Results

Results for individual companies

The results of the regression for individual companies are shown in Table 17, in order to establish conclusions the significance level is set at 0.05. The adjusted \(R^2\) has a value of 0.435 in the full model and shows the overall significance. Thus, the study infers that the winery's strategies have greater impact on performance than its resources and capabilities. The marketing strategy appears as the first fundamental strategy with a beta value of 0.435, followed by the efficiency strategy with a beta value of 0.336. Authors find that neither resources and capabilities nor the control variables explain performance. With regard to hypotheses 1 and 2, they both have to be rejected for individual companies. Both strategies, marketing and efficiency, allow individual companies to perform well. Marketing is neutral relative to cost positioning or differentiation, while efficiency is a cost strategy. The other strategies have no statistical significance. These results lead us to reject hypothesis 3.1 and confirm 3.2 for individual companies.

Table 17. Regression analysis for individual companies.

Variables Base model Base model + strategy Full model
β t sig sd β t sig sd β t sig sd
(1) Internal Rivalry 0.005 0.032 0.975 0.135 -.107 -.697 .491 .132 -.184 -1.191 .244 .137
(2) Assets 0.200 1.272 0.211 0.173 .111 .861 .396 .149 -.005 -.033 .974 .160
(3) Efficiency Strategy .440 2.895 .007 .133 .336 2.112 .044 .138
(4) Marketing Strategy .551 4.166 .000 .125 .435 2.936 .007 .142
(5) Innovation Strategy .211 1.613 .117 .111 .196 1.542 .134 .110
(6) Low Price Strategy -.041 -.307 .761 .124 .029 .208 .837 .131
(7) Small Market and Product Strategy .061 .448 .657 .146 .040 .302 .765 .144
(8) Technological Capability .153 .729 .472 .182
(9) Managerial Capability .241 1.239 .226 .148
R2 0.040 0.511 0.572
Adjusted R2 -0.009 0.401 0.435
Change in R2 0.410 0.034