Search results

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.

Firms are accountable for upholding worker rights and well-being in their supply base. The authors unpack the evolution in lead firm thinking and practice about how to assure labor conditions at suppliers.

The authors conducted interviews with the social sustainability leaders at 22 global corporations (“lead firms”) and their sustainability consultants to understand how they think about, and enact efforts, to support labor in their supply base. The authors complement this with an analysis of stated practice in proprietary supplier codes of conduct for the manufacturing and extractive-related firms in the S&P 500 and FTSE 350.

The authors’ interviews suggest firms follow two distinct and cumulative approaches: a transactional-based approach leveraging collective buyer power to enforce supplier compliance and a relational-based approach focused on mutual capacity building between lead (buyer) firms and their suppliers. The authors also see the emergence, in a small subset of firms, of a bottom-up approach that recognizes supplier workers as rights-holders and empowers them to understand and claim their rights.

The authors identify systematic convergence in supplier codes of conduct. While the transactional and relational approaches are well documented in the supply chain social sustainability literature, the rights-holder approach is not. Its emergence presents an important complement to the other approaches and enables a broader recognition of human rights, and the duty of Western firms to assure those rights.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the relationship between founder-chief executive officers (CEOs) and firm performance. Specifically, the paper explores two opposing arguments on the performance implications of founder-CEO leadership. The first theoretical perspective argues that founder-CEOs positively contribute to firm performance since they bring passion, vision, and external legitimacy to the organization. The contrary resource-based perspective, argues that while founder-CEOs help in the early years of the firm, they become less effective as the firm evolves into a complex bureaucracy since they lack the necessary managerial skills.

In order to test these perspectives, the paper develops a matched sample of 82 US manufacturing firms and compared their performance using both accounting and market-based measures. Independent sample t-tests and analysis of variance were used to empirically test the opposing predictions. Data were obtained from the Mergent Online database as well as official proxy filings of sample firms.

The results of the data analysis indicate that there is a statistically significant performance difference between founder-led and non-founder led firms. Such performance difference is especially evident when the paper focusses on accounting-based firm performance measures such as return on assets and return on investment. Surprisingly, founder-led firms performed worse than those led by non-founder CEOs. The follow-up analysis indicates a significant difference in age and size among sample firms led by founders and non-founders such that founder-led firms tend to be younger and smaller in size.

Unlike other studies in the literature that found a strong positive impact of founder-CEOs, the findings of the study provided empirical support for the resource-based explanation of founder-CEO impact on firm performance. Specifically, the findings reported here contribute to understanding the role of founder-CEOs in the context of executive succession, strategy selection as well as organizational evolution.

This study makes original contribution to the on-going research on strategic leadership by exploring the performance effect of founder-CEOs and the corresponding alternative theoretical explanations. In addition, the inclusion of both accounting and market-based (Tobin's Q) dependent variables provide a broader measure of firm financial performance.

The purpose of this study is to examine how business founders influence the performance of family firms in developing countries in Asia.

The pooled ordinary least squares regression is used on a sample of 134 public listed family firms from four developing countries in Asia during the period 2004–2014. This study also conducts sub-period analyses where the study period is divided into three sub-periods, i.e. before, during and after the global financial crisis (GFC).

This study finds that founder-led family firms outperform family firms led by nonfounders for the full study period. The results for the sub-period analyses also show that founder-led family firms outperform nonfounder-led family firms for the pre-crisis and during crisis periods. Finally, this study finds no evidence supporting the superior performance of founder-led family firms post-GFC.

Because family firm is one of the most fundamental forms of business organization in the world, policymakers have great concerns about how business founders influence the performance of these firms. Nonetheless, the existing research on family firms is chiefly concentrated on developed countries but there is a paucity of studies being conducted in the context of developing countries. Moreover, previous research has only considered the performance of these firms during normal or turbulent times but no prior studies have compared the firm performance during normal, turbulent and recovery periods. It is the aim of this paper to address these research gaps by using a new and more recent set of data.

This research explores how firms manage the complex technologies standardization in action groups. It considers the strategic issues that technology producers face when involving lead users in architecture design. Drawing on the multi-mode standardization literature, this study addresses two dilemmas regarding value creation and appropriation by technology producers within coalitions. The first dilemma is how to create value by developing solutions in compliance with industry standards. The second one is how to appropriate value while ensuring the technology sharing with action groups. The answers to these two dilemmas contribute to filling the research gap on value creation and appropriation in multi-mode standardization.

The research focuses on technology producers participating in action groups where lead users play a crucial role. We conducted a qualitative analysis based on the standardization experience of a Japanese company specializing in smart robotics. Data are collected through semi-structured interviews with key actors. Action groups are defined operationally as a set of stakeholders including competitors of the technology producers, component suppliers, end users, services providers, research centers and academia. The case study is suitable for highlighting specific aspects of the standardization process during its manifestation. It reveals how firms create and appropriate value, providing details about its standardization strategy.

Our findings show that smart robotics standardization is drivn by collaborative models, where the two dilemmas of value creation and appropriation are evident. Firstly, the case revealed that standardization is lead users oriented. Secondly, lead users’ involvement is crucial to customize technologies. Thirdly, the firm’s position is to share a part of the value with the members. The IPR policy is a matter of interest within action groups, since the collaboration is based on open innovation models to share patents and licenses related knowledge.

This research has some limitations attributable to the limited generalizability of the results due to the qualitative analysis. In addition, this study considers the perspective of technology producers, but should also take into account the perspective of both collective actions itself and the lead users. Findings have some implications in the strategy negotiation. Participating in action groups is not enough to ensure a competitive advantage. Involving lead users is of strategic importance to acquire a competitive advantage. Lead users contribute to the producers’ technology design, helping firms to differentiate solutions from the industry standard and create value from customized technologies.

This study helps practitioners understand the competitive side of collective actions, clarifying the value capture and appropriability in standardization. The research provides insights to policymakers and standard development organizations committees when they are called to harmonize standards considering the fallouts on the sector’s competitiveness. Findings suggest appropriate property rights policies to manage the issues related to the value appropriability and technology sharing, recognizing action groups members for their contribution in value creation.

This study shows how firms deal within action groups with the two dilemmas of variety versus technology conformity and property rights versus technology sharing. It fills the research gap in collective actions, emphasizing the perspective of the individual firm in the group rather than the coalition strategy itself. This topic highlights the crucial role of lead users within action groups in managing the two dilemmas, offering a new perspective for understanding critical issues of multi-mode standardization. Reflecting on mechanisms and tools to manage the two dilemmas allows firms to protect their competitive advantage in coalitions.

We develop a concept of the global factory, first introduced by Buckley and colleagues (2004, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014), as a stand-alone construct associated with significant predictive capacity, discuss dynamics of success of the global factory, and identify and analyze social mechanisms deployed by the lead firm head office.

We conceptualize the global factory as a form of a flagship network and augment internalization theory with insights from interorganizational networks research to explore the dynamics of the global factory’s origination and functioning.

We clarify under what conditions a global factory-type network is more likely to emerge and describe social mechanisms generated by the lead firm head office to help the global factory sustain itself and thrive. We argue that in order to benefit from potential efficiencies of the global factory, the lead firm head office must deploy combinations of social mechanisms. We further argue that the role of the lead firm head office is that of a joint value orchestrator and a social broker, in addition to the controlling intelligence function.

Future work on the global factory should include further conceptualization of social mechanisms deployed by the lead firm, exploration of operating mode heterogeneity within the global factory, and large-scale empirical research.

Lead firm managers should embrace the role of the joint value orchestrators and implement social mechanisms described in this chapter to facilitate smooth operation of the global factory.

Global factory governance further increases multinationals’ geographic reach and market power; yet, it is not a universal recipe for market success, and therefore global factories’ power to shape the global economy should not be overestimated.

By linking the global factory to networks literature, we have suggested a novel way to view the concept and articulated more fully its underlying assumptions. Further research on the global factory will help advance our understanding of the dynamics of the global economy and the role of multinationals, their head offices, and their managers in shaping the economy.

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.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

The purpose of this research is to explore the impact of women in the C-suite on strategic marketing choices in general and CSR in particular is scant. To that end, this study explores whether and how firms led by female CEOs differ from those led by male CEOs with regard to the types of CSR they pursue. The study classifies CSR into two types: relational (i.e. related to employees, human rights, community and diversity) and rational (i.e. related to product, environment and corporate governance).

To create the sample, the authors combined four databases: Compustat, Execucomp, Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) and Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini and Co., Inc. (KLD). Data for the time period between 1992 and 2013 (both inclusive) were used for the investigation. The final sample comprised of 2,739 firms, for a total of 19,969 firm-year observations (an unbalanced panel).

Building on self-construal theory and theory of female ethics, the authors theorize and find evidence that while firms led by male and female CEOs are not significantly different with regard to rational CSR performance, firms led by female CEOs outperform those led by male CEOs with regard to their relational CSR performance. Furthermore, the authors also find that different types of CEO power (i.e. managerial power, legitimate power and formal power) moderate the link between CEO gender and types of CSR differently.

This research contributes to research on CSR by introducing two new types of CSR: relational CSR and rational CSR. Further, the research contributes to the broader discussion of how senior managers inject their gender roles into their CSR choices. The authors provide important insights in this area by highlighting that at least some types of myopic management are also driven by CEO gender: female CEOs – to the extent that they are more likely to invest in CSR strengths which pay off in the long run – engage in less myopic management than male CEOs with regard to CSR choices.

To prospective managers, this research suggests that the gender of the CEO is an effective signal that can help them predict firms’ likely CSR behavior. More specifically, firms led by female CEOs are likely to outperform those led by male CEOs with regard to certain dimensions of CSR (higher relational and rational strengths and fewer relational concerns) and this effect of CEO gender on firms’ CSR behavior is likely to be more pronounced when the CEO exhibits certain kinds of power. Female CEOs may benefit by understanding their innate tendencies to focus on relational versus rational CSR, thereby taking advantage of the positive aspects of their tendencies.

This paper classifies CSR into two types: relational and rational. The findings indicate the benefits of this nuanced classification: female CEOs have a stronger impact on relational CSR compared to male CEOs, while the two types of CEOs do not show a significant difference with regard to their impact on rational CSR. The paper also shows that dividing the variable of CEO power into its sub-types, i.e. managerial power (CEO duality), legitimate power (CEO tenure) and formal power (CEO-TMT pay gap) has value as each of these power dimensions is found to impact the CEO gender-CSR relationship differently.

Against the theoretical backdrop of the embeddedness and the resilience literatures, this paper investigates if and how SMEs' planning for adversity affects firms' performance.

The paper develops hypotheses that investigate the link between the risk management of immigrant-led and native-led SMEs and their performance and draw on novel data from a survey on 900 immigrant- and 2,416 native-led SMEs in 5 European cities to test them.

Immigrant-led SMEs are less likely to implement an adversity plan, especially when they are in an enclave sector. However, adversity planning is important to enhance the growth of immigrant-led businesses, even outside a crisis period, and it reduces the performance gap vis-à-vis native-led businesses. Inversely, the positive association between adversity planning and growth in the sample of native entrepreneurs is mainly driven by entrepreneurs who have experienced a severe crisis in the past.

This paper empirically uses planning for adversity as an anticipation stage of organizational resilience and tests it in the context of immigrant and native-led SMEs. Results support the theoretical reasoning that regularly scanning for threats and seeking information beyond the local community equips immigrant-led SMEs with a broader structural network which translates into new organizational capabilities. Furthermore, results contribute to the process-based view of resilience demonstrating that regularly planning for adversity builds a firm's resilience potential, though the effect is contingent on the nationality of the leaders.