Normas emitidas por el IASB aún no vigentes

shares (Palmer and Wiseman, 1999). Complexity has two major implications that affect the disaster-performance relationship. First, high complexity of an industry creates causal ambiguity for managers, which impedes their precise understanding of the effectiveness of a chosen strategy (King, 2007, Kunc and Morecroft, 2010, Teece et al., 1997). Firms’ managers must identify various influencing factors and the interplay among them in a complex industry. They must also estimate the consequences for their firm’s operations and product offerings and draw conclusions from their analysis for their firm’s strategy. Given managers’ bounded rationality, they focus primarily on the response to immediate competitive pressures in their markets and may overlook more distant external threats (Kocabasoglu et al., 2007). Thus, they are likely to be surprised and caught off guard by natural disasters if their firms operate in complex industries. Second, high industry complexity implies the presence of many competing firms that offer similar products. However, these competing firms have different “operating footprints”. If a disaster hits a specific region, the production location of some firms within an industry will be destroyed; thus, their production will be disrupted. However, other firms will operate in distant states not affected by the disaster and will continue to produce. Due to the high number of competing firms with similar product offering, customers can switch from the disrupted to other available producers. Additionally, competitors will attempt to exploit the weakness of the disrupted firm and actively target its customers (Sirmon et al., 2010). Consequently, firms not affected by the disaster can enlarge their sales at the expense of firms with disrupted production (Hallegatte and Przyluski, 2010). In sum, surprise and seizure of market share by competitors will exacerbate the negative relationship between the effect of a natural disaster on a firm’s production network and its performance if a firm operates in a complex industry.

Hypothesis 2: Firms whose production network is affected by a natural disaster face a stronger decline in performance if they operate in a complex industry than if they operate in a less complex industry.

An industry’s munificence indicates that sales are growing for all firms, like a rising tide that lifts all boats (Pagell and Krause, 2004). In such an industry, speed and efficiency matter in strategy execution (Demeester et al., 2014). Additionally, managers focus more on the opportunities than on the threats of a decision (Wiengarten et al., 2017). Hence, they are willing to consider potentially risky investments to take advantage of the growth opportunities while neglecting low-probability events, like natural disasters. As a result, firms in munificent industries are more likely to operate a production network that is exposed to hits from a natural disaster. Second, such industries call for the rapid accumulation of operations resources and capabilities to seize the largest share of the market growth (Demeester et al., 2014). Thus, in anticipation of strong market growth, such firms have typically invested more resources into property, plant, and equipment or inventory compared to firms that did not anticipate such strong growth. If a disaster hits the production locations of a firm that anticipated strong growth, the resulting damage is larger compared to the damage to a firm that anticipated only slow growth. Third, to keep its market share constant in a munificent industry, a firm’s sales and the industry’s growth must expand at the same rate. Being hit by a disaster, however, obstructs important internal resources. Human resources attempt to keep the business operational and cannot focus on the firm’s strategic development; capital assets are destroyed and not available for production anymore; financial resources are required for the disaster response and not available for the expansion of the business. As a result, a firm hit by a disaster cannot execute its strategic business plans in line with the market development and consequently loses market share. In sum, firms’ managers are less aware of the probability of a natural disaster and crucial resources are obstructed, thus, the negative relationship between the effect of a natural disaster on a firm’s production network and its performance becomes exacerbated for firms operating in munificent industries.

Hypothesis 3: Firms whose production network is affected by a natural disaster face a stronger decline in performance if they operate in a munificent industry than if they operate in a less munificent industry.

In a dynamic industry, change occurs at a faster pace and with greater magnitude (Rosenzweig, 2009). First, firms that operate in dynamic industries typically implement adaptable production approaches to react flexibly to

unforeseen changes (Anand and Ward, 2004). In the aftermath of a disaster, such firms can capitalize on their flexible production systems and can easily switch parts of their production to non-disrupted plants in their production network. As a result, these firms are less vulnerable and they can resume production more quickly. Second, dynamic industries require firms to include contingency schemes in their supply contracts, ensuring that agreed upon procedures are in place to handle design or volume changes (Kaufmann and Carter, 2006). In addition, these industries require firms to build close and stable supply chain partnerships with suppliers and customers (Kocabasoglu et al., 2007). The aforementioned two aspects, flexible contracts and close relationships with suppliers and customers render a firm’s operations more flexible. Third, firms that operate in a dynamic, fast-changing industry have developed capabilities to quickly respond to change, adapt the organization, and learn from the new situation. Since a natural disaster affects the supply situation, production, and demand pattern, such capabilities are also beneficial: A firm that is accustomed to unforeseen change is more capable of dealing with it. In short, in dynamic industries, firms apply more flexible production and sourcing approaches and are more used to sudden changes. Thus, these firms can better accommodate the effect of changes following a natural disaster on their production network.

Hypothesis 4: Firms whose production network is affected by a natural disaster face a weaker decline in performance if they operate in a dynamic industry than if they operate in a less dynamic industry.

2.4 Data