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.

In developed markets, emerging market multinational enterprises (EMNEs) seem to be more discriminated by host country nationals than foreign developed market multinational enterprises (DMNEs). They are challenged with host country nationals’ prejudices and face a stigma of being from emerging markets. While literature agrees that EMNEs suffer from additional disadvantages due to their country-of-origin, research fails to identify those factors that may lead to a higher discrimination against EMNEs than against foreign DMNEs.

Based on institutional theory, we look at institutional-related and resource-related antecedents that have an impact on various forms of direct and indirect discrimination by host country nationals.

Our framework analyzes the crucial differences between host country nationals’ perception of EMNEs and foreign DMNEs and the resulting challenges for EMNEs in the developed world. It enhances our understanding of the importance of institutional environments in explaining differences in host country nationals’ discrimination against foreign MNEs.

The liability of foreignness has long been acknowledged as a key concept in international business research. Departing from the cost side of foreignness, this chapter explores intangible benefits of foreignness exclusive to multinational enterprises in a host country in addition to tangible benefits such as preferential tax policies. Intangible benefits of foreignness are defined as advantages of foreignness so as to distinguish from assets of foreignness – tangible benefits of foreignness. Drawing on institutional theory and social comparison theory, we propose that advantages of foreignness can lead to important firm-specific performance-related outcomes, which have been generally underestimated in the international business literature.

In 2017, 22% of the Canadian population are foreign-born immigrants and one in five is a visible racial minority. Canadian schools and classrooms mirror the diversity of the society and are populated with more and more immigrant and refugee students from diverse ethnic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds each year. Uprooted from their home countries and familiar environments, immigrant and refugee students experience barriers and challenges in new living and educational environments. The increasing number of immigrant and refugee students and their unique educational needs and challenges have called building welcoming and inclusive schools a priority in Canadian education system. This chapter addresses the urgent need for high-impact policies, practices and praxis to build welcoming and inclusive schools for immigrant and refugee students through cross-sector community engagement. Based on several empirical studies, critical and extensive literature review and authors’ professional reflections, this chapter introduces a theoretical framework of building welcoming and inclusive schools for immigrant and refugee students and introduces the promising strategies of engaging community stakeholders, including educators, students, parents, governments and community organizations and agencies.

The potential for resource combinations to have adverse consequences for acquiring firms is often overlooked in research. However, considering potential inimical resources can explain target and acquiring firm actions across the phases (evaluation, completion, and integration) of an acquisition. The authors outline how managers deal with inimical resources in acquisitions. Specifically, during evaluation, due diligence offers managers from acquiring firms the opportunity to avoid potential inimical resources by abandoning an acquisition. During integration, inimical resources can be dealt with either by limiting integration, or with planned or unplanned divestment. As a result, inimical resources explain observed actions and provide a context for making and improving corporate restructuring decisions.

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.

This chapter discusses how firms can accrue unique advantages from their foreign status in the host country, with a particular focus on informal networks. Drawing on the literature on the liability and asset of foreignness, this chapter argues that foreign firms can be in a better position to balance between the bright and dark side of informal networks than local firms. Foreign firms can deviate from local isomorphic pressures to minimize potential involvement in negative sides. Moreover, they can build more instrumental informal networks in which the dark side of informal networking is better controlled and regulated without losing social cohesion, flexibility, and other benefits of the bright side. This chapter contributes to our understanding of how foreign firms can turn foreignness into assets from liabilities when managing their informal networks in the host country.