Research

Marketing strategy research increasingly relies on multi-source datasets that must be linked across entities such as firms, brands, and products. Yet entity matching is often treated as an implicit data construction step, even though mismatches and missed links can change samples, attenuate estimates, and hinder replication. This research note synthesizes the identifier landscape most relevant to marketing strategy work, clarifying what common identifiers represent, where coverage breaks down, and when crosswalks are reliable. Building on established record linkage practice, we propose a cascading workflow comprising three approaches: deterministic joins on shared identifiers, probabilistic name-based linkage with explicit similarity and threshold rules, and ML or LLM-assisted screening for residual ambiguous cases. We then translate this workflow into an audit checklist that specifies what to record, report, and archive. The overall goal is to provide auditable standards that improve precision, transparency, and replicability in merged dataset studies.

As firms increasingly commit to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals, an open question is whether these commitments complement or constrain innovation. Drawing on the attention-based view of the firm, we argue that ESG initiatives can absorb managerial attention and organizational resources, potentially crowding out product innovation.

Using quarterly panel data on 457 publicly listed U.S. firms observed from 2007 to 2021, we find that stronger ESG performance is associated with fewer new product introductions. This relationship is moderated by firm context: R&D intensity mitigates the negative association, competitive pressure sustains innovation incentives, and high profitability amplifies managerial risk aversion. The findings highlight an important trade-off between purpose and innovation and offer guidance on aligning sustainability commitments with innovation strategy.

Traditional innovation research emphasizes radical breakthroughs, yet many firms rely on incremental advancements to sustain competitive positioning. This paper examines whether, and under what conditions, incremental innovations can generate greater market share gains than radical innovations.

Using a novel panel dataset from a large biochemical industry—spanning more than 700 products, 19,000 customers, and 72 monthly periods—we exploit variation in firm status, innovation type, and price-adjusted efficacy to identify the relative performance of incremental versus radical innovations. We find that incremental innovations introduced by nondominant firms achieve systematically higher market share gains, driven by localized adaptation and differential adoption among informed customers. These results highlight the strategic value of incremental innovation as a competitive growth mechanism.

Prior research often treats sustainability orientation as a driver of overall innovation performance. We argue instead that sustainability primarily affects the allocation of innovative effort across technological domains. Drawing on the attention-based view of the firm, we propose that sustainability-oriented firms redirect innovation toward sustainability-aligned technologies, potentially crowding out innovation in non-aligned areas.

We test this argument using large-scale patent data linked to firm-level sustainability measures, distinguishing between sustainability-aligned and non-aligned technological classes. Using panel data methods, we show that stronger sustainability orientation is associated with a systematic reallocation of patenting activity toward sustainability-related domains, rather than an increase in total innovation output. These effects vary with firms’ resource availability and competitive environment. The findings clarify how purpose reshapes firms’ innovation portfolios and contribute to research on sustainability, innovation strategy, and managerial attention.