Search results

This paper aims at enriching the literature on international business (IB) studies to include insights from Global Value Chain (GVC) analysis to better explain how MNCs can orchestrate a global network organization. A first important contribution of the GVC literature is that it shifts the focus from single firms to their value chains, providing instruments to study how activities are split and organized among different firms at the industry level, and how MNCs can implement different governing mechanisms within a network-based setting. The GVC literature also highlights that retailers (as global buyers) often act as ‘lead firms’ in shaping the trajectories of global industries, while IB studies have so far focused predominantly on manufacturing firms. A fine-grained analysis of alternative forms of governance characterizing value chains can offer additional elements in explaining how MNCs can manage their network relationships in a global scenario. Finally, through their focus on upgrading, GVC studies suggest that knowledge flows and innovation dynamics taking place within value chains are as important as those taking place within the MNC’s organizational border. We conclude by arguing that these insights can help the IB literature to examine the challenges and opportunities MNCs face in engaging with suppliers and to explain the dynamic evolution of orchestrating global activities at the global level.

Purpose – After tracing the development of the global value chains (GVC) approach, the chapter argues that by refocusing on the international strategies of lead firms it is possible to bring location specificity issues into play and contribute to retrieve a distinctive international content to the GVC governance theory.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter discusses the GVC governance theory, drawing from recent contributions in the field of international business (IB).

Findings – Although designed to account for the rise of new inter-firm networks controlled by international lead firms, the new GVC theory of governance somehow lacks a distinct international content and, privileging transactional constraints, falls short of explicitly considering variations in lead firm structural characteristics and strategies. An alternative governance schema is then proposed, taking explicitly into account the strategic evaluations that lead firms carry out with regard to their internal resources compared to suppliers’.

Research limitations/implications (if applicable) – The chapter provides the outlines of a new promising international research agenda for GVC researchers. Additional research is needed to further investigate the relation between location specificity, the strategic motives to go global and the international organisation of the value chain.

Practical implications (if applicable) – The alternative governance schema proposed in the chapter aspires to represent a simple tool aimed at supporting managers in the establishment of the appropriate boundaries of the firm.

Originality/value – The chapter shows that both IB research and GVC analysis could greatly benefit from reasoned cross-fertilisation.

In this paper, we evaluated the impact of the US “Chip Act” on the participation of the Chinese electronics industry in the global value chain based on the dynamic CGE model. This is a meaningful attempt to use the GTAP-VA model to analyze the electronics industry in China.

We employ a Dynamic GTAP-VA Model to quantitatively evaluate the economic repercussions of the “Chip Act” on the Chinese electronic industries' GVC participation from 2023 to 2040.

The findings depict a discernible contraction in China’s electronic sector by 2040, marked by a −2.95% change in output, a −3.50% alteration in exports and a 0.45% increment in imports. Concurrently, the U.S., EU and certain Asian economies exhibit expansions within the electronic sector, indicating a GVC realignment. The “Chip Act” implementation precipitates a significant divergence in GVC participation across different countries and industries, notably impacting the electronics sector.

Through a meticulous temporal analysis, this manuscript unveils the nuanced economic shifts within the GVC, substantially bridging the empirical void in existing literature. This narrative accentuates the profound implications of policy regulations on global trade dynamics, contributing to the discourse on international economic policy and industry evolution.

We evaluated the impact of the US “Chip Act” on the participation of the Chinese electronics industry in the global value chain based on the dynamic CGE model. This is a meaningful attempt to use the GTAP-VA model to analyze the electronics industry in China.

The interaction between policy regulations and global value chain (GVC) dynamics is pivotal in understanding the contemporary global trade framework, especially within technology-driven sectors. The US “Chips Act” represents a significant regulatory milestone with potential ramifications on the Chinese electronic industries' engagement in the GVC.

The significance of this paper is that it quantifies for the first time the impact of the US Chip Act on the GVC participation index of East Asian countries in the context of US-China decoupling. With careful consideration of strategic aspects, this paper substantially fills the empirical gap in the existing literature by presenting subtle economic changes within GVCs, highlighting the profound implications of policy regulation on global trade dynamics.

The paper investigates the effects of global value chains (GVCs) and technological innovation on exports. The paper builds a new dataset from two database, the EORA and the OECD stan database. Using a pooled OLS and a two-stage quantile regression technique on a sample of 8 OECD countries, the results suggest that the effects of GVCs participation are heterogeneous across countries. We find that at the aggregate level, GVCs and forward participation are negatively associated with exports growth. However, we only find evidence of a positive effect of backward participation on exports in the case of France and Germany. At the disaggregated level, we find that: (a) an increase in GVCs participation in low technology intensive sectors is positively associated with exports’growth; (b) an increase in GVCs participation in high technology intensive sector is negatively correlated with exports’growth. The findings stress the importance of GVCs as a driving channel for subdue economic growth in low technological sectors.

The purpose of this research is to understand how power relations in global value chains (GVCs) shape the upgrading of offshoring service providers (OSPs). More specifically, the chapter addresses two questions: (1) How power asymmetry in GVC shapes the upgrading prospects for OSPs? and (2) How OSPs manage the power asymmetry in GVC and upgrade to a more favorable position?

The context for this study is the software value chain. Drawing upon relational economic geography and GVC literature, we build an analytical framework based on three conceptual building blocks: client power, upgrading, and upgrading practices. Based on the analytical framework and in-depth interviews, we design a case study of one OSP in the Pakistani software industry, referred to as OSP#A.

The findings reveal that GVCs exercise a high level of power on OSPs. This power is exercised through enforcing certain conditions to participate and coordinate in GVCs. However, it is found that OSP#A is not passive recipient of these demands. Instead, it actively manages the power asymmetry through building practices to adapt and collaborate in GVCs and attain relational proximity.

The chapter highlights the significance of upgrading practices and conceptualizing upgrading as a process of improving relational power in GVCs by attaining relational proximity.

The discourse on global value chains (GVC) is undergoing a transformation in terms of its conceptualisation, theorisation and pragmatic applications. Today, the production systems have become more complex as global economic order continues to witness marked geo-economic manoeuvring. Thus, the direction of discourse on GVC ought to move from mere theoretical propositions toward becoming more evidence based. There have been recent studies that have used the governance and upgrading propositions by Gary Gereffi and others to seek quantitative evidence. This study aims to decipher the quantitative discourse on GVC and to set the emerging and future research agenda.

Through a systematic literature review, the authors first analyse the quantitative studies on GVC carried out during the last two decades. The authors then outline a future research agenda and examine a few relevant modelling techniques that could potentially be used to solicit newer evidence in GVC research.

The authors categorise the quantitative discourse on GVC into three crucial themes, namely, GVC framework, GVC participation and position, environmental aspects and regionalisation in GVC. The most commonly used quantitative techniques are gravity model, panel data estimation, structural decomposition analysis and computable general equilibrium modelling.

This paper contributes to the GVC discourse in two ways. Firstly, the authors argue that the theoretical frameworks within the GVC discourse should be complemented by evidence-based quantitative studies. Secondly, the authors suggest potential modelling techniques that can be used on the emerging and future research agenda.

This paper aims to explore the pathways of carbon transfer in 200 US corporations along with the motivations that drive such transfers. The particular focus is on each firm’s embeddedness in the global value chain (GVC) and the influence of environmental law, operational costs and corporate social responsibility (CSR). The insights gleaned bridge a gap in the literature surrounding GVCs and corporate carbon transfer.

The methodology comprised a two-step research approach. First, the authors used a two-sided fixed regression to analyse the relationship between each firm’s embeddedness in the GVC and its carbon transfers. The sample consisted of 217 US firms. Next, the authors examined the influence of environmental law, operational costs and CSR on carbon transfers using a quantitative comparison analysis. These results were interpreted through the theoretical frameworks of the GVC and legitimacy theory.

The empirical results indicate positive relationships between carbon transfers and GVC embeddedness in terms of both a firm’s position and its degree. From the quantitative comparison, the authors find that the pressure of environmental law and operational costs motivate these transfers through the value chain. Furthermore, CSR does not help to mitigate transfers.

The findings offer insights for policymakers, industry and academia to understand that, with globalised production and greater value creation, transferring carbon to different parts of the GVC – largely to developing countries – will only become more common. The underdeveloped nature of environmental technology in these countries means that global emissions will likely rise instead of fall, further exacerbating global warming. Transferring carbon is not conducive to a sustainable global economy. Hence, firms should be closely regulated and given economic incentives to reduce emissions, not simply shunt them off to the developing world.

Carbon transfer is a major obstacle to effectively reducing carbon emissions. The responsibilities of carbon transfer via GVCs are difficult to define despite firms being a major consideration in such transfers. Understanding how and why corporations engage in carbon transfers can facilitate global cooperation among communities. This knowledge could pave the way to establishing a global carbon transfer monitoring network aimed at preventing corporate carbon transfer and, instead, encouraging emissions reduction.

This study extends the literature by investigating carbon transfers and the GVC at the firm level. The authors used two-step research approach including panel data and quantitative comparison analysis to address this important question. The authors are the primary study to explore the motivation and pathways by which firms transfer carbon through the GVC.

Despite the popularity of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) concept, research on its value-adding activities receives less attention. Thus, in this article, the authors investigate the role of EEs in supporting global value chain (GVC) activities.

The authors employ the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) technique to identify practical configurations of EE’s framework and systemic conditions spurring GVC activities in 80 countries.

The findings suggest different configurations of EE`s framework and systemic conditions necessary for various GVC activities regarding input-output structure, geographical scope, upgrading, and forward and backward participation.

This study contributes to the extant literature by pioneering the EE approach to explaining GVC development. Moreover, the findings provide novel insights for understanding the EE – GVC interplay. As a result, the study offers a more nuanced understanding of how the EE supports GVC activities.

In international business (IB), the discussion of COVID-19-related global value chain (GVC) models driving resilience has taken momentum since May 2020. The purpose of this study is to uncover insights that the pandemic provided as a unique research opportunity, holistically, revealing the significant role of non-lead firms in GVC outcomes and resilience. This allows to extend theory as the authors critically identify impact criteria and assess interdependence and valence, thus progressing the traditional (pre-pandemic) IB view of GVC governance and orchestration.

This study opts for an integrative review to help create a much-needed extension of IB theory by means of a critical perspective on GVC theory. The authors examine the extant body of IB literature as the relevant stock of collective IB knowledge prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, uncovering contributions – with a focus on the role of non-lead firms in orchestration and resilience – that allows to clarify what was not evident pre-pandemic. With this, the authors move the theory from its efficiency focus to a better recognition of the interdependencies of power and profit outcomes stemming from asymmetries of interrelationships. By design, the authors focus on the unique research period of the pandemic and orchestration complexities along the development of configurational arguments beyond simple correlations (Fiss, 2011), revealing key dependencies as key themes. The authors highlight further research avenues following Snyder (2019) that are called upon to strengthen that understanding and that helps extend theory.

This research provides a critical perspective on the application of the traditional IB views for GVC governance (designed for efficiency, cost and proximity to markets with pre-dominance for just in time), which has shifted during the pandemic to accommodate for adaptation and adjustment to resilience and just in case considerations. The holistic review reveals not only the key country- and multinational enterprise (MNE)-dependencies with residual impact determining the balance between just-in-time and just-in-case. Also, the authors advance the understanding of the (un)balance of the traditional GVC – focused on just-in-case rather than just-in-time through a lead and non-lead GVC participation and power lens yet rarely observed. The authors find that governance should not be construed as “management” such that it resolves into decisions undertaken in lead firms for execution in subordinate GVC participants. Autonomy allows to subsidiary units by MNE lead firms and/or exercised by (mainly, innovative) non-subsidiary GVC participant firms, is uncovered as a key driver in this. Greater delegation capacity appears to help provide resilience to loss in profit, with a recognition that there may be a dynamic trade-off between power and profit. In addition, the authors are able to identify correlations with innovation, demand elasticity, digital uptake, investment and other, that the authors trust will set the scene for additional research deepening and extending the findings.

Integrative literature reviews include a problem formulation (i.e. that is limited to published topics around an emerging theme) and are hence very focused in nature and approach. This applies to this paper. Data analysis in this method is not typically using statistical methods in contrast to meta-analyses. Also, the authors limit the sample to a relatively short time period with 33 publications analysed, purposefully focusing on the most prompt and “acute” insights into GVCs during the pandemic.

The traditional GVC governance model is designed for efficiency, cost and proximity to markets with pre-dominance for just in time. The authors reveal dependencies that are instrumental to better understand lead and non-lead interaction and relative autonomy, with a focus on residual impact determining the balance between just-in-time and just-in-case that, if in the sought equilibrium and agile, can allow alignment with context and this resilience. This paper specifically provides practical insights and visualization that highlights stages/“ripple” effects and their impact and the questions to ask as stakeholders look for GVC resilience. This includes, int.al., firms and their role as strategic agents, prompting participants through the learnings from exogenous shock to realign their strategies, redistributed manufacturing of production across subsidiary and non-subsidiary non-lead firms, greater competition and hence power for suppliers leveraging resilience and innovation, greater understanding of localization and regionalization of production of essential supplies, interaction with governments, and of investment impacts abroad especially to secure GVC participation.

The insights provided through this extension of theory with its literature review reveal the importance of aligning IB research into GVCs to factors that became visible through alternative or unusual settings, as they have the power to reveal the limitations of traditional views. In this case, a mainly efficiency-led, just-in-time focused GVC governance model is reviewed through the literature that emanated during the pandemic, with a critical perspective, which helped uncover and underline the complexities and evolution of GVC governance, providing fundamental support to solutioning the continuing global supply chain challenges that started as a result of the pandemic and are yet again accelerated by the Ukraine and Middle Eastern wars and its impact with, int.al., concerns over possible severe global food, labour/migration and resources crises. IB holds a social responsibility to help identify critical challenges from the disciplinary perspective and help advance resilience for social benefit.

This paper supports the original IB theory development by extending GVC theory into the lead – non-lead dynamics that may, under certain conditions, provide a “Resilience wall” for GVCs. The value created through insights stemming from a unique period of time for GVC is significant. It allows us thus also to pave the way to an emerging and critical research adaption looking into equilibrium, nuancing demand elasticity, better understanding trade and investment impacts along GVCs and more. By examining views on the sources of pandemic risks in a possibly unique setting, the authors offer added value from extant IB research insights by combining them, revealing the importance for GVCs to investigate not only key dependencies between the exogenous shock, i.e. context, and the impacts assessed through this literature but to further use their inherent value to create a framework for further conceptualization and extension of the traditional IB view on GVC governance. This work illustrates the urgency and importance for IB to take a timely and possibly more critical approach to the investigation of governance models that have, to date, shown some significant limitations.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the global value chain (GVC) approach to understand the relationship between multinational enterprises (MNEs) and the changing patterns of global trade, investment and production, and its impact on economic and social upgrading. It aims to illuminate how GVCs can advance our understanding about MNEs and rising power (RP) firms and their impact on economic and social upgrading in fragmented and dispersed global production systems.

The paper reviews the GVC literature focusing on two conceptual elements of the GVC approach, governance and upgrading, and highlights three key recent developments in GVCs: concentration, regionalization and synergistic governance.

The paper underscores the complicated role of GVCs in shaping economic and social upgrading for emerging economies, RP firms and developing country firms in general. Rising geographic and organizational concentration in GVCs leads to the uneven distribution of upgrading opportunities in favor of RP firms, and yet economic upgrading may be elusive even for the most established suppliers because of power asymmetry with global buyers. Shifting end markets and the regionalization of value chains can benefit RP firms by presenting alternative markets for upgrading. Yet, without further upgrading, such benefits may be achieved at the expense of social downgrading. Finally, the ineffectiveness of private standards to achieve social upgrading has led to calls for synergistic governance through the cooperation of private, public and social actors, both global and local.

The paper illuminates how the GVC approach and its key concepts can contribute to the critical international business and RP firms literature by examining the latest dynamics in GVCs and their impacts on economic and social development in developing countries.