Business exit and strategic change: Sticking to the knitting or striking a new strategic path?

The purpose of this study is to examine the potential of business exit for initiating strategic change in divesting parent firms. In contrast to prior literature that mainly investigates the impact of different antecedents on the likelihood of business exit in general, this study additionally tests the influence of these antecedents on the choice between two exit types with a cross-industry sample of divesting firms listed in the German CDAX over the time period 1999-2004. A divestiture involving strategic change is a strategic business exit; otherwise it is denoted as status quo-preserving. The findings reveal that a relatively highly dissipated focus does not automatically enhance the likelihood of business exit in general and status quo-preserving business exit in particular. CEO turnover and pressures exerted by institutional investors predict neither strategic nor status quo-preserving business exit. Low firm performance does not nurture the likelihood of business exit per se but especially promotes status quo-preserving business exit

Thirty Years After Michael E. Porter: What Do We Know About Business Exit?

Although a business exit is an important corporate change initiative, the buyer’s side seems to be more appealing to management researchers than the seller’s because acquisitions imply growth, i.e., success. Yet from an optimistic viewpoint, business exit can effectively create value for the selling company. In this paper we attempt to bring the relevance of the seller’s side back into our consciousness by asking: What do we know about business exit? We start our exploration with Porter (1976), focusing on literature that investigates the antecedents of, barriers to, and outcomes of business exit. We also include studies from related fields such as finance and economics.1 Through this research we determine three clusters of findings: factors promoting business exit, exit barriers, and exit outcomes. Overall, it is the intention of this paper to highlight the importance of business exit for research and practice. Knowing what we know about business exits and their high financial value we should bear in mind that exit need not mean failure but a new beginning for a corporation

The case for philanthropic investment to increase colorectal cancer screening rates: A novel paradigm to address a public health challenge

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of cancer‐related death despite being highly preventable. Efforts to increase participation in CRC screening have not met national goals. We developed a novel approach: building a business case for philanthropic investment in CRC screening. Methods A taskforce representing the public health community, professional societies, charitable foundations, academia, and industry was assembled to: (a) quantify the impact of improving CRC screening rates; (b) identify barriers to screening; (c) estimate the “activation cost” to overcome barriers and screen one additional person; (d) develop a holistic business case that is attractive to philanthropists; and (e) launch a demonstration project. Results We estimated that of 50 600 CRC deaths annually in the US, 55% occur in 50‐ to 85‐year‐olds and are potentially addressable by improvements in CRC screening. Barriers to screening were identified in all patient journey phases, including lack of awareness or insurance and logistical challenges in the pre‐physician phase. The cost to activate one person to undergo screening was $25‐175. This translated into a cost of$6000‐36 000 per CRC death averted by philanthropic investment. Based on this work, the Colorectal Cancer Alliance launched the effort “March Forth” to prevent 100 000 CRC deaths in the US over 10 years, with the first pilot in Philadelphia. Conclusions A holistic business plan can attract philanthropy to promote CRC screening. A simple message of “You can save a life from CRC with a $25 000 donation” can motivate demonstration projects in regions with high CRC rates and low screening participation