Search results

Foreign subsidiaries of multinational enterprises (MNEs) operate in complex and competitive international environments, implement market and non-market strategies, manage resources and value-added activities and contribute to the overall performance of their parent firms. Thus, the research question on the determinants of MNE foreign subsidiaries’ performance is of interest to managers and academic researchers. The empirical literature has flourished over the recent decades; however, the domains are fragmented, and the findings are inclusive. The purpose of this study is to systematically review, analyse and synthesize the empirical articles in this area, identify research gaps and suggest a future research agenda.

This study uses the qualitative content analysis method in reviewing and analysing 150 articles published in 24 scholarly journals during the period 2000–2023.

The literature uses a variety of theoretical perspectives to examine the key determinants of subsidiary performance which can be grouped into six major domains, namely, home- and host country-level factors; distance between home and host countries; the characteristics of parent firms and of subsidiaries; and governance mechanisms (the establishment modes and ownership strategy, subsidiary autonomy and the use of home country expatriates for transferring knowledge from the headquarters and controlling foreign subsidiaries). A range of objective and subjective indicators are used to measure subsidiary performance. Yet, the research shows a lack of broader integration of theories and presents inconsistent theoretical predictions, inconclusive empirical findings and estimation bias, which hinder our understanding of how the determinants independently and jointly shape the performance of foreign subsidiaries.

This study provides a comprehensive, nuanced and systematic review that synthesizes and clarifies the determinants of subsidiary performance, offers deeper insights from both theoretical, methodological and empirical aspects and proposes some promising avenues for future research directions.

This discursive paper considers the use of restrictive practices in mental health inpatient settings and how these are often prioritised over relational approaches, especially where the diagnostic label of personality disorder intersects with risk.

Key concepts from Orwell’s 1984 are studied for their pertinence to mental health inpatient settings, supporting our argument that restrictive practices arise from dichotomous thinking and externalised fears.

Drawing upon Orwellian themes of power, social control and digital surveillance from 1984, the authors highlight the role of fear in perpetuating restrictive practices under a guise of benevolent care in mental health inpatient settings, especially for those who are diagnosed with a personality disorder. A lack of preparedness to work with complexity in such environments, coupled with a deficit in self-reflexivity and critical thinking, can exacerbate challenges.

To transcend damaging dichotomies and reduce restrictive practices in inpatient settings, the authors make the argument for the adequate preparation and education of the mental health nurse and authentic, collaborative, user-involved care.

The authors use Orwell’s novel to support a critical discourse around those damaging dichotomies and inherent contradictions that contribute to restrictive practice in contemporary mental health settings and to question whose interests’ these restrictive practices serve.