novelli, E. (2017). Redirecting research efforts on the diversification-per-
formance linkage: The search for synergy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1),
342–390.
Aivazian, V. A., Rahaman, M. M., & Zhou, S. (2019). Does corporate diversification
provide insurance against economic disruptions? Journal of Business Research, 100,
218–233.
Andrade-Valbuena, N. A., Merigó-Lindahl, J. M., Fernández, L. V., & Nicolas, C. (2019).
Mapping leading universities in strategy research: Three decades of collaborative
networks. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), 1632569.
Ansoff, H. I. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Harvard Business Review, 35(5),
113–124.
Ansoff, H. I. (1958). A model for diversification. Management Science, 4(4), 392–414.
Arrow, K. J. (1975). Vertical integration and communication. The Bell Journal of
Economics, 6(1), 173–183.
Azar, O. H., & Brock, D. M. (2008). A citation-based ranking of strategic management
journals. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 17(3), 781–802.
Basu, N. (2010). Trends in corporate diversification. Financial Markets and Portfolio
Management, 24(1), 87–102.
Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (1998). Pajek—program for large network analysis. Connections,
21(2), 47–57.
Bausch, A., & Pils, F. (2009). Product diversification strategy and financial performance:
Meta-analytic evidence on causality and construct multidimensionality. Review of
Management Science, 3, 157–190.
Benito-Osorio, D., Guerras-Martín, L.Á., & Zúñiga-Vicente, J.Á. (2012). Four decades of
research on product diversification: A literature review. Management Decision, 50(2),
325–344.
Berger, A. N., Hasan, I., & Zhou, M. (2010). The effects of focus versus diversification on
bank performance: Evidence from Chinese banks. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(7),
1417–1435.
Berger, P., & Ofek, E. (1995). Diversification's effect on firm value. Journal of Financial
Economics, 37(1), 39–65.
Berry, C. H. (1971). Corporate growth and diversification. The Journal of Law and
Economics, 14(2), 371–383.
Bettis, R. A. (1981). Performance differences in related and unrelated diversified firms.
Strategic Management Journal, 2(4), 379–393.
Bettis, R. A., & Prahalad, C. K. (1995). The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension.
Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 5–14.
Blois, K. J. (1972). Vertical quasi-integration. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 20(3),
253–272.
Booz, A., Allen, J. L., & Hamilton, C. (1985). Diversification: A survey of European Chief
Executives. New York, NY: Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Bragge, J., Kayppi, K., Ahola, T., Aminoff, A., Kaipia, R., & Tanskanen, K. (2019).
Unveiling the intellectual structure and evolution of external resource management
research: Insights form a bibliometric study. Journal of Business Research, 97,
141–159.
Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Malerba, F. (2003). Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological
diversification. Research Policy, 32(1), 69–87.
Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing
the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of
polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22, 155–205.
Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology:
Sociology of science in a real world. London, UK: The MacMillan Press Ltd.
Campa, J. M., & Kedia, S. (2002). Explaining the diversification discount. The Journal of
Finance, 57(4), 1731–1762.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chandler, A. D. (1991). The functions of the HQ unit in the multibusiness firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 12(S2), 31–50.
Chatterjee, S., & Wernerfelt, B. (1991). The link between resources and type of
diversification: Theory and evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 12(1), 33–48.
Chen, Y. M., Yang, D. H., & Lin, F. J. (2013). Does technological diversification matter to
firm performance? The moderating role of organizational slack. Journal of Business
Research, 66(10), 1970–1975.
Christensen, H. K., & Montgomery, C. A. (1981). Corporate economic performance:
Diversification strategy versus market structure. Strategic Management Journal, 2(4),
327–343.
Cobo, M. J., Lopez-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach
for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A prac-
tical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166.
Comment, R., & Jarrell, G. A. (1994). Corporate focus and stock returns. Journal of
Financial Economics, 37(1), 67–87.
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., Basuil, D., & Pandey, A. (2010). Causes and effects of em-
ployee downsizing: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 36(1), 281–348.
Datta, D. K., Rajagopalan, N., & Rasheed, A. M. (1991). Diversification and performance:
Critical review and future directions. Journal of Management Studies, 28(5), 529–558.
de Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to
cybermetrics. Toronto: The Scarecrow Press Inc.
Delios, A., & Beamish, P. W. (1999). Geographic scope, product diversification, and the
corporate performance of Japanese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 20(8),
711–727.
Denis, D. J., Denis, D. K., & Sarin, A. (1997). Agency problems, equity ownership, and
corporate diversification. The Journal of Finance, 52(1), 135–160.
Denis, D. J., Denis, D. K., & Yost, K. (2002). Global diversification, industrial diversifi-
cation, and firm value. The Journal of Finance, 57(5), 1951–1979.
Dhir, S., & Dhir, S. (2015). Diversification: Literature review and issues. Strategic Change,
24(6), 569.
Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M., & Verona, G. (2010). Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: A
bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the
research domain. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 1187–1204.
Dixit, A. K., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1977). Monopolistic competition and optimum product di-
versity. The American Economic Review, 67(3), 297–308.
Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production:
How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831.
Erdorff, S., Hartmann-Wendels, T., Heinrichs, N., & Matz, M. (2013). Corporate diversi-
fication and firm value: A survey of recent literature. Financial Markets and Portfolio
Management, 27, 187–215.
Foss, N. J. (2019). The corporate headquarters in organization design theory: An orga-
nizational economics perspective. Journal of Organization Design, 8(1), 8.
Furrer, O., Thomas, H., & Goussevskaia, A. (2008). The structure and evolution of the
strategic management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic management
research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 1–23.
Geringer, J., Beamish, P. W., & DaCosta, R. C. (1989). Diversification strategy and in-
ternationalization: Implications for MNE performance. Strategic Management Journal,
10(2), 109–119.
Goetzmann, W. N., & Kumar, A. (2008). Equity portfolio diversification. Review of
Finance, 12(3), 433–463.
Goldberg, P. K., Khandelwal, A. K., Pavcnik, N., & Topalova, P. (2010). Multiproduct
firms and product turnover in the developing world: Evidence from India. The Review
of Economics and Statistics, 92(4), 1042–1049.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Makri, M., & Kintana, M. L. (2010). Diversification decisions in fa-
mily-controlled firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 223–252.
Goold, M., Campbell, A., & Alexander, M. (1998). Corporate strategy and parenting
theory. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 308–314.
Goold, M., & Luchs, K. (1993). Why diversify? Four decades of management thinking.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 7(3), 7–25.
Gort, M. (1962). Diversification and Integration in American Industry. Princeton, NY:
Princeton University Press.
Grant, R. M. (2002). Corporate Strategy: Managing scope & strategy content. In A.
Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.). Handbook of Strategy and Management
(pp. 72–97). SAGE: London, UK.
Grant, R. M., Jammine, A. P., & Thomas, H. (1988). Diversity, diversification, and prof-
itability among British manufacturing companies, 1972–1984. Academy of
Management Journal, 31(4), 771–801.
Grossman, S. J., & Hart, O. D. (1986). The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of
vertical and lateral integration. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), 691–719.
Harrigan, K. R. (1985). Vertical integration and corporate strategy. Academy of
Management Journal, 28(2), 397–425.

139
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al.
Hart, O., Tirole, J., Carlton, D., & Williamson, O. (1990). Vertical integration and market
foreclosure. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics, 1990, 205–286.
Hauschild, S., & zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D. (2013). The resource-based view of diversi-
fication success: Conceptual issues, methodological flaws, and future directions.
Review of Managerial Science, 7(3), 327-363.
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. (1997). International diversification: Effects on
innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of
Management Journal, 40(4), 767–798.
Hoechle, D., Schmid, M., Walter, I., & Yermack, D. (2012). How much of the diversifi-
cation discount can be explained by poor corporate governance? Journal of Financial
Economics, 103(1), 41–60.
Hoskisson, R. E., & Hitt, M. A. (1990). Antecedents and performance outcomes of di-
versification: A review and critique of theoretical perspectives. Journal of
Management, 16(2), 461–509.
Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Johnson, R. A., & Moesel, D. D. (1993). Construct validity of
an objective entropy categorical measure of diversification strategy. Strategic
Management Journal, 14(3), 215–235.
Jacquemin, A. P., & Berry, C. H. (1979). Entropy measure of diversification and corporate
growth. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 27(4), 359–369.
Kamada, T., & Kawai, S. (1989). An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs.
Information Processing Letters, 31(1), 7–15.
Kedia, B. L., Mukherjee, D., & Lahiri, S. (2006). Indian business groups: Evolution and
transformation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(4), 559–577.
Kenworthy, T. P., & Verbeke, A. (2015). The future of strategic management research:
Assessing the quality of theory borrowing. European Management Journal, 33(3),
179–190.
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000a). Is group membership profitable in emerging markets?
An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance, 55(2), 867–891.
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000b). The future of business groups in emerging markets:
Long-run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 268–285.
Klein, B., Crawford, R. G., & Alchian, A. A. (1978). Vertical integration, appropriable
rents, and the competitive contracting process. The Journal of Law and Economics,
21(2), 297–326.
Koseoglu, M. A. (2016). Growth and structure of authorship and co-authorship network in
the strategic management realm: Evidence from the Strategic Management Journal.
BRQ. Business Research Quarterly, 19(3), 153–170.
La Paz, A., Merigó, J. M., Powell, P., Ramaprasad, A., & Syn, T. (2019). Twenty-five years
of the Information Systems Journal: A bibliometric and ontological overview.
Information Systems Journal, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12260.
Laeven, L., & Levine, R. (2007). Is there a diversification discount in financial conglom-
erates? Journal of Financial Economics, 85(2), 331–367.
Lafontaine, F., & Slade, M. (2007). Vertical integration and firm boundaries: The evi-
dence. Journal of Economic Literature, 45(3), 629–685.
Lang, L. H., & Stulz, R. M. (1994). Tobin's q, corporate diversification, and firm perfor-
mance. Journal of Political Economy, 102(6), 1248–1280.
Lehnert, J., & Schweitzer, P. (2007). The co-word problem for the Higman-Thompson
group is context-free. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, 39(Part-2),
235–241.
Leten, B., Belderbos, R., & Van Looy, B. (2007). Technological diversification, coherence,
and performance of firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(6), 567–579.
Levy, H., & Sarnat, M. (1970). Diversification, portfolio analysis and the uneasy case for
conglomerate mergers. The Journal of Finance, 25(4), 795–802.
Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Similarity measures, author cocitation analysis, and information
theory. Journal of the American Society of Information Science & Technology, 56(7),
769–772.
Leydesdorff, L. (2008). On the Normalization and Visualization of Author Co-Citation
Data: Salton’s Cosine versus the Jaccard Index. Journal of the American Society of
Information Science & Technology, 58(1), 77–85.
Lüthge, A. (2018). The concept of relatedness in diversification research: Review and
synthesis. Review of Managerial Science, 1–35.
Markides, C. C. (2002). Corporate strategy: The role of the centre. In A. Pettigrew, H.
Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.). Handbook of Strategy and Management (pp. 98–112).
SAGE: London, UK.
Martin, J. D., & Sayrak, A. (2003). Corporate diversification and shareholder value: A
survey of recent literature. Journal of Corporate Finance, 9(1), 37–57.
Mawdsley, J. K., & Somaya, D. (2018). Demand-side strategy, relational advantage, and
partner-driven corporate scope: The case for client-led diversification. Strategic
Management Journal, 39(7), 1834–1859.
Mayer, C., Wright, M., & Phan, P. (2017). Management research and the future of the
corporation: A new agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(3), 179–182.
Mehmood, K. K., & Hilman, H. (2017). Four decades of academic research on product
diversification-performance relationship: Analysis and foresight. Journal for Global
Business Advancement, 10(1), 43–61.
Michel, J. G., & Hambrick, D. C. (1992). Diversification posture and top management
team characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 9–37.
Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J., & Cardinal, L. B. (2007). The use of knowledge for technological
innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 307–325.
Monteverde, K., & Teece, D. J. (1982). Supplier switching costs and vertical integration in
the automobile industry. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13(1), 206–213.
Montgomery, C. A. (1982). The measurement of firm diversification: Some new empirical
evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 25(2), 299–307.
Montgomery, C. A. (1994). Corporate diversification. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
8(3), 163–178.
Montgomery, C. A., & Wernerfelt, B. (1988). Diversification, Ricardian rents, and Tobin's
q. The Rand Journal of Economics, 19(4), 623–632.
Nag, R., Hambrick, D. C., & Chen, M. J. (2007). What is strategic management, really?
140
Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141
Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field’. Strategic Management
Journal, 28(9), 935–955.
Nath, P., Nachiappan, S., & Ramanathan, R. (2010). The impact of marketing capability,
operations capability and diversification strategy on performance: A resource-based
view. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(2), 317–329.
Neffke, F., & Henning, M. (2013). Skill relatedness and firm diversification. Strategic
Management Journal, 34(3), 297–316.
Nerur, S., Rasheed, A. A., & Pandey, A. (2016). Citation footprints on the sands of time:
An analysis of idea migrations in strategic management. Strategic Management
Journal, 37(6), 1065–1084.
Nigam, N. K., & Gupta, C. P. (2018). Measuring Corporate Diversification: A New
Perspective. (March 11, 2018). Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.
3137885.
Palepu, K. (1985). Diversification strategy, profit performance and the entropy measure.
Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 239–255.
Palich, L. E., Cardinal, L. B., & Miller, C. C. (2000). Curvilinearity in the diversification-
performance linkage: An examination of over three decades of research. Strategic
Management Journal, 21(2), 155–174.
Picone, P. M., & Dagnino, G. B. (2016). Revamping research on unrelated diversification
strategy: Perspectives, opportunities and challenges for future inquiry. Journal of
Management & Governance, 20(3), 413–445.
Pidun, U., Richter, A., Schommer, M., & Karna, A. (2019). A new playbook for diversified
companies. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60(2), 56–62.
Pitts, R. A. (1976). Diversification strategies and organizational policies of large di-
versified firms. Journal of Economics and Business, 28(3), 181–188.
Pitts, R. A. (1977). Strategies and structures for diversification. Academy of Management
Journal, 20(2), 197–208.
Portugal Ferreira, M., Carvalho Santos, J., Ribeiro de Almeida, M. I., & Rosa Reis, N.
(2014). Mergers & acquisitions research: A bibliometric study of top strategy and
international business journals, 1980–2010. Journal of Business Research, 67,
2550–2558.
Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between di-
versity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485–501.
Purkayastha, S., Manolova, T. S., & Edelman, L. F. (2012). Diversification and perfor-
mance in developed and emerging market contexts: A review of the literature.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(1), 18–38.
Rajan, R., Servaes, H., & Zingales, L. (2000). The cost of diversity: The diversification
discount and inefficient investment. The Journal of Finance, 55(1), 35–80.
Ramanujam, V., & Varadarajan, P. (1989). Research on corporate diversification: A
synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 10(6), 523–551.
Ramos-Rodríguez, A. R., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure
of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management
Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 981–1004.
Rhoades, S. A. (1973). The effect of diversification on industry profit performance in 241
manufacturing industries: 1963. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 55(2),
146–155.
Ronda-Pupo, G. A. (2016). Knowledge map of Latin American research on management:
Trends and future advancement. Social Science Information, 55(1), 3–27.
Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Guerras-Martín, L.Á. (2010). Dynamics of the scientific community
network within the strategic management field through the Strategic Management
Journal 1980–2009: The role of cooperation. Scientometrics, 85(3), 821–848.
Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Guerras-Martín, L.Á. (2012). Dynamics of the evolution of the
strategy concept 1962–2008: A co-word analysis. Strategic Management Journal,
33(2), 162–188.
Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D. E., & Teece, D. J. (1994). Fundamental issues in strategy. In R.
P. Rumelt, D. E. Schendel, & D. J. Teece (Eds.). Fundamental Issues in Strategy: A
Research Agenda (pp. 9–53). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Rumelt, R. P. (1974). Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Rumelt, R. P. (1982). Diversification strategy and profitability. Strategic Management
Journal, 3(4), 359–369.
Salton, G., & McGill, M. J. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Sambharya, R. B., & Goll, I. (2019). Do international and product diversification strate-
gies affect human rights and employee orientation disclosures? An across-country
empirical study of large multinational enterprises. Global Strategy Journal, 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1334.
Sánchez-Riofrío, A. M., Guerras-Martín, L.Á., & Forcadell, F. J. (2015). Business portfolio
restructuring: A comprehensive bibliometric review. Scientometrics, 102(3),
1921–1950.
Schommer, M., Richter, A., & Karna, A. (2019). Does the diversification–firm performance
relationship change over time? A meta-analytical review. Journal of Management
Studies, 56(1), 270–298.
Schonberger, M., Keller, P. G., & Maffei, F. (2018). Trends in strategic management-Do
different keyword analysis approaches induce different results? Journal of Business
Management, 15, 5–36.
Singh, D., Pattnaik, C., Gaur, A. S., & Ketencioglu, E. (2018). Corporate expansion during
pro-market reforms in emerging markets: The contingent value of group affiliation
and diversification. Journal of Business Research, 82, 220–229.
Tahai, A., & Meyer, M. J. (1999). A revealed preference study of management journals’
direct influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20(3), 279–296.
Tallman, S., & Li, J. (1996). Effects of international diversity and product diversity on the
performance of multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 179–196.
Teece, D. J. (1982). Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(1), 39–63.
van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal Attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in
L.Á. Guerras-Martín, et al.
the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143.
Vernon, J. M., & Graham, D. A. (1971). Profitability of monopolization by vertical in-
tegration. Journal of Political Economy, 79(4), 924–925.
Villasalero, M. (2017). A resource-based analysis of realized knowledge relatedness in
diversified firms. Journal of Business Research, 71, 114–124.
Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2013). The dynamic capability view in strategic management:
A bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 426–446.
Wan, W. P., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2003). Home country environments, corporate diversi-
fication strategies, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1),
27–45.
Wan, W. P., Hoskisson, R. E., Short, J. C., & Yiu, D. W. (2011). Resource-based theory and
corporate diversification: Accomplishments and opportunities. Journal of
Management, 37(5), 1335–1368.
Wang, D., & Luo, X. R. (2019). Retire in peace: Officials’ political incentives and corporate
diversification in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(4), 773–809.
Weiss, M. (2013). Resource-related diversification and its measures - Review of empirical
results. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 11(3), 76–85.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Williamson, O. (1971). The vertical integration of production: Market failure considera-
tions. The American Economic Review, 61, 112–123.
Wolf, B. M. (1977). Industrial diversification and internationalization: Some empirical
evidence. Journal of Industrial Economics, 26(2), 177–191.
Zander, I. (1997). Technological diversification in the multinational corpor-
ation—historical evolution and future prospects. Research Policy, 26(2), 209–227.
Zollo, M., Minoja, M., & Coda, V. (2018). Toward an integrated theory of strategy.
Strategic Management Journal, 39(6), 1753–1778.
Zúñiga-Vicente, J.Á., Benito-Osorio, D., Guerras-Martín, L.Á., & Colino, A. (2019). The
effects of international diversification on the link between product diversification and
performance in a boom and bust cycle: Evidence from Spanish firms (1994–2014).
Journal of International Management, 25(4), 100687.
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in Management and Organization.
Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.
Luis Ángel Guerras-Martín is a Full Professor in Strategic Management at Rey Juan
Carlos University. He has been a tenured professor at the Complutense University of
Madrid and the University of La Rioja. Currently his preferred research fields are cor-
porate diversification, portfolio restructuring, alliances, and strategic corporate social
responsibility. He has been author of several books and articles on strategy and organi-
zation journals such as Strategic Management Journal, Research Policy, Journal of
Business Research, Scientometrics, Journal of International Management, International
141
Journal of Business Research 114 (2020) 124–141
Business Review, BRQ-Business Research Quarterly, R&D Management, Management
Decision, and International Journal of Technology Management among others. Among
the books, it can be highlighted Strategic Management. Theory and Applications, Cases in
Strategic Management, and Fundamentals of Strategic Management.
Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo holds a Ph.D. in Strategic Management. Professor
(Full) in the Department of Management at Universidad Católica del Norte, Chile. He does
research and teaches the syllabuses strategic management, management by values and
bibliometrics in postgraduate and undergraduate programs in Chile. His research interests
range from the epistemology of the concept of Strategy, bibliometric analysis, temporal
complex collaboration networks to complex innovation systems. He has made contribu-
tions that appear published in top tier journals such as Strategic Management Journal,
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology and Scientometrics.
He has got experience as chair of the department of management, chair of the Tourism
Research Center, and Vice-chancellor at Universidad de Holguín, Cuba.
José Ángel Zúñiga-Vicente is a Full Professor of Management and Organization at the
Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain. He has also been visiting professor (fellow) in dif-
ferent universities: Warwick Business School, Copenhagen Business School, Middlesex
University London or Universidad Carlos III de Madrid among others. His research is
currently focused on corporate strategy, leadership, top management teams, gender di-
versity, employee downsizing and other aspects related to human resources, innovation
and internationalization. He has published in Journal of International Business Studies,
Journal of Management Studies, Long Range Planning, Journal of Business Research,
Journal of Economic Surveys, British Journal of Management, International Business
Review, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Journal of
International Management or Employee Relations among others.
Diana Benito-Osorio holds a Master degree in Business Organization and other Master
degree in Business Management and a PhD in Business Management. She is Associate
Professor at the Department of Management and Director of Strategy in Rey Juan Carlos
University, Madrid. Her main research interest and work is in corporate strategy, espe-
cially in internationalization and product diversification. She has previously published
several papers in a wide range of journals, including International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Management Decision, European Journal of International
Management, Journal of World Business, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Management International Review and
International Business Review. She has been a visiting scholar in different institutions in
Chile and Spain.