Search results

Ruth V. Aguilera is an associate professor and a Fellow at the Center for Professional Responsibility for Business and Society at the College of Business at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She also holds courtesy appointments at the School of Labor and Employment Relations, the College of Law and the Department of Sociology at Illinois. She received MA and PhD degrees in Sociology from Harvard University. Her research interests fall at the intersection of economic sociology and international business, specifically in the fields of comparative corporate governance, foreign location choices and corporate social responsibility. She has published in the leading journals in International Business and Management. Dr. Aguilera currently serves as a member of an associate editor of Corporate Governance: International Review and is a member of the Editorial Boards of the following peer reviewed top tier journals: Academy of Management Perspectives, Global Strategy Journal, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management Studies, Management International Review, Organization Studies and Strategic Management Journal. She also serves in the board of IMDEA Social Sciences (Madrid) and CSR IMPACT Project (Brussels).

This chapter is a commentary on Kobrin's essay on the current transition to the transnational era where there is a shift in the balance of power from sovereign states to non-state stakeholders and what role the multinational corporation (MNC) plays in this transition. It celebrates Kobrin's long-established scholarship and discusses his recent thinking regarding the new reconceptualization of space, the fragmentation of political authority and the intermingling of public and private spheres, in the context of transnational governance. In his essay, Kobrin raises many interesting questions and opens new avenues for inter-disciplinary research on the MNC in the up-and-coming transnational era.

Stephen Kobrin's contributions to international management scholarship are highly influential to the field as it has evolved over the past four decades. They include important insights into political risk, business–government relations, FDI theory and corporate social responsibility. His most recent work has leveraged historical perspectives to inform the emerging nature of the global business environment, with particular attention to the emergence of a globally networked economy and its implications for the range of stakeholders – business, government, non-governmental organizations and citizens. In this chapter, I reflect on Kobrin's contributions from the past to the present, summarizing some of the most important and substantial contributions and offering personal reflections on how those insights have affected the field and leading scholars within it.

In our chapter, we show how internationalisation-based performance outcomes can be amended by using a Regional Headquarters (RHQ) structure. We assume that ‘transnational corporations’ (TNCs) act restrained by a so-called GLOCAL dilemma caused by a coeval need for realising standardisation advantages and ‘location-specific advantages’ (LSA). Thereby, we believe that these opportunities are not necessarily linked to the same level of geographical aggregation. We further take into account that emerging ‘liabilities of foreignness’ (LOF) exert influence on the performance effect of cross-border transactions and highlight the important role information quality plays in this context. To back our general line of reasoning, we employ the information cost approach (Casson, 1998, 1999) as theoretical frame of our chapter. This approach enhances the common one-dimensional view on transactions costs (e.g. Williamson, 1985) by understanding these costs as two-dimensional phenomenon made up of ‘observation costs’ and ‘communication costs’. Additionally, the approach explicitly considers information quality, which is useful to our analysis. Against this background, we discuss how performance effects triggered by a use of RHQ evolve subject to basic types of organisational structures used by TNCs. We contribute to business research by providing a theoretically founded and widely new performance-based angle on the RHQ phenomenon. It combines different research streams that focus influences on cross-border business activities by relying on either the idea of LOF or the idea of LSA.

To what extent, why and where do multinational companies locate divisional headquarters (DHQs) abroad? This study of 30 of the largest listed companies in Norway over the 2000–2006 period shows that foreign-located DHQs have become relatively commonplace. A majority of DHQs located abroad are outcomes of foreign acquisitions, which suggests that obtaining legitimacy from local stakeholders such as customers, employees and investors is an important motivation. We also find that Norwegian companies emphasize efficiency and value creation in their location choices, as they tend to prefer other advanced and competitive countries as hosts for their DHQs. Distance from Norway is not significant. The off-shoring of strategic units such as DHQs is a phenomenon that occurs in advanced phases of companies' internationalization, beyond the point when familiarity and proximity still are key decision-making factors.

This chapter investigates the role Regional Headquarters (RHQs) play in large multinationals and probes to what degree the establishment of RHQs provides hierarchy benefits according to the M-form principles. Nine large multinational corporations (MNCs) provided the empirical setting for 55 in-depth interviews with decision-makers at corporate, regional and local levels. Case reports were developed for each MNC and the industries they operated in. Observations, company documents, detailed workshops with managers and a follow-up survey within one of the MNCs complemented the data. We find evidence for benefits of hierarchy when RHQs are introduced very much along the lines of the classic M-form organisation with product divisions. However, M-form principles are taken ad absurdum by the fact that there seems to be constant reorganisation regarding the mandates and the geographic scope of the regions. The practical implications of the chapter show that MNCs need to be aware that RHQs and the regional divisions they manage seem to be more difficult to manage in a stable way than product divisions. A clear rationale needs to underlie regional groupings to minimise instability, dissatisfaction among subsidiaries and, hence, ruptures of the M-form principles. Further research is needed to compare the stability of product versus regional divisionalisation. Future research on organisational structures should focus on firm-specific definitions of regional scope.

Virtually all of the literature of the MNC assumes that the modern or Westphalian international order of geographically defined sovereign states is the context in which international business takes place. I argue that we are in the midst of a deep-seated systemic transformation to a transnational or post-Westphalian world order characterized by a redefinition of space and geography, the fragmentation of political authority and a more diffuse distinction between public and private spheres. The emergence of a transnational order will have significant implications for the multinational firm in terms of the depth of its involvement in politics and how it formulates strategy. MNCs will both be subject to and a participant in governance, the latter in terms of hybrid public–private regimes. Strategy will have to be reformulated to incorporate a non-territorial context where firms function as actors in the international political process.

Location-specific advantages (LSA) and the liability of foreignness (LOF) are key concepts in international business and management research. To combine these concepts in a systematic framework, I develop a two-by-two matrix focusing on the nature of International Business (IB) research using four key terms: firm, context, comparative and interactive. This framework serves as a heuristic device in describing three main challenges IB scholars face when advancing the role of LOF and LSAs. These challenges relate to our understanding of the nature of relative advantage, to the development of a dynamic (so-called non-ergodic) world view and to the inclusion of the relevant spatial heterogeneity.