The Moral Limits of Competitive Advantage
Students at Universitas Muhammadiyah Palembang are challenging the long-held assumption that a firm’s internal strengths naturally equate to ethical conduct. In a doctoral learning reflection published on kompasiana.com, students interrogated the moral boundaries of strategic management, questioning whether rare, high-performing assets guarantee moral legitimacy in global markets.
Deconstructing the Resource-Based View
Jay Barney’s framework—which links sustained competitive advantage to assets that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable—has long served as a bedrock for corporate strategy. Under the guidance of Prof. Dr. Hj. Sulastri, SE., ME., students pushed past this traditional model. They asked a pointed question: do corporations with rare assets operate with inherent moral legitimacy, or is that a dangerous oversight?
The Trap of Circular Logic
The academic critique highlights a significant structural flaw in current management theory. By focusing on intangible assets like tacit knowledge and organizational culture, the framework often leans on circular reasoning—defining resources as “valuable” only after a firm has already achieved success. Furthermore, this inward-looking perspective struggles to reconcile static asset evaluation with the reality of sudden market disruptions.
Beyond Financial Returns
Conventional analysis prioritizes a direct chain between internal resources and financial performance, leaving core values entirely out of the equation. As reported on kompasiana.com, this neutral stance creates a moral vacuum in modern commerce. The research argues that corporate uniqueness is merely a strategic characteristic. Possessing assets that competitors cannot copy does not automatically translate into socially responsible operations; true management requires evaluating the societal impact of corporate processes alongside economic returns.
