Determinants of viability in junior mining companies in the Witbank region of South Africa

  • 804 Views
  • 169 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

An exploratory survey was undertaken in order to explore the underlying causes of bankruptcy in junior mining companies operating in the Witbank region of Mpumalanga Province based on data gathered from 120 highly experienced employees of junior mining companies operating at Witbank. Perception on barriers to productivity in junior mines was measured based on a scale introduced by Henisz, Dorobantu and Nartey (2014). Data was gathered on 24 socioeconomic variables. Data was analysed by performing logit analysis. The key finding of study was that 74.17% of respondents believed that their mines were profitable and productive. Productivity of mines was found to be undermined high cost of transport [OR = 4.51; P = 0.003; 95% CI = (2.26, 7.58)], low demand for mine products [OR = 2.65; P = 0.009; 95% CI = (1.86, 6.14)] and inability to improve the public images of junior mining companies [OR = 2.53; P = 0.015; 95% CI = (1.80, 5.76)].

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. General characteristics of respondents (n = 120)
    • Table 2. Barriers to productivity (n = 120)
    • Table 3. Benefits of outsourcing to productivity (n = 120)
    • Table 4. Assessment of perception on sales growth and market share (n = 120)
    • Table 5. Significant associations obtained from cross-tab analyses
    • Table 6. Barriers to profitability of junior mines
    • Acharya, V. V., Lochstoer, L. A., & Ramadorai, T. (2013). Limits to arbitrage and hedging: Evidence from commodity markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 109(1), 441-465.
    • Achrya, V., Philippon, T., Richardson, M., & Roubini, N. (2009). The financial crisis of 2007–2009: causes and remedies. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    • Adams, R. B., Mehran, H. (2003). Is corporate governance different for bank holding companies? Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review, 9(1), 123-142.
    • Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P.J.H. (2013). Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46.
    • Anderson, M., Asdemir, O., & Tripathy, A. (2011). Use of precedent and antecedent information in strategic cost management. Journal of Business Research, 2(1), 21-26.
    • Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 244-254.
    • Barney, J. B. (2012). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
    • Beck, T., & Demirguc-Kunt, A. (2012). Small and medium-size enterprises: access to finance as a growth constraint. Journal of Banking and Finance, 30(11), 2931-2943.
    • Beetsma, R., Giuliodori, M., De Jong, F., & Widijanto, D. (2013). Spread the news: the impact of news on the European sovereign bond markets during the crisis. Journal of International Money and Finance, 34(1), 83-101.
    • Benjamin, G., Andreas, B., & Ramon, K. (2012). Organization from a systemic perspective: Application of the viable system model to the Swiss Youth Hostel Association. Kybernetes, 39(9-10), 1627-1644.
    • Bharadwaj, A. (2013). A Resource-Based Perspective on Information Technology Capability And Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation. Mis Quarterly, 24(1), 169-196.
    • Bhatt, G. D., & Grover, V. (2013). Types of Information Technology Capabilities and Their Role In Competitive Advantage: An Empirical Study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(2), 253-277.
    • Booysens, I. (2011). Are Small, Medium And Micro-Sized Enterprises Engines of Innovation? The Reality in South Africa. Science and Public Policy, 38(1), 67-78.
    • Buckley, P. J., & Ghauri, P. N. (2012). Globalisation, Economic Geography and the Strategy of Multinational Enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 81-98.
    • Cheng, I.-H., Kirilenko, A., & Xiong, W. (2015). Convective risk flows in commodity futures markets. Review of Finance, 19(1), 1733-1781.
    • Dashwood, H. S. (2014). Sustainable Development and Industry Self-Regulation Developments in the Global Mining Sector. Business & Society, 53(4), 551-582.
    • Deloitte. (2016). Tracking the trends 2015. The top 10 issues mining companies will face in the coming year.
    • Duffie, D. (2010). Presidential address: Asset price dynamics with slow-moving capital. Journal of Finance, 65(1), 1237-1267.
    • Du Plessis, H., & Van Niekerk, A. (2014). A new GISc framework and competency set for curricula development at South African universities. South African Journal of Geomatics, 3(1), 1-12.
    • Elliot, R., & Boshoff, C. (2013). The influence of organisation factors in small tourism businesses on the success of internet marketing. Management Dynamics, 14(3), 44-58.
    • Fahy, J. (2013). The resource-based view of the firm: some stumbling-blocks on the road to understanding sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(2), 94-104.
    • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. London: Pearson.
    • Henderson, B. J., Pearson, n.d. wang, l. (2015). New evidence on the financialization of commodity markets. Review of Financial Studies, 28(1), 1285-1311.
    • Henderson, B. J., Pearson, N. D., & Wang, L. (2014). New evidence on the financialization of commodity markets. Review of Financial Studies, 1(2), 91-102.
    • Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014). Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1727-1748.
    • Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2013). Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
    • Katzenbach, J., & Bromfield, P. (2009). How to cut costs in a reces¬sion with help from employees. Strategy and Leadership, 37(3), 9-16.
    • Ladzani, M. W., & Seeletse, S. M. (2012). Business social responsibility. How are SME’s doing in Gauteng, South Africa? Social Responsibility Journal, 8(1), 87-99.
    • Nel, P., Werner, A., Poisat, P., Sono, T., Du Plessis, A., & Ngalo, O. (2011). Human Resource Management. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
    • Pienaar, W. J., & Vogt, J. J. (2013). Business Logistics Management, a supply chain perspectives, 3rd edition. London: Oxford University press.
    • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (2014). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 6(1), 79-92.
    • Shank, J. K, Lawler, W. L., & Carr, L. P. (2015). The profit impact of value chain configuration: Blending strategic cost management and Action-Profit-Linkage (APL) perspective. Advances in Management Accounting, 12(1), 37-58.
    • Sidortsov, R. (2014). Reinventing rules for environmental risk governance in the energy sector. Energy Research & Social Science, 1(1), 171-182.
    • Sovacool, B. K. (2014). Optimisation of resources. Energy Research & Social Science, 1(1), 19-27.
    • South African Chamber of Mines. (2016). Facts and Figures 2015.
    • South African National Department of Labour. (2016). Annual report for 2014/2015.
    • South African National Department of Public Service Administration. (2016). White Paper on the Transformation of the Public Service.
    • Small Enterprise Development Agency. (2016). Annual report for 2015/2016.
    • Sovacool, B. K., Sidortsov, R., & Jones, B. (2013). Energy security, equality, and justice. London: Routledge.
    • Sovacool, B. K., & Cooper, C. J. (2013). The governance of energy megaprojects: politics, hubris, and energy security. London: Edward Elgar.
    • Spreng, D. (2014). Transdisciplinary energy research – reflecting the context. Energy Research & Social Science, 1(1), 65-73.
    • Statistics South Africa. (2016). Facts and figures for 2014/2015. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.
    • Worku, Z. (2016). The impact of poor quality municipal services on small enterprises. Investment Management & Financial Innovations, 14(4), 274-279.
Related Articles

  • Business dynamism in the world economy

    Zuzana VirglerovaORCID , Felice AddeoORCID , Eliska ZapletalikovaORCID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(3).2020.14
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 18, 2020         Issue #3         pp. 160-169 Views: 2739 Downloads: 309 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The creation and growth of new enterprises and, on the other hand, their decline and market exit are crucial factors of business dynamism and economic growth. Thus, business dynamism is an important aspect in the market chain and productivity of an economy, as well as a trigger for market reforms. The aim is to analyze business dynamism using Global Competitiveness Index 4.0 and its variables worldwide and to verify the relationship between business dynamism in the EU states and economic characteristics such as Valued added at factor cost, Enterprise Birth Rate and Enterprise Death Rate. Data were collected from the 2019 Global Competitiveness Report and from the EUROSTAT database, using the most recently updated source for each indicator. The 11th pillar of the Global Competitiveness Index, focused on business dynamics, and a set of indicators were analyzed using PCA to verify if all the variables are effective representatives of the concept. It was found out that the pillar does not effectively represent the concept of business dynamism in case of the EU countries; therefore the new pillar was constructed. A strong and statistically significant correlation between business dynamism and Value Added was confirmed. A relationship between business dynamism and other economic indicators was not proven. From a territorial point of view, Oceania achieved the best overall result in the analyzed field. The process of starting a new business is the most challenging in terms of start-up costs in South America. By contrast, the EU has reached the best result in this process.

  • A financial performance-based assessment of SMEs’ competitiveness – an analysis of Hungarian and US small businesses

    Vivien CsapiORCID , Virgínia BaloghORCID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(3).2020.37
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 18, 2020         Issue #3         pp. 452-464 Views: 2171 Downloads: 1270 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The study aims to identify the financial performance measures used as a proxy of the firm-level competitiveness dimensions of small and medium-sized enterprises and their competitiveness. By investigating the factors that affect competitiveness in general, those areas will be introduced, related to an identified competitiveness dimension. Financial and non-financial performance indicators will assess these areas. The paper considers competitiveness as an outcome variable, suggests a relationship between financial performance and the identified areas, and searches for the financial performance measures drivers.
    A panel data model was tested on Hungarian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and US SMEs. The collected data cover the period between 2013 and 2017. As a result of the applied panel regression, those variables were successfully identified that drive and could predict financial performance measures related to competitiveness. The research found a significant difference between the two-sample dataset results, which differences can be connected to country, industry, and, in general, to economic development characteristics.
    The results provide decision-making support and hint about the managerial tools and techniques aiming to control the firm characteristics, performance, and, eventually, firm-level competitiveness. Based on the results, further research can be dedicated to the development characteristics of firm-level competitiveness and the analysis of the relationship between the competitiveness dimensions and competitiveness itself.

    Acknowledgment
    The research was financed by the Higher Education Institutional Excellence Programme of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology in Hungary, within the framework of the 4th thematic programme „Enhancing the Role of Domestic Companies in the Reindustrialization of Hungary” of the University of Pécs.

  • Does Employee Stock Ownership Plan matter? An empirical note

    Fitri IsmiyantiORCID Researcher ID, Putu Anom MahadwarthaORCID Researcher ID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.14(3-2).2017.08
    Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 14, 2017         Issue #3         pp. 381-388 Views: 1470 Downloads: 285 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) is a company program to provide incentives to managers to increase shareholder wealth and to align interests between the shareholders and the management. This ESOP is one of the most effective efforts to reduce conflicts of interest between the owners and the managers. ESOP program is basically intended to provide motivation and incentives for employees, so that employees will have a sense of concern (sense of belonging) to the company. Productivity is a reflection of the level of efficiency and effectiveness of work in total in a company. Productivity becomes very important, because it can describe the performance of a company. Performance is defined as the size or level at which individuals and organizations can achieve goals effectively and efficiently. This study aims to examine the effect of ESOP variables on company performance by using productivity as a mediating variable in non-financial companies in Indonesia Stock Exchange. The sample used in this research is companies that implement ESOP in the period 2000–2015. In this study, the company’s performance is measured by using return on assets, return on equity and Tobin’s Q, while productivity is measured by using sales per employee, cash flow per employee, and total assets turnover. Based on the results, it can be concluded that Employee Stock Ownership Program (ESOP) has a positive and significant impact on productivity.

Download Preview
Close
Problems and Perspectives in Management
Problems and Perspectives in Management