Search results

This chapter provides a logical extension to the understanding of firm-specific advantages and disadvantages and the enabling role of existing and emerging country-specific advantages relevant to the process of Chinese firm internationalization. Its longitudinal perspective considers the changing objectives and actions of firms that enable them to compensate for disadvantages and create new or strengthen existing competitive advantages. The case study evaluation reveals that the evolution of strategic resources is the key motivator behind the internationalization of Chinese firms. Decisively encouraged by the Chinese government firms with corporate entrepreneurship aspire to alter themselves from home market leaders and regional players into globally competing multi-nationals. This process is made possible via the development of firm-specific advantages and continuous compensation for firm-specific disadvantages. The aspiration for strategic asset acquisition from developed countries combined with cost leadership and independent customer-centred innovation brought about strong firm-specific advantages stimulating the internationalization process of firms. The chapter focuses on the interdependence of country- and firm-specific advantages and disadvantages, thus recognizing the significance of the home country institutional context in Chinese outward foreign direct investment. It has been identified that corporate entrepreneurship is a significant firm-specific advantage for firm internationalization being a major force in gaining, accumulating, utilizing and leveraging resources for transforming firm-specific disadvantages into advantages. We argue that if the relational framework between governmental institutions and firms is more developed, the impact of country-specific advantages on firm-specific advantages is more favourable. This assumes that the government espouses an ideology that is favourable to corporate entrepreneurship.

This chapter analyzes the dynamics of crises. A crisis typically begins with the emergence of a critical situation, followed by poor leadership and mismanagement that precipitates the crisis itself. The causes of crises may be classified as natural, political, economic, financial, industry-specific and firm-specific. This chapter examines the causes and consequences of poor leadership and management in crises of different kinds. Firm-specific crisis is a surprisingly neglected topic. The failure of a firm may reflect external factors, for example, the decline of an industry, or internal factors, for example, management failures, or a combination of the two. The chapter explains firm-specific crisis in terms of firm-specific disadvantages, which are the opposite of the firm-specific advantages identified in internalization theory.

The purpose of this study is to use the rise of emerging-market multinationals as a vehicle to explore how a firm’s country of origin influences its internationalization.

This paper is a conceptual paper.

We argue that the home country’s institutional and economic underdevelopment can influence the internationalization of firms in two ways. First, emerging-market firms may leverage innovations made at home to cope with underdeveloped institutions or economic backwardness to gain a competitive advantage abroad, especially in other emerging markets; We call this innovation-based internationalization. Second, they may expand into countries that are more developed or have better institutions to escape weaknesses on these fronts at home; we call this escape-based internationalization.

Comparative disadvantages influence the internationalization of the firm differently from comparative advantage, as it forces the firm to actively upgrade its firm-specific advantage and internationalize.

We explain two drivers of internationalization that managers operating in emerging markets can consider when facing disadvantages in their home countries and follow several strategies, namely, trickle-up innovation, self-reliant innovation, improvisation management, self-reliance management, technological escape, marketing escape, institutional escape and discriminatory escape.

We explain how a firm’s home country’s comparative disadvantage, not just its comparative advantage, can spur firms its internationalization.

This paper aims to examine the global competitiveness of an emerging market multinational (EMM) from China through the case of a major European acquisition, in Italy, in the heavy construction industry. Country- and firm-specific factors are considered. Horizontal integration in this oligopolistic industry changes the industry dynamics, with significant implications for its players.

The paper follows case study methodology and triangulates data through a literature review, an examination of available company data and interviews of key personnel. Firm- and country-specific factors, both advantages and disadvantages, including the business environment in the construction industry, globally and regionally, are analyzed.

The paper identifies several key success factors at the firm level, including the integration of research and development, marketing and sales; the development of extensive communication and trust among the managers of both companies; the exploitation of the Chinese market as a source of demand; and the shifting of selected production lines to the Chinese market.

The traditional models of country-specific advantages/disadvantages and firm-specific advantages/disadvantages are augmented by examining the host market and industry task environments. Host country-specific factors for successful integration include favorable local conditions, both in terms of endowments and institutions, and an industrial cluster with supporting firms and services.

Following the case study, managers can refer to the key success factors to emulate “best practices”. The paper concludes with a heuristic developed by the Chairman of Zoomlinon, Chunxin Zhan, underlining five principles for a successful EEM acquisition: understanding, sharing, responsibility, compliance and coordination.

This paper develops a deep case study analysis and provides useful theoretical and practical implications with reference to Chinese acquisition in the Western markets.

Since China initiated its “go global” policy that promotes its overseas investment, China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI) has increased almost twenty times during the last 10 years, reaching $55.9 billion in 2008. The issue of internationalization of Chinese OFDI has attracted increasing attention of researchers from a business perspective. This article systematically reviews the previous studies on overseas investments by Chinese MNEs and discusses the characteristics of Chinese internationalization behavior at both firm level and country level. The internationalization of Chinese companies cannot be understood as a simple game of “catch up” with established MNEs, and more firm‐level empirical studies should be carried out on how these characteristics influence firms’ strategic decisions.

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 literature on foreignness has, to date, stressed the liability of foreignness (LOF) and the advantage of foreignness (AOF). Drawing on industrial organisation theory, institutional theory, the resource-based view of the firm and the literature on networking, the authors’ research develops an integrated framework to explore the impact of foreignness on internationalisation depth from the perspective of the duality of foreignness (LOF versus AOF) within multiple dimensions. These dimensions are isomorphism, home country of origin, institutional distance and dual embeddedness of multinational enterprises (MNEs).

In this study, the authors empirically test hypotheses arising from this new theoretical framework by examining the characteristics of a sample of 324 Chinese MNEs (CMNEs) that were operating in 63 countries from 1999 to 2018. Employing regression analysis on a panel of 9,410 observations, the results show that foreignness does exhibit multilevel complexity and duality.

The authors’ empirical results show that isomorphism pressures, country of origin and institutional distance have a negative effect on internationalisation depth (as an outcome of LOF) but that dual embeddedness, on the part of MNEs, exerts a positive impact on internationalisation depth (as an outcome of AOF). The implications for research on multilevel complexity and the duality of foreignness are discussed, and managerial implications are outlined.

The implications of the authors’ findings for MNEs should not be generalised to developed countries without examining the characteristics of both China as an emerging country and its MNEs. The second limit is regarding ownership; this framework has limitations due to choosing China and its OFDIs for testing internationalisation depth. Finally, for subsequent research, examining the dynamics of foreignness completes the nature of multicomplexity, defined by external and internal factors of foreignness changing over time and space.

CMNE managers are advised to actively scrutinise their behaviours in the local country to overcome the differences in routines, values and practices inherent in local institutions (Chen et al., 2019). The results imply that CMNEs should be careful not to overuse their home country image when penetrating a new market. Thus, a strategy to reduce a home government's hegemonic or otherwise negative image may be wise when operating abroad. Finally, the authors’ model suggests that CMNEs equipped with great RCN CIPs for identifying, scanning and interpreting local institutions can enhance internationalisation depth.

The authors’ research contributes to research on foreignness by emphasising foreignness as a construct of multilevel complexity. The authors argue that foreignness arises due to varying factors at the host, home, host-home levels and at the level of the organisational entity. The authors’ definition of foreignness and empirical results supports the notion that isomorphism pressures (host country-level factors), country-of-origin of home country (home country-level factors) and institutional distance (host-home country-level factors) are inextricably negatively linked with internationalisation depth (as effects of LOF). By contrast, the dual embeddedness of MNEs (the factor of organisational level) represents a positive relationship with internationalisation depth (as effects of AOF).

While research related to the resource-based view (RBV) has expanded markedly in the last decade, debates continue over the theory, the extent to which our understanding of the theory has been advanced in a meaningful way, and the most appropriate approaches for empirical RBV research. We present some additional perspectives on current debates, summarize key challenges that empirical studies face, and offer some suggestions and directions for future RBV research.

Empirical studies of the shareholder valuation impact of firms’ international joint venture (IJV) participation have usually emphasized firm‐specific factors, but rarely extended their analysis to location‐specific factors. This is a crucial omission because the two sets of factors are interconnected vis‐a‐vis their influence on firms’ performance. Yet, previous work has neither identified how the two sets of factors complement each other nor investigated the effect of these complementarities on the shareholder value of firms who enter into IJVs. This study attempts to fill these gaps. It develops a typology of IJVs and then performs cluster analysis on a sample of 241 equity IJVs. Results indicate eight clusters in the data, including three clusters with positive shareholder value. In deriving support for its six hypotheses, the study highlights both value‐creating and value‐neutral configurations of firm‐ and location‐specific variables.