Elsevier

Long Range Planning

Volume 47, Issues 1–2, February–April 2014, Pages 4-15
Long Range Planning

Exploring the Paradox of Competence-creating Subsidiaries: Balancing Bandwidth and Dispersion in MNEs

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.10.006Get rights and content

This paper seeks to synthesise the various contributions to the special issue of Long Range Planning on competence-creating subsidiaries (CCS), and identifies avenues for future research. Effective competence-creation through a network of subsidiaries requires an appropriate balance between internal and external embeddedness. There are multiple types of firm-specific advantages (FSAs) essential to achieve this. In addition, wide-bandwidth pathways are needed with collaborators, suppliers, customers as well as internally within the MNE. Paradoxically, there is a natural tendency for bandwidth to shrink as dispersion increases. As distances (technological, organisational, and physical) become greater, there may be decreasing returns to R&D spread. Greater resources for knowledge integration and coordination are needed as intra-MNE and inter-firm R&D cooperation becomes more intensive and extensive. MNEs need to invest in mechanisms to promote wide-bandwidth knowledge flows, without which widely dispersed and networked MNEs can suffer from internal market failures.

Introduction

MNEs have become increasingly knowledge driven, and growing cross-border competition has led many to seek and develop knowledge assets through a wider variety of means. Competences are increasingly developed at the subsidiary level (Birkinshaw and Hood, 2001, Andersson et al., 2002; Rugman and Verbeke, 2001, Cantwell and Mudambi, 2005), although the extent to which this occurs is dependent upon a variety of factors, such as the degree of the subsidiary's embeddedness within the MNE's internal network as well as its external environment (Meyer et al., 2011). The subsidiary's ability to play this dual role of tapping into local knowledge and engaging in knowledge exchange with other units is further influenced by the nature of its own mandate, the MNE's corporate strategy and the aspect of the value chain the subsidiary is engaged in (Rugman et al., 2011).

But to what extent does the subsidiary's competence creation benefit the MNE at large, and how does this activity happen most effectively? The literature over the last two or three decades took two different views of the subsidiary-parent relationship (Foss et al., 2012). The ‘traditional’ view was that the MNE was essentially a hierarchy with subsidiaries acting at the behest of the parent. Strategic activities such as R&D were largely concentrated at, by or close to other strategically significant activities such as HQ functions, and major markets (or customers). Major markets/customers tended to be located close to the MNE's home country or region, so too were R&D facilities, particularly those that were engaged in systematic creation of new competences for the MNE as a whole. Headquarters functioned as the primary hub in a hub-and-spoke structure, providing centralised strategic decision-making, able to exercise fiat as needed. An alternative approach took the view that all MNE units share a common set of goals and objectives, but sees the MNE as a network of subsidiaries which ultimately act as a fraternity (a ‘federal’ structure).

Although later studies reconciled these two views (see Andersson et al., 2007), earlier work underplayed the conflict and struggle for power within the MNE (Mudambi et al., 2013). Indeed, the terms ‘subsidiary’ and ‘headquarters’ are themselves increasingly problematic, just as ‘home country’ and ‘host country’ are suggestive of an earlier era. As several of the papers in this special issue illustrate, subsidiaries and headquarters do not always share the same goals and objectives, and while subsidiaries may generate new competences, it is by no means assured that these are accessible to the parent, or other subsidiaries. That is, competence creating subsidiaries must be ‘willing and able’ to make their assets available to other MNE units, and in other cases they may either not be ‘willing’ or not ‘able’ to do so. This is not as radical as one might believe. Establishments may not have a mandate, or may be unwilling to accept a change in mandate: they may have enjoyed complete operational and strategic opportunity autonomy in the past, which they are loathe to lose. Likewise, parents (or other subsidiaries) must ‘want’ what the subsidiary has, but internal markets suffer from imperfections as well, particularly as MNEs become geographically dispersed and individual operations become specialised in scope and competences (Mudambi, 2011; Najafi-Tavani et al., 2013).

It may appear that discussions on HQ-subsidiary interactions, and in particular, those involving a central corporate headquarters, are increasingly archaic and irrelevant. This is indeed so when we speak of large MNEs that are a complex combination of hierarchies and networks, interspersed by a (spatially dispersed) variety of functional and geographical headquarters (Benito et al., 2011). Nonetheless, the corporate HQ – just as the concept of a home country – is not yet a vestige of the past. Beyond a certain cadre of large MNEs typical of the Fortune 500, the dispersion of the strategic activities of the majority of MNEs remains modest.

To what extent has this state of affairs got to do with globalization? There is plenty of evidence to indicate that MNEs have expanded their competence-creating activities both geographically and technologically, the first to take advantage of a plethora of innovation systems available to them, and the second to respond to the growing multi-technology nature of products and processes (Narula, 2003). Additionally, political pressure by influential host country governments has also played an important role. Governments have sought to promote local R&D and manufacturing by MNEs as a condition for market access. However, there is no clear evidence that this growing geographical expansion has led to a commensurate growth in their competence portfolios (Singh, 2008). Indeed, there are suggestions that firms may be better off restricting new knowledge creation to a limited number of units: there is a non-linear relationship between spread and benefits to innovation (Lahiri, 2010).

Meyer et al. (2011) argued that MNEs need to balance the internal embeddedness of the subsidiary within the MNE network against its external embeddedness in the host milieu. Achieving this balance between the subsidiary's strategic role within the MNE with its local identity and its domestic linkages represents a special challenge because of the nature of the trade-offs that it can create. Multiple embeddedness implies a greater degree of collaboration, both with external actors, and within the MNE. Innovation-related knowledge flows require greater bandwidth, even in the absence of geographical expansion. We draw on arguments from sociology that highlights the dispersion-bandwidth paradox, which argue that firms tend to shrink bandwidth when they become more dispersed, because they are cognitive limits to their coordination and integration capacity. Bandwidth becomes more expensive (both financially, and crucially, in terms of human resources) as distances (technological, organisational, physical) become greater, implying that there are decreasing returns to MNE spread.

In the following section, I expand on the nature of firm specific advantages (FSAs) and location advantages, emphasising the different advantages that are essential for optimal external and internal embeddedness. Section 3 examines the complexities and challenges of external embeddedness for competence-creation, while Section 4 takes a closer look at the MNE's internal embeddedness, and the difficulties in optimising the benefits from their growing portfolio of competence-creating subsidiaries. Generating competences through innovation activities is only part of the task, as these assets need to be successfully made available to (and integrated with) other MNE units. Section 5 examines the bandwidth-dispersion paradox. While MNEs have rapidly expanded over the last few decades, they have sometimes struggled to reconcile growing geographical and technological dispersion with the commensurate greater bandwidth required for effective intra-MNE knowledge exchange within these larger networks. A larger number of competence-creating subsidiaries require much more sophisticated means to acquire, coordinate and integrate these assets within the MNE.

Section snippets

Competence-creation and FSAs in the modern MNE

The focus of this paper (and the special issue) is the competence creating subsidiary (CCS), which individually may consist of one or many establishments in the same location. We are interested in subsidiaries that are in aggregate systematically and deliberately engaged in creating new competences. Few subsidiaries (whether an agglomeration of many establishments, or a single establishment) are clearly competence-creating or competence-exploiting. Both subsidiaries and establishments will tend

FSAs and external embeddedness

Let us first take the case of external embeddedness. The subsidiary's ability to create new competences depends on the ability to recombine (or ‘bundle’) the FSAs of collocated firms and/or the location-specific assets associated with the host location's innovation system with its existing FSAs (Verbeke, 2009). Such bundling requires a rather specific set of knowledge assets, and ownership of these skills determines the ability of the subsidiary to act as a ‘mechanism’ to convert

Constraints on internal embeddedness

HQ-subsidiary relationships in a MNE are complex, and much of the research in this area presumes highly stylised sets of interactions (Rugman and Verbeke, 2001). At the very least, there is a principal-agent problem, and even wholly-owned subsidiaries do not always act in the best interests of the parent. This relates to the classic centralization/autonomy paradox (Young and Tavares, 2004). A competence-creating subsidiary does not necessarily imply that its competences are available to the

The perils of growing too fast: The MNE and the dispersion-bandwidth paradox

That internal embeddedness is crucial for the MNE, particularly in the area of innovation, has always been uncontroversial (Kogut and Zander, 1993; Frost and Zhou, 2005). We know that strong internal linkages are a mechanism to ensure that the various units of the MNE maintain similar priorities, and coordinate activities so that there is an internal interdependence. These challenges are further exacerbated – even where MNE units want to cooperate – in more tacit/less codifiable activities,

Acknowledgements

Comments on earlier drafts from Paola Criscuolo, Gabriel Benito, Sam MacAulay, Katarina Blomkvist, Phillip Nell, Grazia Santangelo and Alan Rugman are much appreciated. All errors and omissions are (of course) my own.

Rajneesh Narula is Professor of International Business Regulation, and Director of the John H. Dunning Centre for International Business at the Henley Business School, University of Reading, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

References (76)

  • R. Narula

    Innovation systems and ‘inertia’ in R&D location: norwegian firms and the role of systemic lock-in

    Research Policy

    (2002)
  • R. Narula et al.

    Location, collocation and R&D alliances in the European ICT industry

    Research Policy

    (2009)
  • I. Nonaka et al.

    SECI, Ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation

    Long Range Planning

    (2000)
  • M. Palmié et al.

    Pull the right levers: creating internationally ‘useful’ subsidiary competence by organizational architecture

    Long Range Planning

    (2014)
  • A. Perri et al.

    Balancing the trade-off between learning prospects and spillover risks: MNC subsidiaries' vertical linkage patters in developed countries

    Journal of World Business

    (2013)
  • L. Rabbiosi

    Subsidiary roles and reverse knowledge transfer: an investigation of the effects of coordination mechanisms

    Journal of International Management

    (2011)
  • G.D. Santangelo

    Corporate strategic technological partnerships in the European information and communications technology industry

    Research Policy

    (2000)
  • G.D. Santangelo

    The tension of information sharing: effects on subsidiary embeddedness

    International Business Review

    (2012)
  • J. Singh

    Distributed R&D, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of innovative output

    Research Policy

    (2008)
  • S. Young et al.

    Centralization and autonomy: back to the future

    International Business Review

    (2004)
  • F. Achcaoucaou et al.

    Knowledge sharing and subsidiary R&D mandate development: a matter of dual embeddedness

    International Business Review

    (2013)
  • J. Alcácer

    Location choices across the value chain: how activity and capability influence collocation

    Management Science

    (2006)
  • J. Alcácer et al.

    Local R&D strategies and multi-location firms: the role of internal linkages

    Management Science

    (2012)
  • T.C. Ambos et al.

    What are the consequences of initiative-taking in multinational subsidiaries?

    Journal of International Business Studies

    (2010)
  • U. Andersson et al.

    Coping with Non-market Supporting Regulation in Developed Countries: Subsidiary Relational Embeddedness Strategies and Performance, Reading IB Conference

    (2013)
  • U. Andersson et al.

    The strategic impact of external networks: subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2002)
  • U. Andersson et al.

    Balancing subsidiary influence in the federative MNC: a business network view

    Journal of International Business Studies

    (2007)
  • S. Aral et al.

    The diversity-bandwidth tradeoff

    American Journal of Sociology

    (2011)
  • C. Bartlett et al.

    Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution

    (1989)
  • G.R.G. Benito et al.

    Distant encounters of the third kind: multinational companies locating divisional headquarters abroad

    Journal of Management Studies

    (2011)
  • J. Birkinshaw et al.

    Multinational subsidiary evolution: capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies

    Academy of Management Review

    (1998)
  • J.M. Birkinshaw et al.

    Unleash innovation in Foreign subsidiaries

    Harvard Business Review

    (2001)
  • Blomkvist, K., Zander, I., Kappen, P., 2014. Win, place, or show? How foreign market entry strategies contribute to the...
  • J. Cantwell et al.

    The eclectic paradigm in the global economy

    International Journal of the Economics of Business

    (2001)
  • J.A. Cantwell et al.

    The new geography of corporate research in information and communications technology (ICT)

    Journal of Evolutionary Economics

    (2002)
  • J.A. Cantwell et al.

    MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2005)
  • J.A. Cantwell et al.

    Physical attraction and the geography of knowledge sourcing in multinational enterprises

    Global Strategy Journal

    (2011)
  • H. Chesbrough et al.

    The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies

    Industrial and Corporate Change

    (2002)
  • Cited by (140)

    • How Do MNCs Conduct Local Technological Innovation in a Host Country? An Examination From Subsidiaries' Perspective

      2022, Journal of International Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      In this vein, to make the most of local markets and resources for top-down LTI, subsidiaries' effective knowledge exchange is a basic need. Primarily, external embeddedness in the local markets enables subsidiaries to develop interactive relationships with local customers, suppliers, and distributors (Ciabuschi et al., 2014; Narula, 2014). The subsidiaries thus get approaches to local know-how and instant market information, and also gain the capability required for technological innovation (Andersson et al., 2002).

    • Managing internal embeddedness in multinational corporations’ R&D subsidiaries: An evolutionary perspective on the automotive industry in Silicon Valley

      2022, Technovation
      Citation Excerpt :

      The presentation of the methods and results is followed by a discussion of the findings, as well as our conclusions. The concept of embeddedness (Granovetter, 1985; Uzzi, 1996, 1997) has recently gained much attention in the international R&D management literature (e.g., Asakawa et al., 2018; Ciabuschi et al., 2017; Meyer et al., 2011; Mudambi and Santangelo, 2016; Narula, 2014; Nell and Ambos, 2013; Nell and Andersson, 2012). Historically, multinational corporations have been viewed as mainly using subsidiaries to exploit knowledge and innovation from companies' headquarters (HQs) by adapting products to local markets (e.g., Frost, 2001; Kuemmerle, 1999).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Rajneesh Narula is Professor of International Business Regulation, and Director of the John H. Dunning Centre for International Business at the Henley Business School, University of Reading, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

    View full text