U.S. firms' responses to regulation: Stonewalling and opportunism

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

10 Scopus citations

Abstract

While regulation may not always be to business's benefit, it is likely to mean than costly requirements, increases in paperwork, decreases in innovation and the loss of business power. In responding to regulation, managers have choices. They can allow 'drift' to occur and not choose a policy. They can 'progressive' and 'lead the industry', or 'flight all the way' and 'do only what is required'. They can choose some combination of 'reaction and defence' and|or 'accomodation and proaction', or they can move from policy to policy depending on the issue, the competitive implications, the power of key participants and the other factors. Each of these responses has a unique array of advantages and disadvantages. To decide on a strategy, strategic analysis is needed. Such analysis requires: (1) attention to internal operating impacts; (2) concern for relative competitive impacts on an industry-wide basis; (3) concern for relative competitive impacts within an industry; and (4) assessment of regulatory alternatives in light of corporate goals. Attention to these concerns is necessary to refine, tailor and adjust a company's particular response to regulatory challenges.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)98-104
Number of pages7
JournalLong Range Planning
Volume20
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1987

Bibliographical note

Copyright:
Copyright 2014 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'U.S. firms' responses to regulation: Stonewalling and opportunism'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this