Search results

This paper explores the major factors influencing multinational companies’ (MNCs) propensity to change the level of resource commitments during financial crises in emerging markets. Favorable changes in the host government policies, market demand, firm strategy, and infrastructural conditions are hypothesized to influence the MNCs’ decision to increase resource commitments during a crisis. The hypotheses are tested with data collected in a survey of 82 MNCs during the recent Argentine financial crisis (late 2002). While all the above variables are considered by the respondents as generally important reasons for increasing resource commitments during a crisis, only favorable changes in government policies significantly influence MNCs’ decisions to change the level of resource commitments during the Argentine financial crisis. The research, managerial implications, and policy‐making implications are discussed.

Based on a review of over 450 articles on multinational enterprises published in leading management journals from 1990‐2000, we identified eighteen issues that had engaged the attention of academic scholarship and evaluated their topical relevance. Ironically, very few of them addressed two of the most pressing issues facing business and society at the turn of the last millennium: terrorism and socio‐economic inequality. These glaring omissions suggest a gap between academic scholarship that focuses on “what is,” and research that speculates as to “what could be.” Suggestions are offered on how to close this important gap in the fi eld of international business.

Business research has highlighted the importance of knowledge transfer and innovation in multinational firms for better performance outcomes. However, the existing body of literature is characterized by differentiated theories, antecedents and outcomes. This study aims to address this gap by adopting a systematic approach to analyze knowledge transfer and innovation literature from the perspective of multinational organizations.

This study follows “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” (PRISMA) guidelines for conducting a systematic literature review. The study adopts a systematic approach for analyzing the literature using School of thought (S), Contexts (C), Methodologies (M), Triggers (T), Barriers (B), Facilitators (F) and Outcomes (O) framework (SCM-TBFO framework) devised for holistic literature review. The study analyzes 75 articles from reputed journals from 2000 to 2022.

In general, knowledge transfer and innovation in multinationals is a relatively new area and is evolving rapidly. There are many opportunities to study the various perspectives that are included in the SCM-TBFO framework. The key schools of thought included the evolutionary theory of innovation, institutional theory and internationalization theory. The studies had differing settings or contexts, including China, Europe, the USA and Taiwan. Further, key methodologies that were used included regression, case studies, structural equation modeling (SEM) and theoretical studies. Knowledge transfer and innovation triggers included competitive advantage, competitive pressure, constant requirements for better products and services, foreign direct investment (FDI) and globalization. Knowledge transfer and innovation facilitators were categorized into strategy-related facilitators, organization culture and orientation-related facilitators, and resource-related facilitators. Knowledge transfer and innovation barriers included autonomy, international knowledge dispersion, risk of knowledge leakage, search breadth, ambiguity and institutional voids. Key outcomes of knowledge transfer and innovation in multinationals included financial performance, innovation performance, knowledge flow, transfer effectiveness, patents and new product development.

By synthesizing the literature, the study aims to provide an overview of the current state of research on knowledge transfer and innovation in multinationals. The study develops a holistic model for fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in multinationals. The proposed novel framework can also be applied to perform a holistic assessment of the current literature in various research domains. Further, the study suggests future theory development and research agendas. The study also provides implications for practitioners using the framework to achieve more desirable outcomes.

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.

We examine the mode of international expansion as an equilibrium governance contract between home country and host country factor owner. The focus is on agency costs, a form of transactions costs. Two phenomena are shown to be related to the agency costs imposed by factor owners: (i) the choice of different modes of international expansion by one firm in different locations, and (ii) the simultaneous occurrence of several forms of foreign involvement in the same location. We attempt to characterize the dynamic relationship between the mode of an offshore operation and changes in factor market conditions that affect agency costs.

The purpose of this paper is to synthesize a manufacturing value network for digital multinationals that combines the global reach of multinationals, the power of platform business models and digitalization. Toward this, the authors assess the critical roles platform ecosystems, and Industry 4.0 play in resolving the key challenges associated with asset specificity, location specificity and information asymmetry, inherent in the conventional business models of manufacturing multinationals.

The authors take an exploratory approach in reviewing industry literature and analyzing implementations of digital technologies in manufacturing and supply chain processes at four large manufacturing multinationals from diverse industry sectors, from electronics to packaged food production. The authors also identify how value-creation activities are relocated, and how players collaborate to create and capture value. Consequently, the authors abstract a framework for global value network of manufacturing multinationals.

With changing definitions of industry, competition and organizations, the authors’ framework for manufacturing value network establishes the ways digitalization can be integrated in the global businesses of manufacturing multinationals, realizing the combinatorial effect of Industry 4.0 and platform ecosystems. The transformation redefines the ways multinationals have been leveraging their ownership-location-internalization (OLI) advantages. The authors recognize that the multinational orchestrator plays a critical role in creating shared goals for platform participants and governing the dynamics. In addition, the participants' propensity to trust the platform and the perceived trustworthiness of the orchestrator shape the scope and boundaries of the platform.

The authors raise critical questions about the role of multinational orchestrator and trust dimensions. In addition, the OLI-platform paradigm that incorporates the combinatorial effect of platform ecosystem and Industry 4.0 explains how multinationals create and capture value in new ways.

To better understand the relationship between the headquarters and subsidiaries of multinational corporations, we introduce and test a theoretical framework that builds on and extends the positive agency theoretic corporate governance literature. Results indicate that there are three types of subsidiary bundles of corporate governance mechanisms that are used by multinational corporations. In addition, the following factors can help predict what type of subsidiary bundle a multinational corporation will use to align the interests of its headquarters with a particular subsidiary: the multinational corporation’s international strategy, its subsidiary’s importance, environmental uncertainty faced by its subsidiary, and its subsidiary’s age.

This study analyzes the relationship between multinationality and performance of 1,247 US multinational enterprises (MNEs) over the period of 1995‐2004 by utilizing Tobin’s q theory. Internationalization is a double‐edged sword: foreign intangible assets create a firm’s value, while, at the same time, internationalization itself degrades the value by raising transaction costs and uncertainty in foreign operations. The empirical results show that US MNEs cannot increase their performance merely by developing their intangible assets in the rest of the home region (Canada and Mexico). Conversely, US MNEs rarely suffer from a liability of foreignness in their home region.

International business (IB) as a discipline has given limited attention to contemporary grand challenges of inequality, global warming, aging populations, endemic health crises, and de-globalization, in all of which multinationals are either central to the problem or may offer some solutions. A historical perspective makes clear the reason for this neglect. IB theory and implicit assumptions were shaped during the discipline’s formative period during the 1960s and the 1970s. This has left it excessively focused on the growth of manufacturing multinationals, and with naïve assumptions about the linear and benevolent progress of globalization. This mental toolkit is ill-equipped to understand the present. Engaging deeply with history can also enhance the contextual intelligence of IB. Academy of International Business’s founders barely questioned the positive impact of multinationals, yet historical evidence points to many negative outcomes, and to globalization driving inequality. Understanding how implicit assumptions and biases arose is the first step to re-set IB with research questions and methodologies relevant to a turbulent and de-globalized age.