Search results

The costs of doing business abroad (CDBA) is a well-known concept in the international business literature, measuring the disadvantages or additional costs borne by multinational enterprises (MNEs) that are not borne by local firms in a host country. Recently, international management scholars have introduced a second concept, liability of foreignness (LOF). There is confusion in the two literatures as to the relationship between CBDA and LOF, as evidenced in a recent special issue on liability of foreignness (Journal of International Management, 2002). We argue that LOF stresses the social costs of doing business abroad, whereas CDBA includes both economic and social costs. The social costs arise from the unfamiliarity, relational, and discriminatory hazards that foreign firms face over and above those faced by local firms in the host country. Because the economic costs are well understood and can be anticipated, LOF becomes the core strategic issue for MNE managers. We argue that the key driver behind LOF is the institutional distance (cognitive, normative, and regulatory) between the home and host countries, and explore the ways in which institutional distance can affect LOF. We operationalize our arguments by showing how institutional distance and liability of foreignness can provide an alternative explanation for the MNE’s ownership strategy when going abroad.

The international business literature has long acknowledged that firms face disadvantages when engaging in business abroad. This disadvantage is expressed in such constructs as the costs of doing business abroad, the liability of foreignness and the country-of-origin effect; however, none of these constructs fully captures the potential liability associated with the home base of the multinational enterprise. We develop a new construct, liability of home, aimed at filling this gap, providing insights into the theory and practice of international business.

Liability of foreignness (LOF) has been one of the central constructs in the field of international business and management. Over the past two decades, a significant body of theoretical and empirical research has accumulated, theorizing on the sources of these LOFs, investigating their magnitude, and prescribing approaches to mitigate these disadvantages. However, much of this research is almost exclusively related to firms expanding their products, services, and operations to other countries as part of their global expansion. The difficulties firms face in foreign product markets is just one dimension of the costs they can face in their attempts to secure resources abroad.

We expand the domain of the LOF construct to include liabilities faced by firms accessing foreign capital markets in light of the increasing integration of capital markets. We identify four sources of LOF in capital markets: regulatory costs, information costs, unfamiliarity costs, and costs arising out of cultural differences. Based on an extensive review of “home bias” in equity markets, we propose four strategies to erase the legitimacy deficits that firms encounter in foreign capital markets: bonding, signaling, adoption of business practices isomorphic with the host country, and certifications and endorsements by third parties. We also offer suggestions for operationalizing and measuring LOF in capital markets as well as several directions for advancing further research on LOF in the context of capital markets.

We contend that the concept of liability of foreignness is inadequate to describe the set of disadvantages faced by emerging economy multinational enterprises (MNEs) in international markets. In order to address this theoretical gap, we develop the concept of “liabilities of origin” (LOR). We propose that the concept of LOR explains how the national origins of the MNE shape its disadvantages in international markets through three distinctive contexts of the MNE's ongoing activity: the home country context, the host country context, and the organizational context. We argue that in order to understand how emerging economy MNEs overcome their LOR, we need to engage simultaneously with the theoretical perspectives provided by the institutional entrepreneurship and organizational identity literatures. We suggest, further, that the concept of LOR may be useful to understand the character of MNE disadvantage in any international foray where the national origins of the MNE engender legitimacy-based and capability-based disadvantages for the MNE in a host country.

Liability of foreignness (LOF) is a well-known concept in international business domain. At the core of LOF is the insight that firms face social and economic costs when they operate in foreign markets. Extant literature acknowledges that the ability of firms to overcome LOF in host locations varies; however, it does not discuss the possibility that the LOF itself could vary for different firms at the same location. We extend this literature by examining how a firm's interaction with the host and the home country environments affect the LOF that it faces in foreign markets.

We argue that there are two sources of LOF – environmentally derived LOF and firm-based LOF. The environmentally derived LOF has its source in home and host country environments. Firm-based LOF, on the contrary, derives from firm-specific characteristics including ownership structure, firm-specific resources, learning and network-based linkages such as affiliation to a business group. Furthermore, we argue that both the environmentally derived and the firm-based LOF are different for emerging market (EM) firms as compared to developed market (DM) firms. We develop testable propositions about how environment-specific and firm-specific factors affect LOF and suggest directions for future research.

The present study develops an international joint venture (IJV) partner selection framework to explain the choice between state-owned or privately owned local partners in the context of emerging economies. We suggest that once an IJV is selected as the mode of entry, a multinational enterprise's strategic motivations – that is, efficiency seeking, market seeking and knowledge seeking – will influence its choice of IJV partner type: state-owned enterprise or privately owned firm. We argue that liability of foreignness and rule of law moderate the multinational enterprise's selection of IJV partner type.

The objective of this chapter is to explore the experience of EU companies in the environmental protection sector in China focusing on their difficulties and the mitigating strategies mobilized.

We adopt a qualitative, case study approach, using interview data to explore the liability of foreignness (LOF) experienced by the companies studied and the strategies adopted to overcome LOF.

We found examples of all categories of LOF identified by Eden and Miller (2004), among our case study companies, but the most problematic and persistent were discrimination hazards. Companies adopted various strategies to cope with LOF, including maximizing the use of local employees, developing relationships with local and national government actors, and establishing partnerships with local companies. None had chosen a combative legalistic approach to the unfair treatment they had suffered.

The relatively small number of cases (six) limits the generalizability of our findings. However, we are convinced that the size of our case companies and their long experience in China mean our findings are well grounded, although more research is needed.

The experience of our case study companies can help to inform the strategy of companies interested in entering and developing the Chinese market.

Very few studies have explored LOF through a case study-based qualitative approach. This research therefore helps to supplement findings from more large-scale quantitative analyses. In addition, there is little research on the LOF of foreign companies in China. Given the growing importance of the market, we believe the question merits further analysis.