Search results

As markets become increasingly competitive, it is important for multinational corporations to generate value. Both headquarters and subsidiaries are responsible for contributing to value generation, albeit they may do so in different ways. This builds on the notion from the literature that it is possible to discern two separate concepts that relate to the generation of value, namely, value creation and value added. These concepts are often used interchangeably, without a clear distinction what they de facto reflect or what the underlying mechanisms of value creation and value added are.

Based on a set of assumptions regarding headquarters–subsidiary relations conceptual arguments related to value generation are developed.

Teasing out the differences between the concepts becomes important as it leads to a fuller understanding of what a headquarters do in different situations and of what a headquarters–subsidiary relationship entails for value generation.

In this chapter, it is argued that value-adding activities tend to be conducted by a headquarters, but are dependent on varying knowledge situations of headquarters, while the value creation process tends to take place at the subsidiary level.

Purpose – To explore the influence of autonomy on subsidiaries' development and transfer intensities and their interrelationship.

Methodology/approach – We develop a theoretical model that we test on a sample of 85 innovation projects developed in 63 subsidiaries in 14 countries. The data were collected by personal interviews and analysed using the Partial Least Squares technique.

Findings – Autonomy is an important driver of subsidiaries' innovation intensity although, surprisingly, we find no influence on transfer intensity. We confirm the positive relationship between subsidiary innovativeness and its role as provider of new competence to sister units within the multinational enterprise (MNE).

Research limitations/implications – In line with previous studies, we can say that autonomy is a desirable result of subsidiary evolution. We can also suggest that overall subsidiary autonomy is beneficial not just to the subsidiary but to the rest of the MNE, since the more the subsidiary innovates the more related competence will be transferred. In other words, innovation efforts at subsidiary level are critical to sustain MNEs' overall competitive advantage.

Practical implications – First, it seems that the more a subsidiary's innovativeness is fostered, the more transfers to other units will occur. Second, we have seen how autonomy is beneficial to the innovative activity of the subsidiary and that it does not seem to harm transfer intensity.

Originality/value – Following studies that point out the potential trade-off between the output of development and transfer activities by subsidiaries, our research contributes by empirically testing the relationship between the intensities of subsidiary innovation development and transfer.

Purpose – To investigate the effects of headquarters (HQ) involvement in innovation development and transfer at unit level.

Methodology/approach – We develop a theoretical model that we test on a sample of 71 innovations belonging to 52 business units located throughout Europe, Asia, and the USA. The data were collected by personal interviews and analyzed using the partial least squares (PLS) technique.

Findings – While HQ involvement in innovation development enhances the effects on the unit engaged in the development, it is detrimental to performance of the innovation transfer process. We also find higher HQ involvement in the innovation development process and stronger innovation impact on the subsidiary to be associated with higher HQ involvement in the transfer process.

Research limitations/implications – There is a significant beneficial effect of HQ involvement in the development process in terms of the increased impact of the innovation in the unit, and a harmful influence on the specific performance associated to the transfer process.

Practical implications – HQs will benefit from improved performance if they become more involved in important innovations while limiting their direct engagement in the transfer of “marginal” innovations. It might also be wise for the HQs to rethink their involvement at unit level by separating the development process from the transfer process in their decision framework.

Originality/value of the paper – This is one of the first attempts to empirically connect the processes of innovation development and transfer at unit level in MNCs and to show the implications of HQ involvement in innovation projects at subsidiary level.

This volume of Progress in International Business Research comprises of a selection of 12 competitive papers from the 34th EIBA (European International Business Academy) annual conference, which was held in Tallinn, Estonia in December 2008 with the theme “International Business and the Catching-up Economies: Challenges and Opportunities”. It addresses two main issues – (1) the internationalization process and (2) the role of knowledge and innovation for internationalization – that are important in the current economic slowdown both for catching-up and for other economies, scholars, and practitioners.

The first aim of the chapter is to offer a characterization of back-reshoring as a possible step of the firm’s nonlinear internationalization process. The second aim is to review the empirical literature on back-reshoring and to complement it with the findings of an extensive data collection.

In this chapter we adopted an explorative approach building on both theoretical and empirical literature from the fields of international business and international operations Management. We also collected secondary data on back-reshoring decisions in order to define the magnitude of the investigated phenomenon and to offer a primary characterization.

Our findings confirm that, though it cannot be considered a generalized trend, back-reshoring is a very topical issue for international business scholars. It represents an autonomous phenomenon consistent with the idea of nonlinear internationalization process.

The chapter is based on cross-sectional data. Longitudinal research is required in order to address the proposed research questions and help understanding “how much” and what kind of manufacturing will be housed in western countries in the near future.

This is the first attempt to conceptualize back-reshoring as a possible step of the firms’ internationalization process. It is also the first chapter that summarizes and discusses the literature and empirical evidence on back-reshoring emerging from a wide range of countries.