PRACA ORYGINALNA
Dualne zakorzenienie filii zagranicznych a przewaga konkurencyjna wynikająca z innowacji
 
Więcej
Ukryj
1
Collegium of World Economy, SGH Warsaw School of Economics
2
Collegium of Economic Analysis, SGH Warsaw School of Economics
AUTOR DO KORESPONDENCJI
Małgorzata Stefania Lewandowska   

Collegium of World Economy, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Madalińskiego 6/8, 02-513, Warsaw, Polska
Data publikacji: 30-09-2019
Data nadesłania: 07-03-2019
Data ostatniej rewizji: 27-05-2019
Data akceptacji: 31-07-2019
 
Gospodarka Narodowa 2019;299(3):5–30
SŁOWA KLUCZOWE
KODY KLASYFIKACJI JEL
STRESZCZENIE ARTYKUŁU
Zagraniczne spółki zależne (filie zagraniczne) angażują się w dwa rodzaje współpracy: współpracę wewnętrzną (korporacyjną: z firmą matką oraz innymi filiami córkami) i współpracę zewnętrzną (międzyorganizacyjną). Opierając się na koncepcji „dualnego zakorzenienia”, niniejszy artykuł proponuje model wyjaśniający rolę relacji wewnętrznych i zewnętrznych w budowaniu przewagi konkurencyjnej wynikającej z innowacji. W opracowaniu opisano wyniki analizy ścieżek, wykonanej przy wykorzystaniu danych z kwestionariusza Community Innovation Survey 2010–2012 na próbie przedsiębiorstw – członków grup kapitałowych z 10 państw UE, w większości krajów Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. Wyniki pokazują pozytywny wpływ podwójnego zakorzenienia na innowacyjność filii zagranicznych, prowadzącego do budowania przewagi konkurencyjnej opartej zarówno na kosztach, jak również wyróżnianiu się. Wiedza pozyskiwana z zewnątrz jest mediatorem związku między relacjami wewnątrz korporacji a budowaną przewagą konkurencyjną. Relacje zewnętrzne i wewnętrzne nie wykluczają się nawzajem, wręcz przeciwnie – jeśli występują jednocześnie, wzmacnia to ich wpływ na innowacyjność. Integracja wewnętrzna odgrywa decydującą rolę w budowaniu przewagi konkurencyjnej wynikającej z innowacji nakierowanej na obniżanie kosztów, podczas gdy relacje zewnętrzne mają większy wpływ na przewagę konkurencyjną wynikającą z różnicowania. Kierownictwo przedsiębiorstw powinno więc promować oba typy relacji, uwzględniając ich odrębne role w procesie budowania przewagi konkurencyjnej.
FINANSOWANIE
Niniejszy artykuł został przygotowany w ramach projektu badawczego „Sprawność innowacyjna filii zagranicznej a jej pozycja w sieci przedsiębiorstwa międzynarodowego - perspektywa filii utworzonych w Polsce", nr 2016/21/B/HS4/03030, nadzorowanego i finansowanego przez Narodowe Centrum Nauki.
 
REFERENCJE (100)
1.
Achcaoucaou F., Miravitlles P., Leon-Darder F. [2014], Knowledge sharing and subsidiary R&D mandate development: A matter of dual embeddedness, International Business Review, 23 (1): 76–90.
 
2.
Ambos B., Ambos T. C. [2009], Location choice, management and performance of international R&D investments in peripheral economies. International Journal of Technology Management, 48 (1): 24–41.
 
3.
Ambos T. C., Ambos B., Schlegelmilch B. B. [2006], Learning from foreign subsidiaries: an empirical investigation of headquarters’ benefit from reverse knowledge transfers, International Business Review, 15 (2): 294–312.
 
4.
Ambos T. C., Andersson U., Birkinshaw J. [2010], What are the consequences of initiative-taking in multinational subsidiaries?, Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 1099–1118.
 
5.
Andersson U., Björkman I., Forsgren M. [2005], Managing subsidiary knowledge creation: the effect of control mechanisms on subsidiary local embeddedness, International Business Review, 14: 521–538.
 
6.
Andersson U., Forsgren M., Holm U. [2002], The strategic impact of external networks – Subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation, Strategic Management Journal, 23 (11): 979–996.
 
7.
Andersson U., Forsgren M., Holm U. [2007], Balancing subsidiary influence in the federative MNC: A business network view, Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (6): 802–818.
 
8.
Bartlett C. A., Ghoshal S. [1989], Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
 
9.
Bell G. G. [2005], Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness, Strategic Management Journal, 26: 287–295.
 
10.
Birkinshaw J., Hood N. [1998], Multinational subsidiary evolution: capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies, The Academy of Management Review, 23: 773–795.
 
11.
Birkinshaw J., Hood N., Jonsson S. [1998], Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: The role of Subsidiary Initiative, Strategic Management Journal, 19: 221–241.
 
12.
Birkinshaw J., Hood N., Young S. [2005], Subsidiary entrepreneurship, internal and external competitive forces, and subsidiary performance, International Business Review, 14 (1): 227–248.
 
13.
Bollen K. A., Stine R. A. [1992], Bootstrapping Goodness-of-Fit Measures in Structural Equation Models, Sociological Methods Research, November, 21 (2): 205–229.
 
14.
Bresciani S., Ferraris A. [2016], Innovation-receiving subsidiaries and dual embeddedness: impact on business performance, Baltic Journal of Management, 11 (1): 108–130.
 
15.
Buckley P., Carter M. J. [1999], Managing cross-border complementary knowledge, Studies of Management and Organization, 29 (1): 80–104.
 
16.
Buckley P., Hashai N. [2009], Formalizing internationalization in the eclectic paradigm, Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (1): 58–70.
 
17.
Cano-Kollman M., Cantwell J., Hannigan T., Mudambi R., Song J. [2016], Editorial: Knowledge connectivity: An agenda for innovation research in international business, Journal of International Business Studies, 47 (3): 255–262.
 
18.
Cantwell J., Mudambi R. [2005], MNE competence-creating cubsidiary mandates, Strategic Management Journal, 26: 1109–1128.
 
19.
Ciabuschi F., Dellestrand H., Martín Martin O. [2011], Internal embeddedness, headquarters involvement, and innovation importance in multinational enterprises, Journal of Management Studies, 48 (7): 1612–1639.
 
20.
Ciabuschi F., Holm U., Martin Martin O. [2014], Dual embeddedness, influence and performance of innovating subsidiaries in the MNC, International Business Review, 23 (5): 897–909.
 
21.
Claver-Cortes E., Zaragoza-Saez P., Ubeda-Garcia M., Marco-Lajara B. [2018], Strategic knowledge management in subsidiaries and MNC performance. The role of the relational context, Journal of Knowledge Management, 22 (5): 1153–1175.
 
22.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU), No. 995/2012 of 26 October 2012, laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Decision No. 1608/2003/EC of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the production and development of Community statistics on science and technology. Official Journal of the European Union L 299/18, 27.10.2012, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexU...: EN:PDF.
 
23.
Crespo C. F., Griffith D. A., Lages L. F. [2014], The performance effects of vertical and horizontal subsidiary knowledge outflows in multinational corporations, International Business Review, 23 (5): 993–1007.
 
24.
Dahms S. [2017], Determinants of foreign-owned subsidiary performance in emerging economies: Evidence from Taiwan, Management Research Review, 40 (6): 626–647.
 
25.
Damijan J. P., Kostevc C., Rojec M. [2010], Does foreign subsidiary’s network status impact its innovation activity?, MICRO-DYN, EU Sixth Framework Programme, Working Paper No. 27/10.
 
26.
De Beule F., Van Beveren I. [2019], Sources of open innovation in foreign subsidiaries: An enriched typology, International Business Review, 28 (1): 135–147.
 
27.
De Jong G., Van D. V., Beugelsdijk S., Jindra B. [2014], The future of successful MNC: subsidiary decision-making autonomy, embeddedness and innovation, Proceedings of the 40th EIBA Annual Conference, Uppsala, Sweden.
 
28.
Delany E. [2000], Strategic development of the multinational subsidiary through subsidiary initiative taking, Long Range Planning, 33: 220–244.
 
29.
Demeter K., Szasz L., Racz B-G. [2016], The impact of subsidiaries’ internal and external integration on operational performance, International Journal of Production Economics, 182: 73–85.
 
30.
Doran J. [2012], Are differing forms of innovation complements or substitutes? European Journal of Innovation Management, 15 (3): 351–371.
 
31.
Doz Y. L., Santos J., Williamson P. [2001], From Global to Metanational: How Companies Win in the Knowledge Economy, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
 
32.
Dunning J. H., Lundan S. M. [2008], Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, 2nd ed., Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
 
33.
Efron B., [1979], Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife, The Annals of Statistics, 7 (1): 1–26.
 
34.
E&Y [2016], How can Europe’s investors turn resilience into growth?, EY’s attractiveness survey Europe 2016.
 
35.
Ferraris A. [2014], Rethinking the literature on ’multiple embeddedness’ and subsidiary-specific advantages, Multinational Business Review, 22 (1): 15–33.
 
36.
Ferraris A., Santoro G., Dezi L. [2017], How MNC’s subsidiaries may improve their innovative performance? The role of external sources and knowledge management capabilities, Journal of Knowledge Management, 21 (3): 540–552.
 
37.
Figueiredo P. N. [2011], The role of dual embeddedness in the innovative performance of MNE subsidiaries: Evidence from Brazil, Journal of Management Studies, 48 (2): 417–440.
 
38.
Filippov S., Duysters G. [2014], Exploring the drivers and elements of subsidiary evolution in several new EU members states, International Journal of Emerging Markets, 9 (1): 120–146.
 
39.
Forsgren M., Holm U., Johanson J. [2005], Managing the Embedded Multinational: A Business Network View, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
 
40.
Frenz M., Ietto-Gilles G. [2009], The impact on innovation performance of different sources of knowledge: evidence from the UK Community Innovation Survey, Research Policy, 38: 1125–1135.
 
41.
Frost T., Birkinshaw J., Ensign S. [2002], Centres of excellence in multinational corporations, Strategic Management Journal, 23 (11): 997–1018.
 
42.
Furman J., Porter M. E., Stern S. [2002], The determinants of national innovative capacity, Research Policy 31: 899–933.
 
43.
Gammelgaard J., McDonald F., Stephan A., Tüselmann H., Dörrenbächer C. [2012], The impact of increases in subsidiary autonomy and network relationships on performance, International Business Review, 21 (6): 1158–1172.
 
44.
Gammelgaard J., Pedersen T. [2010], Internal versus external knowledge sourcing of subsidiaries and the impact of headquarters control, in Andersson U. and Holm U. (eds), Managing the Contemporary Multinational: The Role of Headquarters: 211–230, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
 
45.
Gerschewski S., Lindsay V. J., Rose E. [2016], Advancing the entrepreneurial orientation construct: the role of passion and perseverance, Review of International Business and Strategy, 26 (4): 446–471.
 
46.
Gnyawali D., Signal M., Mu S. [2009], Knowledge ties among subsidiaries in MNCs: A multilevel conceptual model, Journal of International Management, 15 (2): 387–400.
 
47.
Gołębiowski T., Lewandowska M. S. [2015], Influence of internal and external relationships of foreign subsidiaries on innovation performance. Evidence from Germany, Czech Republic and Romania. Journal of East European Management Studies, 20 (3): 304–327.
 
48.
Gupta A. K., Govindarajan V. [2000], Knowledge flows within multinational corporations, Strategic Management Journal, 21 (4): 473–496.
 
49.
Ha Y. J., Giroud A. [2015], Competence-creating subsidiaries and FDI technology spillovers, International Business Review, 24 (4): 605–614.
 
50.
Hallin C., Holm U., Sharma D. D. [2011], Embeddedness of innovation receivers in the multinational corporation: effects on business performance, International Business Review, 20 (3): 362–373.
 
51.
Harzing A-W., Noorderhaven N. [2006], Knowledge flows in MNCs: An empirical test and extension of Gupta/Govindarajan’s typology of subsidiary roles, International Business Review, 15 (3):195–214.
 
52.
Holm U., Johanson J., Thilenius P. [1995], Headquarters knowledge of subsidiary network context in the multinational corporation, International Studies of Management and Organization, 25 (1–2): 97–120.
 
53.
Holm U., Pedersen T. [2000], The Emergence and Impact of MNC Centers of Excellence: A Subsidiary Perspective, Macmillan, London.
 
54.
Horn P., Scheffler P., Schiele H. [2014], Internal integration as a pre-condition for external integration in global sourcing: asocial capital perspective, International Journal of Production Economics, 153: 54–65.
 
55.
Johanson J., Vahlne J. E. [2009], The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership, Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (9): 1411–1431.
 
56.
Kline R. B. [2011], Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press, New York.
 
57.
Konarski R. [2010], Modele równań strukturalnych, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
 
58.
Kostova T., Marano V., Tallman S. [2016], Headquarters-subsidiary relationships in MNCs: fifty years of evolving research, Journal of World Business, 51 (1): 176–184.
 
59.
Lavie D. [2006], The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view, Academy of Management Review, 31: 638–658.
 
60.
Lewandowska M. S., Rószkieiwcz M., Weresa A. M. [2018], Additionality from public support to R&D and innovation in the European Union, in Strengthening the Knowledge Base in the European Union, Weresa M. A. (ed.), PWN, Warsaw.
 
61.
Lewandowska M. S., Szymura-Tyc M., Gołębiowski T. [2016], Innovation complementarity, cooperation partners, and new product export: Evidence from Poland, Journal of Business Research, 69 (9): 3673–3681.
 
62.
Lim C., Hemmert M., Kim S. [2017], MNE subsidiary evolution from sales to innovation, International Business Review, 26 (1): 145–155.
 
63.
Lumpkin G. T., Dess G. G. [1996], Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance, Academy of Management Review, 21: 135–172.
 
64.
Martinez-Ros E., Labeaga J. [2009], Product and process innovation: Persistence and complementarities, European Management Review, 6 (1): 64–75.
 
65.
Meyer K., Mudambi R., Narula R. [2011], Multinational enterprises and local contexts: the opportunities and challenges of multiple embeddedness, Journal of Management Studies, 48 (2): 235–252.
 
66.
Michailova S., Zhan W. [2015], Dynamic capabilities and innovation in MNC subsidiaries, Journal of World Business, 50 (3): 576–583.
 
67.
Morschett D., Schramm-Klein H. [2011], Chapter 8 Successful subsidiary strategy in different environments – A configurational perspective, in Verbeke A., Tavares-Lehmann A. T., Van Tulder R. (eds.), Entrepreneurship in the Global Firm, (Progress in International Business Research, Vol. 6: 167–195, Emerald, Bingley, UK.
 
68.
Mothe C., Nguyen-Thi T. U. [2010], The link between non-technological innovations and technological innovation, European Journal of Innovation Management, 13 (3): 313–332.
 
69.
Mu S. C., Gnyawali R. D., Hatfield D. E. [2007), Foreign subsidiaries’ learning from local environments: An empirical test, Management International Review, 47 (1): 79–102.
 
70.
Mudambi R., Pedersen T. [2007], Agency theory and resource dependency theory: Complementary explanations for subsidiary power in multinational corporations, in Pedersen T., Volberda H. (eds.), Bridging IB Theories, Constructs, and Methods across Cultures and Social Sciences, Palgrave-McMillan, Basingstoke.
 
71.
Mudambi R., Piscitello L., Rabbiosi L. [2014], Reverse knowledge transfer in MNEs: subsidiary innovativeness and entry modes, Long Range Planning 47 (1): 49–63.
 
72.
Najafi-Tawani Z., Giroud A., Andersson U. [2014], The interplay of networking activities and internal knowledge actions for subsidiary influence within MNC, Journal of World Business, 49 (1): 122–131.
 
73.
Narula R. (2014], Exploring the paradox of competence-creating subsidiaries: balancing bandwidth and dispersion in MNEs, Long Range Planning, 47 (1–2): 4–15.
 
74.
Narula R., Guimont J. [2010], The R&D activity of multinational enterprises in peripheral economies: Evidence from the EU new member states, UNU-MERIT Working Papers, No. 2010–048.
 
75.
Peng M., Meyer K. [2016], International Business. 2nd ed., Cengage Learning EMEA, Andover, UK.
 
76.
Phene A., Almeida P. [2008], Innovation in multinational subsidiaries: the role of knowledge assimilation and subsidiary capabilities, Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 901–919.
 
77.
Porter M. E. [1985], Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, The Free Press, New York.
 
78.
Prahalad C. K., Krishnan M. S. [2008], The New Age of Innovations. Driving Co-created Value through Global Networks, McGraw-Hill, New York.
 
79.
Rabbiosi L., Santangelo G. D. [2013], Parent company benefits from reverse knowledge transfer: The role of the liability of newness in MNEs, Journal of World Business, 48 (1): 160–170.
 
80.
Reilly M., Scott P., Mangemetin V. [2012], Alignment or independence? Multinational subsidiaries and parent relations, Journal of Business Strategy, 33 (2): 4–11.
 
81.
Rugman A. M., Verbeke A. [2001], Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises, Strategic Management Journal, 22 (3): 237–250.
 
82.
Schmid S., Schurig A. [2003], The development of critical capabilities in foreign subsidiaries: disentangling the role of the subsidiary’s business network, International Business Review, 12 (6): 755–782.
 
83.
Schuh A. [2012], Strategy review for Central and Eastern Europe: Strategic responses of foreign multinational corporations to the recent economic and financial crisis, Journal of East-West Business, 18 (2): 185–207.
 
84.
Schumacker R. E., Lomax R. G. [2004], A beginner’s guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 
85.
Singh D. [2012], Emerging economies and multinational corporations: An institutional approach to subsidiary management, International Journal of Emerging Markets, 7 (4): 397–410.
 
86.
Strutzenberger A., Ambos T. C. [2014], Unravelling the subsidiary initiative process: a multilevel approach, International Journal of Management Reviews, 16: 314–339.
 
87.
Tsai W. [2001], Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business innovation and performance, Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5): 996–1004.
 
88.
Vahlne J. E., Johanson J. [2013], The Uppsala model on evolution of the multinational business enterprise – from internalization to coordination of networks, International Marketing Review, 30 (3): 189–312.
 
89.
Van Beers C., Zand F. [2014], R&D cooperation, partner diversity, and innovation performance: An empirical analysis, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31 (2): 292–312.
 
90.
Vernaik S., Midgley D. F., Devinney T. M. [2005], Dual paths to performance: the impact of global pressures on MNC subsidiary conduct and performance, Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (6): 655–675.
 
91.
Veugelers R. [1997], Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing, Research Policy, 26 (3): 303–315.
 
92.
Wach K., Głodowska A., Maciejewski M. [2018], Entrepreneurial orientation, knowledge utilization and internationalization of firms, Sustainability, 10 (12), 4711: 1–23.
 
93.
Williams C. [2009], Subsidiary-level determinants of global initiatives in multinational corporations, Journal of International Management, 15 (1): 92–104.
 
94.
Wright S., [1921], Correlation and causation, Journal of Agricultural Research, 20: 557–585.
 
95.
Wright S. [1934], The method of path coefficients, Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 5 (3): 161–215. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177732676.
 
96.
Wright S. [1960], Path Coefficients and Path Regressions: Alternative or Complementary Concepts?, Biometrics, 16 (2) (June): 189–202, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2....
 
97.
Yamin M., Andersson U. [2011], Subsidiary importance in the MNC: What role does internal embeddedness play?, International Business Review, 20 (2): 151–162.
 
98.
Yang Q., Mudambi R., Meyer K. E. [2008], Conventional and reverse knowledge flows in multinational corporations, Journal of Management, 34: 882–902.
 
99.
Zhang F., Jiang G., Cantwell J. A. [2015], Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations, International Business Review, 24 (2): 224–234.
 
100.
Zhao X., Huo B., Selen W., Yeung J. H. Y. [2011], The impact of internal integration and relationship commitment on external integration, Journal of Operational Management, 29 (1): 17–32.
 
eISSN:2300-5238
ISSN:0867-0005