Search results

The purpose of this paper is to respond to the comments by professor Ietto-Gillies on the paper on “The MNE as the Crown of Creation?”

The authors argue that the key points made in the commentary are broadly complementary to the arguments set out in the “Crown of Creation?”

The authors agree with the commentary that sources of advantages of multinationality lie “outside the MNE” – through its interactions with national governments and organised labour. However, the authors would caution that the achievement of such advantages may encounter constraints.

The original paper (“The MNE as the Crown of Creation?”) was a critique of mainstream theories of the MNE regarding the assumed superiority of the MNE. The response to the paper makes the argument that any superiority associated with MNE must be sought in its interactions with other actors.

The argument suggests that MNE managers seeking to exploit the advantage of multinationality through production shifting must be aware of the system-wide consequences of such actions.

Given the conceptual nature of the argument and the level of abstraction, solid social implications can only be drawn tentatively.

The key novelty in the response paper is the possible negative effect – for MNEs – of unconstrained exercise of production shifting.

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.

This paper aims to develop a conceptual framework and presents a number of propositions relating to why and how multinational companies (MNCs) engage in social innovations. The central focus is on the role of MNC knowledge, networks and power for their involvement in social innovations.

The authors combine literature on social innovations, business innovations and MNC literature, and present a number of propositions dealing with the link between MNC knowledge, networks and power-relations and their potential involvement in social innovations.

The authors emphasize that when social innovations are embraced by MNCs, the way that these corporations use their knowledge, networks and existing power-relations needs to be adapted to the new conditions present in the social innovation arena.

The main limitation of this work is that the propositions are based on anecdotal evidence and that they are restricted to literature revolving around a few theoretical concepts (knowledge, networks, power). Against this, the authors suggest that to address the call for more empirical work on MNCs engagement in social innovation, these concepts could be used as a starting point in future empirical investigations.

The paper brings together and outlines a theoretical framework based on three theoretical approaches to the MNC as suggested by the literature: the knowledge-based MNC, differentiated MNC and political MNC. Based on these three perspectives, the key contribution of this paper is to develop a broader understanding of why and how MNCs engage in social innovation and the potential underlying liabilities for this involvement.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: to analyse what theories assume about multinational enterprises (MNEs) when they claim these are superior and to discuss possible explanations for why MNE superiority seems to be dominant in the international business (IB) research field.

A common theme in mainstream IB theories is that multinational enterprises (MNEs) are superior in terms of cost efficiency and innovativeness compared with other types of organizations. A closer look at transaction cost economics (TCE)/internalization theory, evolutionary theory and dynamic capability theory reveal a bias toward MNE supremacy because of how MNEs are conceptualized as firms and therefore fail to explain the essence of “multinational advantage”. These revelations and the strong dependence on the benevolence to provide unbiased data means that MNE supremacy posited by mainstream IB theories is as much a rationalized myth as an empirical fact.

Although mainstream theories differ when it comes to the building blocks that constitute MNE supremacy, they have one attribute in common: they are silent as to why MNEs are superior compared with, for example, domestic firms or other types of economic agents. Irrespective of whether the focus is the strength of the hierarchy, the skill of managers or a common identity, nothing in the theories tells us that these factors are more pronounced in MNEs than in other types of economic actors.

The paper deals with the issue of multinational advantage. It claims that mainstream theories of MNEs tend to assume, explicitly or implicitly, that MNEs are superior in terms of cost efficiency and innovativeness compared with other types of economic agents. The analysis demonstrates that this tendency is a consequence of how MNEs are conceptualized as firms in the different theories as well as of the strong dependence in IB research on the benevolence of MNEs to provide unbiased data. It is concluded that MNE supremacy posited by mainstream IB theories is as much a rationalized myth as an empirical fact.

A close reading of Adam Smith’s works, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations” and “The Theory of Moral Sentiments,” indicates that he would not support the advocacy of free markets wholeheartedly. His view on market systems, although “free,” implies strong institutions and regulations. Adam Smith would have been particularly concerned with the fact that the large multinationals are as much political actors as they are economic actors. He would have argued that there may be ‘moral‘ limits to globalization. In his view, the general rules of morality are (in modern parlance) ‘socially embedded.’ Thus, sympathy and fellow‐feeling mostly operate at ‘close quarters’ and, in particular, they may not be effective at a transnational level.

The purpose of this paper is to examine to what extent classical models of firms' internationalization process can explain behavior among totally new types of firms. More specifically, we confront the traditional so‐called Uppsala model of internationalization with data and experiences from such firms in order to analyze and discuss some basic elements in the model.

Case studies of newly established and fast growing Internet‐related firms – rather dissimilar to the firms on which the Uppsala model was originally based – are examined.

The paper finds that, first, incremental behavior does not seem to be of major concern for our Internet‐related firms, at least not in comparison with factors related to first‐mover‐advantage or following‐the‐herd behavior. Second, stakeholders other than those included in the Uppsala model seemed to have a profound influence on the studied firms, forcing them to go abroad much faster than the model would predict. Third, related to the former point, the existence of an explicit and active internationalization strategy was observed among the firms, not fully in line with the reactive and adaptive firm behavior in the Uppsala model.

The results indicate that the internationalization behavior of new types of firms like Internet‐related firms might deviate considerably from what the Uppsala model predicts. However, as this behavior was far from successful in the studied cases, the results also indicate that the managerial implications of the Uppsala model are maybe more relevant than were originally intended.

The paper takes the lead from Forsgren and Yamin (2022), “The MNE as the ‘crown of creation’?: A commentary on mainstream theories of multi-national enterprises”, and accepts that the MNE can, indeed, be seen as the “crown of creation” in the world of business. The purpose of the paper is to show that this is due to advantages of multi/transnationality that must be sought outside rather than within the firm itself.

The paper argues that the advantages of multi-nationality derive from the differences in regulatory regimes between nation-states and, specifically, from laws and regulations regarding the following: labour and social security, industrial policy, taxation and environmental regulations. Some examples are given.

It is claimed that the transnational company (TNC) has the ability to operate as a unified centre of strategic decision-making, and this gives it an advantage compared to operators it bargains with who do not possess such ability. Three such operators are discussed: labour, governments of nation-states and suppliers. In TNCs’ operations with foreign countries, a distinction is made between the spatial dimension and the regulatory regimes dimension. The interaction between these two dimensions leads to discussions on: regions within nation-states and their regulatory regimes, global value chains (GVCs) and free/investment zones (F/IZs). The conclusions draw policy implications and research agenda implications touching also on issues of TNCs as creator/destructors of social values.

The paper refers to other published work by the author – solo or as co-author – where the arguments are further developed, including the finding of a detailed case study. There are policy implications regarding labour and its trade unions (TUs) as well governments and their taxation and industrial policies. Details of such policies need further development.

There are implications for theory development, policies and for research agendas.

Governments of nation-states and institutions within them – such as TUs – should try to co-ordinate rather than compete with each other in their bargaining with transnational companies. The breakaway of regions within nation-states further increases the power of TNCs.

In the development of theories of the TNC, this work shifts the focus from internal characteristics within the firm and its markets to external ones: to the nation-states as jurisdictional loci. The distinction between spatial and regulatory regimes dimensions in dealing with transnational activities allows a novel viewpoint on: regions, GVCs and IZs. A novel viewpoint is also given in relation to the role of TNCs in social value.