Advertisement

Management International Review

, Volume 58, Issue 4, pp 633–661 | Cite as

From Arbitrage to Global Innovation: Evolution of Multinational R&D in Emerging Markets

  • Srivardhini K. Jha
  • Charles Dhanaraj
  • Rishikesha T. Krishnan
Research Article
  • 173 Downloads

Abstract

Our inductive study of nine European multinational enterprises (MNEs) and their R&D units in India uncovers a distinct trajectory of overseas R&D evolution in emerging markets. In contrast to the well-established trajectory of foreign R&D evolution that begins by adapting existing MNE products to the local market, this alternative trajectory begins by leveraging cost arbitrage and progresses through three unique configurations towards a global product mandate. Our study also unravels how the R&D units build embeddedness within the MNE network and with the local ecosystem, and how such embeddedness influences the evolution of their R&D mandate. We present a stylized taxonomy of R&D configurations and integrate this into an evolutionary model of emerging market R&D and suggest that research on MNE R&D in emerging markets must shift from focusing on the macro environment to exploring the dynamics of embeddedness. The study also provides useful insights to practitioners on managing R&D in emerging markets.

Keywords

Multinational R&D Emerging markets Innovation Embeddedness Cost arbitrage Competence creation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was partly funded by European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement Number 217296 (GlobInn: The changing nature of Internationalization of Innovation in Europe: impact on firms and the implications for innovation policy in the EU). We are thankful for this support.

References

  1. Achcaoucaou, F., Miravitlles, P., & León-Darder, F. (2014). Knowledge sharing and subsidiary R&D mandate development: A matter of dual embeddedness. International Business Review, 23(1), 76–90.Google Scholar
  2. ACMA. (2010). Vision 2020. http://acma.in/pdf/Status_Indian_Auto_Industry.pdf. Accessed on 14 July 2013.
  3. Andersen, P. H., & Kragh, H. (2010). Sense and sensibility: Two approaches for using existing theory in theory-building qualitative research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 49–55.Google Scholar
  4. Andersson, U., & Forsgren, M. (1996). Subsidiary embeddedness and control in the multinational corporation. International Business Review, 5(5), 487–508.Google Scholar
  5. Andersson, U., & Forsgren, M. (2000). In search of centre of excellence: Network embeddedness and subsidiary roles in multinational corporations. Management International Review, 40(4), 329–350.Google Scholar
  6. Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. (2001). Subsidiary embeddedness and competence development in MNCs: A multi-level analysis. Organization Studies, 22(6), 1013–1034.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. (2007). Balancing subsidiary influence in the federative MNC: A business network view. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 802–818.Google Scholar
  9. Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (2006). From underdogs to tigers: The rise and growth of the software industry in Brazil, China, India, Ireland, and Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Asmussen, C. G., Pedersen, T., & Dhanaraj, C. (2009). Host country environment and subsidiary competence: Extending the diamond network model. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(1), 42–57.Google Scholar
  11. Athreye, S., Tuncay-Celikel, A., & Ujjual, V. (2014). Internationalisation of R&D into emerging markets: Fiat’s R&D in Brazil, Turkey and India. Long Range Planning, 47(1), 100–114.Google Scholar
  12. Basant, R., & Mani, S. (2012). Foreign R&D centres in India: An analysis of their size, structure and implications. IIMA working paper number 2012-01-06.Google Scholar
  13. Bharadwaj, A. K., & Kapoor, R. (2008). FDI in R&D in India. Published by National Institute for Standards, India. http://www.nistads.res.in/indiasnt2008/t4industry/t4ind5.htm. Accessed on 14 Jul 2013.
  14. Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), 207–229.Google Scholar
  15. Birkinshaw, J., & Hood, N. (1998). Multinational subsidiary evolution: Capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 773–795.Google Scholar
  16. Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N., & Jonsson, S. (1998). Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: The role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 221–241.Google Scholar
  17. Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008a). Managing power in the multinational corporation: How low-power actors gain influence. Journal of Management, 34(3), 477–508.Google Scholar
  18. Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008b). Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 577–601.Google Scholar
  19. Buckley, P., & Casson, M. (1976). The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Businessweek. (2010). Innovation in emerging markets. http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/may2010/ca2010055_760459.htm. Accessed on 20 May 2014.
  21. Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. (2005). MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12), 1109–1128.Google Scholar
  22. Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. (2011). Physical attraction and the geography of knowledge sourcing in multinational enterprises. Global Strategy Journal, 1(3–4), 206–232.Google Scholar
  23. Chakravarthy, B. S., & Doz, Y. (1992). Strategy process research: Focusing on corporate self-renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 5–14.Google Scholar
  24. Ciabuschi, F., Dellestrand, H., & Martín, O. M. (2011). Internal embeddedness, headquarters involvement, and innovation importance in multinational enterprises. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1612–1639.Google Scholar
  25. Ciabuschi, F., Holm, U., & Martín, O. M. (2014). Dual embeddedness, influence and performance of innovating subsidiaries in the multinational corporation. International Business Review, 23(5), 897–909.Google Scholar
  26. D’Agostino, L. M., & Santangelo, G. D. (2012). Do overseas R&D laboratories in emerging markets contribute to home knowledge creation? Management International Review, 52(2), 251–273.Google Scholar
  27. De Meyer, A., & Mizushima, A. (1989). Global R&D management. R&D Management, 19(2), 135–146.Google Scholar
  28. Demirbag, M., & Glaister, K. W. (2010). Factors determining offshore location choice for R&D projects: A comparative study of developed and emerging regions. Journal of Management Studies, 47(8), 1534–1560.Google Scholar
  29. Dhanaraj, C., Lyles, M., Steensma, H. K., & Tihanyi, L. (2004). Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: The role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 428–443.Google Scholar
  30. Doz, Y. L. (1996). The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 55–83.Google Scholar
  31. Doz, Y. L., Olk, P. M., & Ring, P. S. (2000). Formation processes of R&D consortia: Which path to take? Where does it lead? Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 239–266.Google Scholar
  32. Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560.Google Scholar
  33. Dunning, J. H. (1993). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  34. Economist. (2010). The world turned upside down. http://www.economist.com/node/15879369. Accessed on 20 May 2014.
  35. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theory from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  36. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  38. Frantz, S. (2006). Chemistry outsourcing going global. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 5(5), 362–363.Google Scholar
  39. Frost, T. S., Birkinshaw, J. M., & Ensign, P. C. (2002). Centers of excellence in multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 23(11), 997–1018.Google Scholar
  40. Gassmann, O., & Han, Z. (2004). Motivations and barriers of foreign R&D activities in China. R&D Management, 34(4), 423–437.Google Scholar
  41. Gassmann, O., & von Zedtwitz, M. (1998). Organization of industrial R&D on a global scale. R&D Management, 28(3), 147–161.Google Scholar
  42. Gassmann, O., & von Zedtwitz, M. (1999). New concepts and trends in international R&D organization. Research Policy, 28(2–3), 231–250.Google Scholar
  43. Geppert, M., & Williams, K. (2006). Global, national and local practices in multinational corporations: Towards a sociopolitical framework. International. Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(1), 49–69.Google Scholar
  44. Gerybadze, A., & Reger, G. (1999). Globalization of R&D: Recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. Research Policy, 28(2–3), 251–274.Google Scholar
  45. Govindarajan, V., & Ramamurti, R. (2011). Reverse innovation, emerging markets, and global strategy. Global Strategy Journal, 1(3–4), 191–205.Google Scholar
  46. Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2012). Reverse innovation: Create far from home, win everywhere. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  47. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.Google Scholar
  48. Granstrand, O., Håkanson, L., & Sjölander, S. (1993). Internationalization of R&D: A survey of some recent research. Research Policy, 22(5), 413–430.Google Scholar
  49. Gupta, A., Govindarajan, V., & Malhotra, A. (1999). Feedback-seeking behavior within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 20(3), 205–222.Google Scholar
  50. Håkanson, L., & Nobel, R. (2001). Organizational characteristics and reverse technology transfer. Management International Review, 41(4), 395–420.Google Scholar
  51. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.Google Scholar
  52. Hayashi, T., & Serapio, M. G. (2006). Cross-border linkages in research and development: Evidence from 22 US, Asian and European MNCs. Asian Business and Management, 5(2), 271–298.Google Scholar
  53. Hedlund, G. (1986). The hypermodern MNC: A heterarchy? Human Resource Management, 25(1), 9–35.Google Scholar
  54. Jha, S. K., Parulkar, I., Krishnan, R. T., & Dhanaraj, C. (2016). Developing new products in emerging markets. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(3), 55–62.Google Scholar
  55. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm—a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.Google Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. Khan, A. M., Roy, A. K., & Veliyath, R. (2011). Globalization and international R&D flows into emerging markets: Nomothetic evidence. Journal of Emerging Knowledge in Emerging Markets, 3(9), 118–141.Google Scholar
  58. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 625–645.Google Scholar
  59. Krishnan, R. T. (2006). Subsidiary initiative in Indian software subsidiaries of MNCs. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 31(1), 61–71.Google Scholar
  60. Kuemmerle, W. (1999). The drivers of foreign direct investment into research and development: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  61. Kumar, N. (2001). Determinants of location of overseas R&D activity of multinational enterprises: The case of U.S. and Japanese corporations. Research Policy, 30(1), 159–174.Google Scholar
  62. Kumar, N., & Puranam, P. (2012). India inside: The emerging innovation challenge to the West. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  63. Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461–477.Google Scholar
  64. Lasserre, P. (2003). Global strategic management. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  65. London, T., & Hart, S. L. (2004). Reinventing strategies for emerging markets: Beyond the transnational model. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 350–370.Google Scholar
  66. Meyer, K. E., 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.Google Scholar
  67. Meyer, K. E., & Nguyen, H. V. (2005). Foreign investment strategies and sub-national institutions in emerging markets: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 63–93.Google Scholar
  68. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. New York: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  69. Mirabeau, L., & Maguire, S. (2014). From autonomous strategic behavior to emergent strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 35(8), 1202–1229.Google Scholar
  70. Mudambi, R. (2011). Hierarchy, coordination, and innovation in the multinational enterprise. Global Strategy Journal, 1(3–4), 317–323.Google Scholar
  71. Nell, P. C., & Ambos, B. (2013). Parenting advantage in the MNC: An embeddedness perspective on the value added by headquarters. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9), 1086–1103.Google Scholar
  72. Nell, P. C., Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2011). The MNC as an externally embedded organization: An investigation of embeddedness overlap in local subsidiary networks. Journal of World Business, 46(4), 497–505.Google Scholar
  73. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National systems of innovations: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Nobel, R., & Birkinshaw, J. (1998). Innovation in multinational corporations: Control and communication patterns in international R & D operations. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 479–496.Google Scholar
  75. OECD. (2008). The internationalization of business R&D: Evidence, impacts and implications. https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/40841266.pdf. Accessed on 20 May 2014.
  76. Orton, J. D. (1997). From inductive to iterative grounded theory: Zipping the gap between process theory and process data. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 419–438.Google Scholar
  77. Patibandla, M. (2006). Evolution of markets and institutions: A study of an emerging economy. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  78. Pearce, R. D. (1999). Decentralised R&D and strategic competitiveness: Globalised approaches to generation and use of technology in multinational enterprises (MNEs). Research Policy, 28(2–3), 157–178.Google Scholar
  79. Polanyi, K. (1957). The great transformation. Bosten: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  80. Porter, M. (1990). Competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  81. Reddy, P. (1997). New trends in globalization of corporate R&D and implications for innovation capability in host countries: A survey from India. World Development, 25(11), 1821–1837.Google Scholar
  82. Reddy, A. S. P., & Sigurdson, J. (1994). Emerging patterns of globalization of corporate R&D and scope for innovative capability building in developing countries? Science and Public Policy, 21(5), 283–294.Google Scholar
  83. Ronstadt, R. (1978). International R&D: The establishment and evolution of research and development abroad by seven U.S. Multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies, 9(1), 7–24.Google Scholar
  84. Roth, K., & Morrison, A. J. (1992). Implementing global strategy: Characteristics of global subsidiary mandates. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4), 715–735.Google Scholar
  85. Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.Google Scholar
  86. Teece, D. J. (2000). Managing intellectual capital: Organizational, strategic, and policy dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  87. UNCTAD. (2005). Globalization of R&D and developing countries. http://unctad.org/en/docs/iteiia20056_en.pdf. Accessed on 20 May 2014.
  88. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674–698.Google Scholar
  89. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.Google Scholar
  90. Vaara, E., & Lamberg, J. A. (2016). Taking historical embeddedness seriously: Three historical approaches to advance strategy process and practice research. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 633–657.Google Scholar
  91. Veliyath, R., & Sambharya, R. B. (2011). R&D investments of multinational corporations. Management International Review, 51(3), 407–428.Google Scholar
  92. Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2), 190–207.Google Scholar
  93. Vernon, R. (1979). The product cycle hypothesis in a new international environment. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 41(4), 255–267.Google Scholar
  94. von Zedtwitz, M., Gassmann, O., & Boutellier, R. (2004). Organizing global R&D: Challenges and dilemmas. Journal of International Management, 10(1), 21–49.Google Scholar
  95. Yamin, M., & Andersson, U. (2011). Subsidiary importance in the MNC: What role does internal embeddedness play? International Business Review, 20(2), 151–162.Google Scholar
  96. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). New York: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  97. Yip, G. S., & McKern, B. (2016). China’s next strategic advantage: From imitation to innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  98. Zhao, M. (2006). Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection. Management Science, 52(8), 1185–1199.Google Scholar
  99. Zinnov. (2012). Operational costs benchmarking study 2012. https://www.slideshare.net/zinnov/operational-costs-benchmarking-study-2012. Accessed on 20 May 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Srivardhini K. Jha
    • 1
  • Charles Dhanaraj
    • 2
  • Rishikesha T. Krishnan
    • 3
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Management BangaloreBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Fox School of BusinessTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Indian Institute of Management IndoreIndoreIndia

Personalised recommendations