Search results

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).