This study aims to investigate the relative contribution of tangible and intangible resources, and capabilities on firm performance based on the measures of market share, sales turnover and profitability and explore the complex interaction and foundation of different resource sets and capabilities in the process of performance creation within the context of resource-based theory. In order to address these objectives, a mixed-methods research approach incorporating both qualitative and quantitative components was utilised. Hence, a sequential explanatory design is employed, commencing with qualitative methods including in-depth interviews along with the literature review to define and organise resources and capabilities in a coherent system that will form the basis of survey instrument, leading to quantitative methods which empirically test a series of hypotheses regarding the contribution of resources and capabilities on firm performance. Whilst qualitative data analysis indicated organisational culture, reputational assets, human capital, business processes and networking capabilities as the most important determinants of firm performance, the survey that was conducted on a total of 243 questionnaires obtained from 951 firms revealed that intangible resources and capabilities contributed more greatly to firm performance compared to tangible resources. However, in contrast to the proposition of resource-based theory that views capabilities as the most important skills that underpin the development and deployment of both tangible and intangible resources, capabilities offered rather limited additional explanatory power to the prediction of firm performance only with respect to profitability against the combined effects of tangible and intangible resources. All findings were explained especially within the context of Turkish business environment that shows typical emerging market characteristics. Moreover, some noteworthy results were elaborated based on the developed and emerging market differences. Overall, the study raises some questions with respect to resource contributions on firm performance and offers a fruitful avenue for further research.

The resource-based view of the firm (RBV) is one the most important areas of research content to emerge in the field of strategic management in the last 15 years. The RBV is prescriptive. That is, the RBV prescribes that competitive advantage stems from those resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and nonsubstitutable (VRIN). With rare exception, resources that meet the VRIN criteria are widely purported to be intangible in nature. From a research perspective, the RBV stream tends to be dominated by conceptual discussions and advancements. However, empirical tests of the core premises, or the main prescription, of the theory are argued to be very limited in quantity. To add to the body of empirical research that seeks to verify the main prescription of the RBV, this research undertakes a new and different level of analysis, one that has not been previously tested. Given that firms compete with both tangible and intangible resources, the present study is interested in determining if, as the RBV implicitly prescribes, resources that are intangible in nature are more important determinants of firm success than tangible resources. Although the research question is basic and fundamental, it has rarely been appropriately or adequately tested within the RBV stream, as is demonstrated by this thesis. To carry out the research, this study offers a conceptual model of the firm’s resource pool that includes tangible assets (financial and physical assets), intangible assets (intellectual property assets, organizational assets, reputational assets), and capabilities. A series of hypotheses are posited to explore the proposition that intangible resources contribute more greatly to firm success, on the dimensions of sales turnover, market share, and profitability, than tangible resources. / A field survey, administered to 2000 manufacturing and services businesses operating in Australia, is used to gather the data. Of the 2000 surveys sent, the hypotheses are empirically tested using multiple hierarchical regression analysis on a final sample of 291 firms. Control variables include firm age and Porter’s five forces of industry structure. Based on the results, verification of the RBV’s main prescription can not be supported unequivocally. Intellectual property assets, for example, do not have a statistically significant association with firm success, after accounting for the effects of tangible resources and the control variables. Organizational assets, however, not only explain additionally significant variation in firm success, after accounting for the effects of tangible resources and the control variables, but make among the greatest, unique contribution to firm success based on the size of the beta coefficients. Reputational assets offer additional explanatory power to predicting firm success after accounting for the effects of tangible assets and the control variables, but only with respect to one measure of firm success does its beta coefficient make a larger, unique contribution than financial assets. Lastly, contrary to theory, capabilities are not the single most important determinant of firm success, after accounting for the effects of intangible assets, and tangible and intangible assets, in two separate hierarchical regression equations. This finding is surprising and explanations are provided. Overall, the study raises some questions with respect to just which resources are the most important determinants of a firm’s market and financial success and offers a fruitful avenue for further research.

Les parties prenantes demandent aux entreprises d'inclure dans leurs processus de gestion des critères de responsabilité sociale tels que la santé et la sécurité au travail et la lutte contre les discriminations etc. Les normes (ISO 26000, 14001, OHSAS 18001, AA 1000…) sont nombreuses en matière de R.S.E ou de développement durable et témoignent des questions et des difficultés de son opérationnalisation. Les critiques des O.N.G révèlent, entre autre, l'insuffisance de l'engagement des salariés qui sont pourtant au coeur des actions de l'entreprise. Ce travail doctoral s'inscrit dans la recherche des causes expliquant les comportements socialement responsables des salariés. Nous abordons notre recherche sous l'angle de l'Employment-Organisation-Relationship (E-O-R) et inscrivons notre travail dans le concept des contrats psychologiques (Rousseau, 1995). Notre recherche vise à mieux comprendre un phénomène social dont les recherches sont aujourd'hui sous-détaillées et sous-exploitées. Nous avons choisi une entreprise du secteur du travail temporaire et focalisé notre recherche sur les comportements en GRH. Notre recherche est qualitative, ethnologique et à visée compréhensive ; nous montrons que les croyances partagées, les normes comportementales et plus largement les ressources tangibles ou intangibles façonnent les comportements socialement responsables des salariés. A notre connaissance aucune recherche ne s'est appuyée sur notre méthodologie pour répondre à ce problème managérial concret. / Stakeholders require companies to include in their management process social responsibility criteria such as health and safety and the fight against discrimination etc. Standards of CSR or sustainable development (ISO 26000, 14001, OHSAS 18001, 1000 AA ...) are many and reflect the issues and difficulties in its operationalization. NGO‟s criticisms reveal, among other things, the lack of commitment of employees who are at the very heart of the company's shares. This work is part of doctoral research determining causes of socially responsible behavior of employees. We discuss our research in terms of the Employment Relationship-Organization-and inscribe our work in the concept of psychological contracts in organizations (Rousseau, 1995). Our research aims to better understand a social phenomenon whose research is currently under- detailed and underutilized. We chose a company in the temporary work sector and focused our research on behavior in HRM. Our research is qualitative, ethnographic and explanatory; we show that shared beliefs, behavioral norms and broader tangible or intangible resources shape the socially responsible behavior of employees. To our knowledge no research has been based on our methodology to meet this specific managerial problem.