Competitive Advantage Paper With Literature Review

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

In the three decades, researchers from around the globe have spent their time trying to find out the reason for success in some companies while others fail. This pulls us back to the literature on strategic management, which turns out to be free advice for business (Wang, n.d.).Competitive advantage is developed when a business acquires a set of characteristics that make it outstanding amongst its competitors. There are various theories that can explain the competitive advantage and its influence in the management world. This study aims to provide an overview of different trends that have been explored and their results in specific areas of the world of business.

PROBLEM QUESTION AND DEFINITION

There are varying theories and approaches towards strategic positioning management that promotes success in business. What is that specific model that works for this specific type of business? A case study is the food industry that has for the longest time had the most unstable approaches. People have varying eating habits. What may work for your food vendor may not work for another one. What criteria should you use as a food vendor who is aiming to set up a food business? What should you integrate into your business to be unique and stand out from the rest? Make your competitive advantage above the rest. This paper aims to define the specific criteria for selected food companies as case studies regarding the concept of strategic positioning and competitive advantage.

SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE (SCA)

Many people wonder how a business can maintain superiority in the market. The answer of this question is what defines strategic management. Having a competitive advantage that is sustainable is defined by the ability to offer customer value consistently, in a manner which competitors can’t imitate.

RESOURCE-BASED VIEW

SCA was first discussed by Porter in 1995 in which he listed basic competitive strategies that a business can use. The resource-based view involves drawing attention to the internal environment as a driver for competitive advantage. This makes use of resources that the organization has to develop a competitive environment. During the early strategy development phase of Huskisson’s account of the development of strategic thinking, the focus was on internal factors. Hoffman in his work summarized all work done regarding SCA by, based on the analysis of different perspectives found in the literature proposing the following (Bel, 2017) A SCA is a prolonged benefit of implementing some unique value-creating strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential competitor, along with the inability to duplicate the benefits of this strategy (Maritan & Peteraf, 2016) Researchers such as Ansoff and Chandler made important contributions towards developing the Resource Based view of strategy. The focus of inquiry changed from the structure of the industry to the firm’s internal structure, with resources and capabilities being the key elements of the resource-based view. The term ‘resource-based view’ was much later viewed as a bundle of assets and capabilities. Assets are the resource endowments the business has accumulated, and capabilities are the glue that keeps the assets together and enables them to be deployed advantageously. Capabilities differ from assets in that they cannot be given a monetary value, as can tangible plant and equipment, and are so deeply embedded in the organizational routines and practices that they cannot be traded or imitated.

IMPORTANCE OF CAPABILITIES.

Early researchers simply classified a firm’s resources into three categories: physical, monetary and human (Elfring & de Man, 1998) these evolved into more detailed descriptions of organizational resources (skills and knowledge) and technology (technical know-how). Amot and Shoemaker (1993) (Collis, 1998) proposed an alternative taxonomy involving physical, human and technological resources and capabilities. Lee (2001)(and Li et al., 2023) argue for a distinction between individual-level and firm-level resources. Miller and Shamsie (1996) (Sarif et al., 2015) classified resources into two categories: property-based and knowledge-based. Barney (1991) (Bhuiyan et al., 2023) suggested that other than the general resources of a firm, there are other additional resources, such as physical capital resources, human capital resources and organizational capital resources. Were felt (1984) (and Mohammadi & Kasane, 2023) also discussed that resources might be tied semi-permanently to the firm. Ultimately, firms that can leverage resources to implement a ‘value-creating strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential competitor can achieve competitive advantage. Day (1994) (and Martins et al., 2023) examine the role of capabilities in creating a market-oriented organization. He emphasizes the importance of market sensing capability and customer linking capability. Market sensing is the ability of the firm to learn about customers, competitors, and channel members to continuously sense and act on events and trends in present and prospective markets. (Alhosseiny, 2022)

THEORY DEVELOPMENT

The researcher-based perspective of sustainable competitive advantage now includes the work of a number of researchers. Resource heterogeneity and resource immobility, the two underlying dissertations, are satisfied in order for the resource-based perspective of a company to be successful. An explanation of the connection between resource variability and immobility was provided by Barney (1991). When competing firms’ resources and capabilities vary from one another, these differences may last for a long time. Later, Barney (1995) (Maritan & Peteraf, 2016) added the organization question to this framework, arguing that a company must be organized to fully utilize its resources and competencies. The framework was given the term “VRIO framework,” which stands for “value, rarity, imitability, and organization.”

THE KNOWLEDGE-BASED VIEW

Although many scholars may accept RBV as generically containing knowledge, Murray and Teece (Elfring & de Man, 1998) argue that knowledge’s unique properties make it the most valuable asset. Knowledge, expertise, intellectual property, and competences are the primary sources of competitive advantage in the modern knowledge economy, according to the research of Hamel and Prahalad (1994) (Collis, 1998). Evans and Tiwana (Mazzarol, 2023) concur that information is a company’s most valuable asset. Knowledge assets, on the other hand, grow as they are employed, as Evans (Min & Zhang, 2023) explains. Knowledge is the sole resource that is difficult for rival companies to mimic, according to research by Tiwana (2002) (also Riasat et al., 2015). Grant (1996) claimed that there are two kinds of knowledge: information and know-how (a view shared by Sullivan et al., 2017). A knowledge hierarchy was developed by Beckmann (1999) (Killen & Drouin, 2017) with five levels: data, information, knowledge, expertise, and capabilities. Zack (1999) (Sukowski & Stopczyski, 2018) classifies knowledge held by an organization as either “core,” “advanced,” or “innovative.” In business, “core knowledge” refers to the fundamental information necessary for immediate market survival. In the near term, an advantaged knowledge gives a company access to the same information that its competitors have. The organization has a leg up on the competition because to the unique work it has done in the past. A company’s ability to create innovative products and services is crucial if it wants to dominate its industry. To wit: (Subotina & Sergienko, 2021).

THE CAPABILITY-BASED VIEW

According to Grant (1991) (Lopes et al., 2022), competing advantages come from an organization’s capabilities, which in turn come from its resources. Amot and Shoemaker (1993) (Setyadi, 2022) took a similar stance, arguing that a company’s skills, rather than its resources, ultimately determine its competitive advantage over the long term. Alhosseiny (2022) cites the work of Haas and Hansen (20050) and Long and Vickers (1950) in arguing that a company’s competitive edge might come from its personnel’s skill in applying talents to crucial tasks. Capabilities, as opposed to resources, were described by Amit and Shoemaker (1993)(Almeida et al., 2023) as an organization’s ability to deploy resources, often in conjunction with the organization’s processes, in order to impact a desired demand. These are the information-based, material, or immaterial procedures unique to a company and refined via iterative, interdependent use. According to Teece (Martins et al., 2023), a company’s dynamic capabilities are its capacity to integrate, create, and reconfigure internal and external competencies in response to quickly changing circumstances. Organizational capability, as defined by Grant (1996)(Martins et al., 2023), is “the extent to which an organization can reliably execute a productive job that contributes directly or indirectly to the creation of value by transforming inputs into outputs.” The four types of abilities that Grants (1960) (Mohammadi & Kasane, 2023) classify are cross-functional capabilities, board-functional capacity, actively-related skills, and specialized capabilities. Simon (2003) highlights the value of learning in the workplace. They imply that skills and organizational learning are both tacit and overt elements of a company’s strategy. According to Zack, (Yardimcioglu, 2011), competitive advantage requires the capacity to acquire and develop new information.

RESEARCH-BASED VIEW AND CONNECTION BETWEEN STRATEGIC POSITIONING AND SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

According to several authors, including Day and Wensley (2011), an organization’s ability to maintain its dominant position and performance is directly tied to the quality of its human and material resources. The efforts made in the past to boost competitiveness are responsible for the current supremacy of talents and resources. Furthermore, for that positioning advantage to persist, the corporation has to keep pouring money into its sources of competitive advantage. This method is based on the assumption that SCA will improve the company’s strategic standing. Strategic positioning results from combining a competitive advantage and the ability to maintain that advantage over time. It is important to have a strategic advantage over the competition (Competitive Strategic Advantage, n.d.).

SUMMARY

The RBV is the most popular framework for understanding the idea of a competitive advantage that can be maintained over time. It is an introspective strategy that looks inside the organization, to its assets and talents, for a competitive edge. Financial, strategic, technical, organizational, market sensing, customer liking, open culture, employee empowerment, and CEO commitment were the primary focus areas for most studies. According to the RBV, a resource’s scarcity, difficulty in imitation, non-substitutability, and lack of ready availability in factor markets are all necessary conditions to create SCA.

POSITIONING

NETWORK APPROACH

The strategic network, which Jarillo (Sarif et al., 2015) described, is a better method of organization. Companies do not represent a unified whole for any one product or service. He emphasizes the significance of the intricate interactions that emerge when businesses engage with one another. Investments in cultivating these connections are necessary if the network is to maintain its stability and thus shift the focus of competition from the external environment to the strategic placement of individual businesses. Management’s focus shifts to caring for the connections. According to Hakkason and Snehota, a company’s strategy is about where it fits in the larger business network. It is all about getting the firm in a good position on the web. As Bhuiyan et al. (2023) point out, Hakansson and Snehota pioneered the network method in studying international commercial networks. As the nature of any relationship changes, it has repercussions for everyone involved.

The stance has long-term monetary implications for the partnership between the two companies. Management’s top priority should be keeping tabs on how the network’s shifting topology affects the firm’s standing and, by extension, its resources and potential. It is possible to classify business interactions along two dimensions: who are impacted by them and what is affected. There are three distinct levels of significance in any business partnership: the activity, resource, and acor layers. A relationship’s thickness and complexity increase proportionately to the number of effects in each of its three levels. Relationship impacts are significant and must be managed in three key areas: marketing/purchasing, capacity building, and strategy formulation. Building relationships is the key to success in marketing and shopping (Martins et al., 2023). Developing one’s capabilities means learning to manage the impact of connections on one’s organization’s growth prospects. Strategic planning entails establishing the company’s place within the larger network by fostering new connections. Each activity in a series of related actions is connected via a web of connections. Relationships develop via contact and are a direct result of that. Resource articulations link a company’s resources to another’s. They are an asset in and of themselves because of how connections have been established inside an organization. Position development necessitates keeping tabs on and making sense of shifts in economic activity. In turn, it is suggested that a company’s strategic positioning affects its activities and performance. As a result, the reference points consciously or unconsciously embraced by a firm’s leaders significantly impact the latter’s strategic conduct and performance. According to Almeida et al.

POSITIONING STRATEGIES

Mono-segment positioning refers to focusing on a single subset of customers. Multi-segment positioning refers to targeting potential buyers from different demographics. Standby positioning is used to speed up the process of switching from multi-segment to mono-segment placement. Initiative positioning refers to marketing oneself in a manner analogous to that of a well-known brand. Brands that use anticipatory positioning launch products before consumer demand has even been established in a certain market. Brands that use adaptive positioning regularly realign their offerings to meet the shifting needs of their target market. Defensive positioning entails introducing a second brand into the same market around the same time as the competitor. (Semeievá et al., 2022)

PORTERS GENERIC STRATEGIES

It was with the publication of Porter’s Competitive Strategies in 1980 (eмeевa et al., 2022) that the age of generic strategies began. These three key strategies were developed to represent the most common means by which a business might meet the needs of its customers more cheaply and effectively than its competitors. According to Poter, businesses compete mainly via pricing, customer perception of value, and targeting a niche market. Porter’s generic tactics were congruent with the views of Johansson and Thorelly (Lopes et al., 2022). They spoke about how low prices might sway consumers to choose fewer desirable options and how the best and worst things contrast. From a marketing perspective, a low price makes companies that are not at the top competitive (Subotina & Sergienko, 2021). Producers may benefit the most from locations with high approval ratings among their target audiences.

The manufacturing and marketing abilities of the organization will largely determine how realistic this outlook is. Despite its widespread use, Porter’s strategic framework has drawbacks. The theory’s key flaws are that it confounds the questions of “where to compete” and “how to compete,” conflates competitive strategy with corporate strategy, and makes it difficult to consider other strategic choices.

Contrary to the empirical approach of Treace and Wiersam (1993) (Killen & Drouin, 2017), Porter’s generic processes are grounded in economic theory. Their plan relies heavily on identifying particular openings in the market. Operational excellence, customer intimacy, and product leadership are the three value disciplines they developed. Providing consistently high quality, great value, and superior usability to consumers is what “operational excellence” means. Long-term success requires market segmentation and the ability to meet the specific requirements of different customer demographics. To us, “product leadership” means providing groundbreaking goods and services that routinely exceed consumer expectations and render the competition obsolete. A few scholars (Riasat et al., 2015)

SUMMARY

It is reasonable to infer that, rather than adopting a research-based perspective, Porter’s generic approach emphasizes positioning. Although the components are not mutually exclusive, it is clear that a corporation can only promote some of them without jeopardizing its credibility.

BLUE OCEAN STRATEGY

According to Kim and Mauborgne (2005) (Almeida et al., 2023), there are “red oceans” and “blue seas” in the business world. Red oceans stand in for all the modern economic sectors. This is the standard commercial zone. Blue areas represent the locations of defunct enterprises. “Blue oceans” are untapped markets, according to Kim and Mauborgne (Almeida et al., 2023). Throughout the years, “red ocean” competition-based strategies have been the primary focus of strategy development. As a result, we deeply understand how to thrive in competitive “red seas,” but have little experience creating sustainable “blue oceans.” According to academics, the key to success is to quit worrying about what your rivals are doing. Bowmann (2008) (Alhosseiny, 2022) argues that academics place too little constraint when defining industrial competitiveness. Consumers may consider a wide variety of products for their requirements, some of which may be extremely similar.

NETWORK APPROACH AND CONNECTION BETWEEN STRATEGIC POSITIONING AND SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

According to Kim and Mauborgne (2005) (Almeida et al., 2023), there are “red oceans” and “blue seas” in the business world. Red oceans stand in for all the modern economic sectors. This is the standard commercial zone. Blue areas represent the locations of defunct enterprises. “Blue oceans” are untapped markets, according to Kim and Mauborgne (Almeida et al., 2023). Throughout the years, “red ocean” competition-based strategies have been the primary focus of strategy development. As a result, we deeply understand how to thrive in competitive “red seas,” but have little experience creating sustainable “blue oceans.” According to academics, the key to success is to quit worrying about what your rivals are doing. Bowmann (2008) (Alhosseiny, 2022) argues that academics place too little constraint when defining industrial competitiveness. Consumers may consider a wide variety of products for their requirements, some of which may be extremely similar.

CASE STUDY

A case study was selected based on the criterion that its business model met several approaches to achieving sustainable competitive advantage. Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) is one business that has survived through evolving strategic positioning systems.

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS

KFC is a global fast-food chain that specializes in fried chicken. To understand the KFC industry environment, it is important to consider the fast-food industry as a whole and KFC’s competitors in the industry. The fast food chain is highly competitive, with big players dominating the market, such as Mcdonalds, burger King and Subway. The industry is characterized by low switching costs, meaning that customers can easily switch between fast-food chains based on price, convenience and product quality. KFC has achieved a sustainable competitive edge by differentiating product offerings. KFC focuses on fried chicken as its core product. This has helped to differentiate itself from its competitors, who typically offer a broader range of menu items. This differentiation, mono segmenting, has helped KFC build a loyal customer base that values its unique product offering. KFC’s focus on efficient operations has also helped it consistently deliver high-quality products and services across its restaurants. The company has invested heavily in its supply chain network for smooth operations. This helps to cut costs and improve customer satisfaction. KFC takes it a notch further by creating strong brand recognition. It has invested in marketing and advertising to build its brand and promote its product. This has helped attract new customers and retain existing ones. Its global presence has helped tap into new markets and expand its customer base (Setyadi, 2022). Strong consumer loyalty has been established in each region because of the company’s efforts to tailor its menu and advertising to local tastes and preferences. KFC has grown swiftly because of its franchise model, allowing it to avoid the high startup and operational expenses of opening new locations. This has allowed us to expand into new markets and take advantage of economies of scale (Lopes et al., 2022).

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SCA APPROACHES

As we have seen, several approaches have been used to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage, and each has its strength and weakness. Cost leadership involves becoming the low-cost producer in the industry and has been achieved by economies of scale, streamlining operations and cutting costs wherever possible. The advantage of this approach has been that it can help the company to offer products at lower prices than its competitors, which is a key differentiator in a competitive market. However, the disadvantage of it is that it is difficult to maintain cost leadership over the long term as competitors may need help to copy or improve upon the cost-cutting measure. Differentiation involves offering unique products or services that are difficult to imitate or replicate. This has been achieved by investing in research and development, marketing and branding. The advantage of this approach is that it helps a company to build a strong brand and customer loyalty and can create barriers for competitors. However, the downside is that maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage is costly and difficult if competitors can imitate or improve upon the company’s differentiating factors. The company’s focus on a specific niche or segment of the market is achieved by tailoring products or services to meet that segment’s specific needs and preferences. It can help to build customer loyalty and differentiation. However, the demerit is that the focus strategy may limit growth opportunities, and the company may be vulnerable if the targeted segment of the market experiences changes or disruptions. The innovation approach is developing new products, services or technologies that are disruptive or revolutionary. It can create markets or change the competitive landscape. The advantage of this approach is that it can lead to significant growth and market leadership and can create strong barriers to entry competitors. However, the demerit is that innovation can be too costly and too risky.(Sułkowski & Stopczyński, 2018)

MARKET CONDITIONS

The fast-food chain industry has seen both successes and failures. McDonald’s, over the years, has grown to 38000 locations worldwide. The company’s success can be attributed to its focus on operational efficiency, consistent quality and aggressiveness in marketing and branding. McDonald’s has successfully expanded its client base by tailoring its menu to meet diners’ interests in each target area. Subway has over 44000locations worldwide. Its success can be attributed to its focus on healthier options and customization and the franchise model that allows it for rapid expansion. It has also invested in technology and marketing to stay relevant in a competitive market. KFC has expanded to over 220000 locations worldwide. It has succeeded by focusing on its core fried chicken product and investing in operational efficiency and marketing. The company has also maintained a specific liking and taste for its product hence giving customer loyalty to the product for decades. Failures in the industry can be seen with A&W, a major player. The company faced challenged such as declining sales and outdated branding and was forced to close many of its locations. Despite initially achieving success in toasted sandwiches, Quiznos struggled to maintain its momentum and eventually became bankrupt. It faced high franchise fees and competition from other sandwich chains. Boston Market, once a popular fast-food chain, faced declining sales. It faced high overhead costs and competition from other usual casual chains. To summarize, the fast food chain industry is highly competitive and success and failure can be influenced by various factors. Companies that can stay ahead of the curve and adapt to changing market conditions are more likely to achieve sustained success.(Subotina & Sergienko, 2021)

COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

Competitive advantage can be drawn from innovation. A company must be innovative to keep up with trends and evolution in its space. Renovating ideas while introducing new ones to keep afloat with market trends. A global presence is really important in the food industry. This helps reach a wider customer base and tap into new markets, giving a competitive advantage over competitors. Franchising a model can help cut costs and maintain quality at a low cost of production. It also helps to benefit from the local knowledge and expertise of its franchises, which can help tailor a product and services to its local market. Developing a highly efficient supply chain and operational model helps to deliver consistent quality and service across its operations. Strong marketing and branding are key to maintaining a competitive advantage. It helps maintain loyal customers and reach out to a new profile of clients.(Riasat et al., 2015)

BUSINESS PLAN DESCRIPTION

My fast food company will be named Kwick Bytes. It aims to provide high-quality and delicious fast food options to customers. Our goal will be to become a leading player in the fast food industry within the next five years. We will have two locations for the first launch to expand areas as we grow. The business description is as follows.

Marketing plan: Our marketing plan will focus on building brand awareness and attracting customers through various channels such as social media, advertising and promotions. We will also leverage customer feedback to improve our products and services continuously.

Operational plan: Kwick bytes will operate using a franchise model, allowing us to expand rapidly while maintaining quality and consistency across all locations. We will provide franchisees with training and support to ensure they can deliver high-quality products and services.

Financial plan: Our financial plan will include a detailed budget, sales projections, and cash flow analysis. We will invest in marketing and branding to attract customers and focus on operational efficiency to keep costs under control. Our revenue will primarily come from sales of fast food products, with additional revenue from catering and delivery services.

Management team: Our management team has extensive experience in the fast food industry, with expertise in operations, marketing, and finance and franchise management.

Conclusion: Kwick Bytes aims to provide delicious food options to consumers while maintaining operational efficiency.

TARGET MARKET

Our market includes individuals and families looking for high-quality, affordable, convenient, fast food options. Young adults; we will cater to the fast-paced lifestyle of young adults who are looking for quick and tasty food options that fit their budget. We will target families with children by offering various menu options, including vegetarian and vegan options, that cater to different dietary needs. Our menu and delivery services will cater to the needs of busy professionals looking for a quick and tasty meal option during their lunch break or on the go. We will target students by offering special discounts and promotions and positioning our brand as a fun and affordable, fast food option. We will cater for the growing demand for healthy fast food options by offering a variety of salads, wraps and other healthy options.

SEGMENTATION

Market segmentation is breaking down a huge market into smaller subsets of customers with comparable desires, requirements, and personalities. Conditions should be used: Criteria to follow:

Geographical segmentation: Factors like location, region, climate, and population density may help define subsets that meet this condition. In this respect, it is possible to focus on city-dwelling customers.

Demographic segmentation: This criterion requires segmenting the market by demographic characteristics, including age, gender, income, level of education, and profession.

Psychographic segmentation: Using this criterion, the market is segmented according to consumers’ preferences, interests, and character quirks.

Behavioral segmentation: With this metric, the market may be segmented depending on customer sentiment, frequency of use, brand loyalty, and purchasing habits.

Market research on customer habits and preferences might help businesses meet the best criteria for your segments. This could entail keeping an eye out for new trends in the market and assessing client feedback.

CONCLUSION

Kwick Bytes has a competitive advantage due to several factors looked upon. The company focuses on high-quality fresh, healthy menu options that appeal to health-conscious consumers. This unique selling proposition sets us apart from competitors who may rely lower on quality and less healthy menu options. Commitment to convenience through its online ordering platform and delivery services appeals to busy professionals and consumers who value speed and convenience. The company targeted marketing efforts, such as promotions and discounts for students and families, help to build customer loyalty and appeal to specific market segments. We can create a brand identity and build a loyal customer base. We are committed to sustainability and ethical business practices. Overall, we are focused on high-quality ingredients, healthy menu options, convenience, targeted marketing and sustainability.

REFERENCES

Alhosseiny, H. (2022). THE IMPACT OF STRATEGIC PLANNING, STRATEGIC THINKING, AND STRATEGIC AGILITY ON COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: LITERATURE REVIEW. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1–14.

Almeida, D., Massuça, J., Fialho, A., & Dionisio, A. (2023). Sustainable wine tourism as a diversification strategy: a different approach in a rural cooperative. The CASE Journal, 19. https://doi.org/10.1108/TCJ-02-2022-0039

Bel, R. (2017). A Property Rights Theory of Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 39. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2707

Bhuiyan, F., Rana, T., Baird, K., & Munir, R. (2023). Strategic outcome of competitive advantage from corporate sustainability practices: Institutional theory perspective from an emerging economy. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3362

Collis, D. (1998). Understanding Sustainable Competitive Advantage: The Role of Positioning, Resources and Organisational Capabilities. Yale School of Management, Yale School of Management Working Papers. Competitive_Strategic_Advantage. (n.d.).

Elfring, T., & de Man, A.-P. (1998). Theories of the firm: competitive advantage and government policy. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 10 (1998) 3, 10. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524317

Killen, C. P., & Drouin, N. (2017). Project portfolio management: A dynamic capability and strategic asset. In Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Project Management (pp. 55–70). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316662243.008

Korkmaz, S., & Messner, J. (2008). Competitive Positioning and Continuity of Construction Firms in International Markets. Journal of Management in Engineering – J MANAGE ENG, 24. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2008)24:4(207)

Kuettner, T., & Schubert, P. (2012). IT-Based Competitive Advantage: A Cross-Case Comparison of Business Software Usage. Procedia Technology, 5, 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2012.09.020

Li, L., Wang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2023). A critical examination of M&S’s current strategic and marketing position, as well as potential sustainable competitive marketing strategies. 18, 108–117. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7572224

Lopes, J., Gomes, S., Pacheco, R., Monteiro, E., & Santos, C. (2022). Drivers of Sustainable Innovation Strategies for Increased Competition among Companies. Sustainability, 14, 5471. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095471

Madan, P., & Khanka, S. (2010). Contribution of Knowledge Management Practices in Creating Sustainable Competitive Advantage for Business Schools in India. JIKM, 9, 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649210002760

Maritan, C., & Peteraf, M. (2016). Competitive Advantage (pp. 1–3). https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_465-1

Martins, C., Rodrigues, P., & Sousa, A. (2023). Evolution of Competitive Advantage through Strategic Logics. 6, 187–201.

Mazzarol, T. (2023). An examination of the factors critical to the establishment and maintenance of competitive advantage for education services enterprises within international markets.

Min, C., & Zhang, X.-G. (2023). Building Competitive Advantage by Disruptive and Sustaining Innovation.

Mohammadi, R., & kasaee, masoud. (2023). The Investigation Role of Organizational Ambidexterity on Sustainable Competitive Advantage and Dynamic Capabilities. 3, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.22034/jmek.2023.386438.1072

Njuguna, J. I. (2009a). STRATEGIC POSITIONING FOR SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: AN ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING APPROACH. In KCA JOURNAL OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT (Vol. 2).

Njuguna, J. I. (2009b). Strategic Positioning for Sustainable Competitive Advantage: An Organizational Learning Approach. KCA Journal of Business Management, 2. https://doi.org/10.4314/kjbm.v2i1.44409

Riasat, F., Nisar, Q., Haider, S., Saif, S., Khadim, M., & Noreen, S. (2015). Relationship among Strategic Positioning, Strategic Customer Relationship Management and Organization’s Performance. International Journal of Management Research and Emerging Sciences, 5, 47–63. https://doi.org/10.56536/ijmres.v5i1.17

Sarif, S., Sarwar, A., & Ismail, Y. (2015). The Influence of Tawhidic Paradigm in Managing Firms for Sustainable Competitive Advantage: A Malaysian Case. Asian Journal of Management Sciences, 3, 15–24.

Setyadi, T. (2022). Strategic Alliances, Competitive Advantages, And Bandwagon Effect In The Perum Perhutani Wood Industry. International Journal of Science and Environment (IJSE), 2, 47–53. https://doi.org/10.51601/ijse.v2i2.24

Subotina, J., & Sergienko, A. (2021). APPROACHES TO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES POSITIONING. Three Seas Economic Journal, 2, 85–90. https://doi.org/10.30525/2661-5150/2021-1-14

Sułkowski, Ł., & Stopczyński, B. (2018). Innovativeness of Polish enterprises in the development of competitive advantage.

Sullivan, K., Thomas, S., & Rosano, M. (2017). Using industrial ecology and strategic management concepts to pursue Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.201

Thomas, L. (2003). Adjustment Costs, the Theory of Investment, and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2003, Z1–Z6. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2003.13793179

Wang, H.-L. (n.d.). Theories for competitive advantage. http://eurekaconnection.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/p-33-43-theories-of-competitive-advantage-theori-

Wang, H.-L. (2014). Theories for competitive advantage (pp. 33–43).

Yardimcioglu, M. (2011). THE EFFECTS OF CRISIS ON THE SECURITY EXCHANGE: CASE STUDY OF ISTANBUL SECURITY EXCHANGE. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312533388

Лемешева, Ж., D, M., M, S., & E, O. (2022). Formation of competitive advantages of enterprises based on innovations: theory and world practice. Voprosy Istorii (Moscow, Russia: 1945), 10, 168–177. https://doi.org/10.31166/VoprosyIstorii202210Statyi09