Knowledge-intensive business services: does dual embeddedness matter?

Abstract

Building on network theory, this study investigates knowledge development in subsidiaries in the knowledge-intensive business service (KIBS) sector. Foreign subsidiaries' internal and external networks are divided into three main categories: relations with (1) the local environment (external embeddedness), (2) parent firms (subsidiary -parent firm embeddedness and autonomy), and (3) sister subsidiaries (subsidiary -subsidiary embeddedness). Hypotheses are tested using a sample of 184 subsidiaries, located in the UK, whose parent firms are based outside the UK. While our results indicate that external embeddedness, subsidiary -parent embeddedness, and autonomy are main determinants of knowledge development within KIBS multinational companies, they show no association between subsidiary -subsidiary embeddedness and knowledge development.

Reverse Knowledge Transfer in Multinational Companies: A Systematic Literature Review

“…As previously mentioned, our study confirms that most studies on RKT can be separated into why RKT occur and how these transfer flows occur, leaving unanswered other types of questions (Becerra et al, 2008;Najafi-Tavani et al, 2012b). For a complete list on which paper focuses on which part of the process, please refer to Appendix.…”

“…H. Li et al, 2014;Najafi-Tavani et al, 2012b) is believed to be beneficial not only to one specific process of RKT, but to the process of knowledge creation of the MNE as a whole. Kumar (2013) also observes that managerial attention during the process is crucial to success.…”

“…Additionally, (a) having similar cultural aspects and a shared vision or logic (Betz, Oberweis, & Stephan, 2014;Colakoglu, 2012;Criscuolo & Narula, 2007;Ghauri & Park, 2012;Nair et al, 2015;Najafi-Tavani et al, 2012a;Öberg, 2013;Verbeke, 2010); (b) creating specific organizational structures such as project or joint R&D teams (Criscuolo & Narula, 2007;Lichtenthaler, 2010;Minbaeva et al, 2014); (c) having a more integrated business in general, with strategy and practices aligned (Hakanson & Nobel, 2001; J. H. Li et al, 2014;Najafi-Tavani et al, 2012b); and, finally, (d) having formal rules and the necessary information and communication tools well established (Chung, 2014;Criscuolo, 2009;Zaragoza-Sáez & Claver-Cortés, 2011) seem to improve the RKT process in the studies analyzed.…”

“…Studies focused on (a) general social interaction to promote overall communication and integration (Ambos et al, 2006;Chung, 2014;Criscuolo, 2009;Frost & Zhou, 2005;Noorderhaven & Harzing, 2009;Pérez-Nordtvedt et al, 2008;Verbeke, 2010;Zaragoza-Sáez & Claver-Cortés, 2011); or, more specifically (b), the use of expatriates (Bruning, Bebenroth, & Pascha, 2011;Ghauri & Park, 2012;Huang, Chiu, & Lu, 2013;Makela et al, 2009;Najafi-Tavani et al, 2012b;Vance, Andersen, Vaiman, & Gale, 2014;Zaragoza-Sáez & ClaverCortés, 2011); (c) rotation jobs (Criscuolo & Narula, 2007;Hakanson & Nobel, 2001;Minbaeva, Pedersen, Björkman, & Fey, 2014);or (d) returnees to the home country (Liu et al, 2014).…”

Service sector subsidiary performance in emerging markets: is it who or what you know?

“…However, this development is due to institutional heterogeneity more difficult in emerging markets, and traditional sources of competencies, such as from within the MNE headquarters, might not be as useful in such a context (Anand et al, 2021). For instance, it is unclear to what extent headquarters and other units within the MNE network can be counted upon to adequately support the subsidiary via traditional performance drivers such as internal competence exchanges or transfers (Kundu and Lahiri, 2015;Najafi-Tavani et al, 2012;Luo, 2003). In other words, the performance implications of "what you know" are not as clear cut for the service sector subsidiary as it is in the manufacturing sector.…”