This, like a score of other “motherhood and apple pie” strategies is dangerous if adopted unquestioningly. Strategies such as the following appear in the mission statements of many of the world's major corporations:  "We will become the biggest", or the "best", or have the "largest market share", or "we adopt TQM principles", or “we are here to maximise customer satisfaction”, or “we are here to create sustained competitive advantage”, and so on.

These are all admirable pursuits, but only when they are in context, and then only when they are seen as enablers to achievement rather than the purpose for striving. In other words, they are the tools used to get to where you want to go. No owner who invests in a corporation does so because it has established, for example, sustained competitive advantage per se. Rather, the owner invests because of the benefit that sustained competitive advantage delivers.

It is a truism that not all organisations are alike;  they have different needs and aspirations and similarly, the expectations of their owners are different.  Therefore the adoption of a particular management theme or tool-set, may not be equally appropriate for all organisations.

Sustained competitive advantage in most contexts implies on-going investment in product design and modification, quality orientation, new channel development, research and development, innovation and other strategies and techniques which continuously review and revitalise products and services in order to maintain a competitive advantage.

Most of these techniques have a “longer-term” benefit rather than “shorter-term”. Sustained competitive advantage is often appropriate therefore, when shareholders are content with longer term pay-back of expected benefit. It is often in conflict with shareholders however, when they have a short-term expectation of benefit.

As an example, a manufacturing company may have a flexible ability to tool-up quickly to manufacture a certain type of product. A new product hits the market that is well within the capability of the company to produce. In the short-term, and in the early stages of the product’s life-cycle, demand is well in excess of supply so quality and efficient channels are not critical. The company is not very liquid and therefore has little capital resource to draw on. Historically, the company has provided good short-term dividend return to a loyal group of shareholders.

As the product becomes accepted in the marketplace and becomes more mature, new suppliers enter the market. In order to stay in the market, all suppliers must start differentiating their product, concentrate on quality and invest in efficient distribution channels. Due to the cost of such investment, one would only contemplate such a strategy if one was prepared to remain in the market long enough to enjoy the benefits from this strategy and its necessary investment.

It is clearly inappropriate for the company in question to even contemplate “sustaining advantage” as it doesn’t have the capital, it isn’t what their shareholders want, and they would lose the flexible opportunistic character of their business that has served them well.

Sustained competitive advantage, like most strategies, needs to be moulded to suit the context and objectives. It should never be regarded as a “given”. Embedding sustained competitive advantage within a corporation’s mission statement is therefore a commitment to certain long term strategies, investments and shareholder outcomes. It is never a panacea for shareholder satisfaction.