Interpretive reading of market report: a case from consulting practice

Authors: D. Baiura, Dr Hab., Prof., ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1777-9546, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine; V. Golovii, PhD Student, ORCID ID 0000-0002-7437-9602, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine and Nord University, Norway

Annotation: To gain insights that guide important business decisions and, consequently, turn data into business actions, various methods and types of data could be used depending on the data’s availability, accessibility, and costs. In consulting practice, the usage of widely published market reports and marketing studies is a standard routine. This paper is an example of how institutional theory could be applied in practice for analyzing and interpreting the findings from a typical market study. By contrast to other widely used qualitative and quantitative tools and techniques, applying institutional lenses is far to be mainstream for industry practitioners and strategy consultants. In the selected case from the wine sector, a market report has been hermeneutically “read” through lenses of institutional theory, which helped to identify coercive and mimetic types of isomorphism in the markets of Georgia and Ukraine.

Keywords: institutional theory, isomorphism, wine sector, strategy, hermeneutics, interpretive reading, management consulting.

Received: 21/12/2020
1st Revision: 28/12/2020
Accepted: 15/02/2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2667.2021/214-1/1

Literature

  1. Goodwin, J. (Ed.) (2012). Sage secondary data analysis: Ethical, methodological and practical issues in the secondary analysis (pp.129-149). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  2. Lowry, L. (2015). Bridging the Business Data Divide: Insights into Primary and Secondary Data Use by Business Researchers. IASSIST Quarterly, 39(2), 14. https://doi.org/10.29173/iq779
  3. Prasad, A. (2002). The contest over meaning: Hermeneutics as an interpretive methodology for understanding texts. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1), pp.12-33
  4. Butler, T. Towards a hermeneutic method for interpretive research in information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 13, 285–300 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.1998.7
  5. Goncharuk, A. (2017). The Challenges of Wine Business in Research. Journal of Applied Management and Investments. 6. 253-259.
  6. Goncharuk, A. (2017), ” Wine Value Chains: Challenges and Prospects”. Journal of Applied Management and Investments, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 11-27
  7. Goncharuk, A.G. (2017), “Exploring the factors of efficiency in German and Ukrainian wineries”. Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 294-312.
  8. Goncharuk, A.G. (2019), “Winemaking performance: whether the crisis is over”, British Food Journal, Vol. 121 No. 5, pp. 1064- 1077. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2018-0227
  9. Oleynik, A.A. (2012), “Strategic aspects of achieving competitive advantages in the business of wine industry on the example of “Odesavynprom”, Journal of Applied Management and Investments, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 126-136.
  10. Osipov V., Niekrasova L. (2019). “Assessing the competitiveness of a wine-making enterprise as a management tool for its development,” Economy and Forecasting, Valeriy Heyets, issue 1, pages 109-127.
  11. Nekrasova, L.A.; Nekrasova, K.I. (2016). Analysis and prospects of development of winemaking enterprises in Ukraine. Black Sea Econ. Stud. 2016, 6, 83–87. (In Ukrainian)
  12. Samofatova, V.A. and Gerus E.V. (2012), “Factors of influence on the investment attractiveness of wine enterprises in Ukraine”. Journal of Applied Management and Investments, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 238-242.
  13. Lazareva, N.O. (2015), “Evaluating the Efficiency of Wineries in Ukraine: A Three Criteria Approach”. Journal of Applied Management and Investments, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 239-242.
  14. Natsvaladze, M., Kharaishvili, E. & Chavleishvili, M. (2014). Trends and Prospects for the Development of Georgian Wine Market. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. International Journal of Social, Education, Economics and Management Engineering. At: Spain, Barcelona. Volume 8, No:10, 201410.13140/RG.2.1.3668.7764.
  15. Kharaishvili, E. & Gechbaia, B. (2017). Wine Brand and Wine Tourism Development Perspectives in Georgia. Innovative Economics and Management. #4, 2017.
  16. Zivzivadze, L. & Taktakishvili, T. (2019) Index-based Analysis of Georgian Wine Export’s Competitiveness on a Global Market. International Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 4, No. 5, 2019, pp. 201-206. doi: 10.11648/j.ijae.20190405.12
  17. Kharaishvili, E. & M. Chavleishvili, M. (2011).Cluster Model for Development of Viticulture and Wine-Market in Georgia. International scientific and practical conference, Batumi, 2011, p. 67.
  18. Sakvarelidze, S. “Branding Strategies for Georgian Wines Producers”, International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications (IJARP), Volume 1 – Issue 3, September 2017 Edition, 111-117
  19. Porter, M. E. “Clusters and the new economics of competition.” Harvard Business Review, 1998, 76 (Nov.-Dec.), pp. 77-90
  20. Porter, M. E., & Bond G. C. (2013) . “The California Wine Cluster.” Harvard Business School Case 799-124, June 1999. (Revised February 2013.)
  21. Porter, M. E., and Solvell, O. (2010). “The Australian Wine Cluster: Supplementary Information.” Harvard Business School Supplement 703- 492, March 2003. (Revised March 2010.)
  22. Anderson, K. (2013). Is Georgia the Next “New” Wine-Exporting Country? Journal of Wine Economics, Volume 8, Number 1, 2013, Pages 1–28.
  23. Gilinsky, Jr., A. (Ed.), 2015. Crafting Sustainable Wine Businesses Concepts and Cases. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
  24. Balogh, J. & Ferto, I. (2015). Drivers of Export Competitiveness in Wine Sector, International Conference of Agricultural Economists Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan. International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  25. Castaldi, R., Silverman, M. & Sengupta, S. (2004). Globalization in the Wine Industry: Implications for Export Service Providers. International Journal of Wine Marketing. 16. 5-23. 10.1108/eb008770.
  26. Flint, D.J., Golicic, S.L. Signori, P. (2011), “Sustainability through Resilience. The very essence of the Wine Industry”. The Faces of Wine Sustainability, Proceedings of the 6th AWBR International Conference, Bordeaux, Bordeaux Management School BEM.
  27. De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2010). Strategy synthesis: Resolving strategy paradoxes to create competitive advantage. Cengage Learning EMEA
  28. Tomkins, L. & Eatough, V.(2018). Hermeneutics: Interpretation, Understanding and Sense-making. In: Cassell, Catherine; Cunliffe, Ann L. and Grandy, Gina eds. SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods. Sage, pp. 185–200.
  29. Michailova, S. (2011). Contextualizing in International Business research: Why do we need more of it and how can we be better at it? Scandinavian Journal of Management. 27. 129-139. 10.1016/ j.scaman.2010.11.003.
  30. Bach, D.; Allen, D. (2010). What Every CEO Needs to Know About Nonmarket Strategy. Cambridge, Massachusetts. MIT Sloan Management Review, #1, 2010.
  31. Baron, D.P. (1995) Integrated Strategy: Market and Nonmarket Components. California Management Review. 37(2):47-65. doi:10.2307/41165788
  32. Peng, M., Sun, S., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009). The InstitutionBased View as a Third Leg for a Strategy Tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 63-81. Retrieved December 10, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27747526
  33. Peng, M.W., Wang D.Y.L., Jiang Y. An institution-based view of international business strategy: a focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 2008, 39(5):920-936.
  34. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  35. Weber, K., & Glynn, M. A. (2006). Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick’s theory. Organization Studies, 27, 1639-1660.
  36. TBC Capital. (2020, February 19). Alcoholic Beverages: Heritage of Splendor. https://Tbccapital.Ge/. Accessible at: https://tbccapital.ge/ publications/Alcoholic-Beverages–Heritage-of-Splendor-1
  37. Karlsson, P. A. B. (2019, April 14). Record Global Wine Harvest In 2018, Stable Consumption. Forbes. Accessible at: https://www.forbes.com/ sites/karlsson/2019/04/14/record-global-wine-harvest-in-2018-stable-consumption/?sh=4a1c2de4266b
  38. Clemens, B. (2007). Escape from the iron cage: Longitudinal study of the relationship between government regulatory forces and firm compliance strategy in the natural environment. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 11 (Special Issue), 65-90.
  39. North, D. A. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179. Retrieved December 21, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258610
  41. Porter, M. E. (1996). “What Is Strategy?” Harvard Business Review 74, no. 6 (November–December 1996): 61–78.
  42. Nelson, R., (1991), Why do firms differ, and how does it matter?, Strategic Management Journal, 12, issue S2, p. 61-74, Accessible at: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:stratm:v:12:y:1991:i:s2:p:61-74.
  43. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. Retrieved December 21, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095101
  44. Buchko, A. (2011). Institutionalization, Coercive Isomorphism, and the Homogeneity of Strategy. Adv. Bus. Res. 2011, 2, 27–45.
  45. Han, S.-K. Mimetic Isomorphism and Its Effect on the Audit Services Market. Social Forces, Volume 73, Issue 2, December 1994, Pages 637–664, https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/73.2.637
  46. Haveman, H. (1993). Follow the leader: mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quarterly. 38. 10.2307/2393338.
  47. Tingling, P. & Parent, M. (2002). “Mimetic Isomorphism and Technology Evaluation: Does Imitation Transcend Judgment?” Journal of the Association for Information Systems: Vol. 3 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. DOI: 10.17705/1jais.00025Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol3/iss1/5
  48. Syngenta (2019, October 10). Виноградарство та виноробство сьогодні. Вектор руху та розвитку галузі. Accessible at: https://www.syngenta.ua/news/novini-kompaniyi/vinogradarstvo-ta-vinorobstvo-sogodni-vektor-ruhu-ta-rozvitku-galuzi
  49. Wine & Spirits Ukraine. Розничный товарооборот вин, алкоголя и пива в первом полугодии 2020. https://wineandspirits.com.Ua/. Retrieved November 29, 2020. Accessible at: https://wineandspirits.com.ua/ wsbsales-6-2020/
  50. Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine. Недобросовісна конкуренція: “грузинські” вина, склад соків та нектарів, мобільний інтернет “4.5G.” (2019, December 24). Accessible at: https://amcu.gov.ua/news/ nedobrosovisna-konkurenciya-gruzinski-vina-sklad-sokiv-ta-nektariv-mobilnij-internet-45g
  51. Biz Censor. (2020, July 13). АМКУ обязал четырех производителей прекратить продавать коньяк под видом грузинского. Accessible at: https://biz.censor.net/news/3207842/amku_obyazal_chetyreh_proizvoditeleyi_ prekratit_prodavat_konyak_pod_vidom_gruzinskogo_foto
  52. UNN. (2020, July 21). Несмотря на решение АМКУ “псевдогрузинский̆” коньяк продолжают продавать в сети под видом иностранного. Accessible at: https://www.unn.com.ua/ru/news/1881685-popri-rishennya-amku-psevdogruzinskiy-konyak-prodovzhuyut-prodavati-v-merezhi-pid-viglyadom-inozemnogo

Download

  • pdf 214-6-11
    File size: 533 kB Downloads: 13