Antecedent Configurations of Organizational Resilience in Photovoltaic Enterprises under Involutionary Competition Based on fsQCA and NCA
This study utilizes fsQCA and NCA within a TOE framework to identify three distinct synergistic configurations of digital transformation, technological innovation, strategic deviance, agile responsiveness, and government subsidies that enable photovoltaic enterprises to achieve organizational resilience amidst involutionary competition, while highlighting that the absence of technological innovation and strategic deviance critically hinders such resilience.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the world of business, companies often face a specific kind of pressure that feels less like a sudden storm and more like a slow, grinding squeeze. This is what researchers call "involutionary competition." It happens when too many companies chase the same customers with nearly identical products, leading to fierce price wars where everyone works harder but earns less. Imagine a crowded room where everyone is shouting to be heard, but the noise level rises so high that no one can actually hear anything new; the energy is spent just staying in the game rather than moving forward. In this environment, the ability of a company to survive and adapt is known as organizational resilience. While past studies have looked at how companies survive sudden disasters like pandemics or financial crashes, this new research asks a different question: how do companies survive this chronic, exhausting state of over-competition? To find the answer, the authors looked at the solar power industry, a sector currently drowning in such intense competition, and examined how technology, internal strategies, and outside help combine to keep businesses standing.
The researchers focused on fifty-eight solar power companies in China, analyzing their performance during the years 2023 and 2024, a period they describe as the most intense competition in the industry's history. Instead of looking for a single "magic bullet" that saves a company, the team used a method that treats business success like a recipe. They tested whether factors like digital transformation (using data and software to run the business), technological innovation (creating new patents and inventions), strategic deviance (doing things differently from the industry norm), agile responsiveness (how quickly a company reacts to changes), and government subsidies (financial aid from the state) could act alone to save a struggling firm. Their analysis showed that no single factor is strictly necessary. A company does not need to be the most digital, the most innovative, or the most subsidized to survive. Instead, resilience emerges when these elements mix together in specific, powerful combinations.
The study uncovered three distinct paths that lead to a resilient solar company. The first path is called the "Innovation-Deviance Integration" type. Here, a company survives by being deeply innovative and by taking a unique strategic path that differs from its rivals. In this scenario, the company does not need to be a master of digital tools or incredibly fast at reacting to market shifts. A prime example is JinkoSolar, which poured billions into research and development and filed hundreds of patents. By creating a technological barrier that competitors could not easily copy, and by branching out into energy storage to avoid relying solely on solar panels, the company maintained its strength even as industry profits collapsed. The second path is the "Digitalization-Innovation-Agility Linkage" type. This model relies on a company being highly digital, innovative, and quick to react, all while operating without significant government financial help. Companies like Chint Electrics fit this description; they used advanced data systems to break down information barriers and shifted their focus to overseas markets the moment domestic risks appeared. Their speed and internal capabilities allowed them to grow their revenue significantly despite the lack of external subsidies. The third path is the "Subsidy-Innovation Synergy" type. In this case, a company relies on strong government financial support paired with its own technological breakthroughs. Even if the company is not particularly agile or strategically unique, the combination of cash from the government and the protection of its own patents allows it to weather the storm. Maxwell Technologies exemplifies this, using substantial government aid to fund its research while holding a dominant position in a specific type of solar cell technology.
Crucially, the research also identified what happens when these combinations are missing. The study found that if a company lacks both technological innovation and a unique strategic approach, it cannot build resilience, no matter how fast it reacts or how much money it receives from the government. The absence of these two core elements acts as a hard barrier. Even with high levels of digital tools or government aid, a company that fails to innovate or differentiate itself will struggle to survive the pressure of involutionary competition. The data suggests that while outside help and speed are useful, they cannot replace the fundamental need for a company to create something new and to position itself differently from the crowd.
This work offers a clear roadmap for leaders in the solar industry and beyond. It suggests that there is no single correct way to build a resilient company; different firms can succeed through different mixes of strengths. Some may thrive by being the most innovative and unique, others by being the most digital and fast, and others by leveraging government support alongside their own inventions. The key takeaway is that companies must look at their own specific situation and build a combination of strengths that fits their resources. They should not try to be everything at once, but rather ensure they have the right mix of factors to support their survival. For the industry as a whole, the findings imply that breaking free from the cycle of destructive competition requires a shift away from simple price wars and toward a focus on genuine innovation and strategic differentiation, supported by policies that reward these specific capabilities rather than just general growth.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.