Search results

This chapter reflects on how global value chain resilience can be achieved in the aftermath of recent crises. Drawing on the view that globalization is not linear, and that contextualization is an important part of the international business discipline, the author argues that global value chain resilience needs to also be viewed from the perspective of emerging market supplier firms. Building resilience from international production restructure to create more flexibility may enhance multinational lead firms’ resilience in the aftermath of recent crises. But they may not be viable options for emerging market supplier firms that are location- and activity-bound. Building resilience from supplier firms’ perspective may have more to do with increasing operational efficiency in their value chain. Contextualizing resilience from the perspective of emerging market firms should contribute to ongoing discussions and debate on future global value chain resilience.

The purpose of this paper explains how the framework on motives of foreign direct investment (FDI) needs to be rethought when analyzing emerging market multinational enterprises (EMNEs). It argues that the weak position of emerging market firms and their interdependent relationship with lead firms in global value chains (GVCs) modify the selection of internationalization motives.

The arguments are illustrated through a critical review of the literature on FDI motives and a discussion on how the literature can be extended from looking through the lens of emerging market multinationals, particularly those with early development as suppliers in global value chains.

The weak position of emerging market firms and their interdependent relationship with lead firms in global value chains modify the selection of internationalization motives on two aspects. First, internationalization decisions of EMNEs in GVCs are not undertaken in an independent manner. Rather, decisions are influenced by the initial position along the value chain and the dynamic relationships that these EMNEs have with lead firms. Second, the selection of FDI motives of these EMNEs reflects both their international expansion strategy and the upgrading effort they wish to pursue to undertake higher value-adding activities along the GVCs.

These implications addressed in this paper add more nuances to the interpretation of FDI motives. Previously viewed mainly from the perspective of lead firms, FDI decisions are considered as independent alternatives that multinational enterprises (MNEs) can undertake to fulfill their internationalization strategy. Revisiting the FDI motives from the perspective of EMNEs reveals further insights on the interdependent nature of their internationalization, particularly reflecting the weaker position of EMNEs and their interdependent relationship with lead firms in their industry.

Crises are often studied in international business (IB) research as the external “context” for business strategies, but firms can also be active participants in the unfolding of crises. The study of crises in IB could benefit greatly from studying the role of multinational enterprises (MNEs) as active participants, rather than as mere passive actors, responding to exogenous events. History shows that IB crises typically unfold partially as exogenous processes, and partly as the result of MNE strategies. A multilevel and longitudinal approach to studying crises in IB is clearly necessary. This chapter considers the extent to which smaller events that preceded the present crisis – since 1989 – point to systemic problems in global governance. It also defines five overlapping lenses through which future IB studies can further create relevant insights on how to deal with crises: historic, macro, meso, micro and exogenous. The chapter finally serves as an introduction to the whole Progress in International Business Research volume by indicating the relevance of all parts and chapters that follow.