Subsidiary initiatives and subsidiary autonomy: Evidence from New Zealand and Brazil

  • Muhammad Mustafa Raziq
  • Felipe Mendes Borini
  • Martin Perry


The paper uses evidence from a developed and a developing economy (New Zealand and Brazil) to study the consequence of multinational subsidiary initiative taking for subsidiary autonomy. Initiative taking and autonomy are known to increase the likelihood of a subsidiary continuing to grow and develop. Uncertainty remains as to whether subsidiaries acquire or lose autonomy as they engage in initiatives partly as the willingness to pursue initiatives can be viewed positively or negatively by the parent company. By using cross-country data and distinguishing three types of initiative according to the scope of their potential impact (internal, local and global) the study provides a basis for examining this topic that improves on evidence from a single country or single initiative study. Data from 200 multinational subsidiaries in New Zealand and 172 in Brazil are gathered for analysis. As well as examining the overall relationship between initiative taking and autonomy the study presents the first evidence on this topic for subsidiaries in New Zealand and Brazil. The overall conclusion is that subsidiary initiative taking is likely to increase subsidiary autonomy but the affect over autonomy is dependent upon the type of initiative that the subsidiary undertakes: subsidiary autonomy is more likely to increase as a result of a local market initiative than a global or internal market initiative.


Subsidiary entrepreneurship Subsidiary initiatives Subsidiary autonomy Foreign direct investment 


  1. Almeida, P. (1996). Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: Patent citation analysis in the U.S. semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17(SUPPL. WINTER), 155–165.Google Scholar
  2. Ambos, T. C., & Birkinshaw, J. M. (2010). Headquarters’ Attention and Its Effect on Subsidiary Performance. Management International Review, 50(4), 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambos, T. C., Andersson, U., & Birkinshaw, J. M. (2010). What are the consequences of initiative-taking in multinational subsidiaries? Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7), 1099–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(August), 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balasubramanyam, V. N., & Greenaway, D. (1992). Economic Integration and Foreign Direct Investment: Japanese Investment in the EC*. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 30(2), 175–194. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.1992.tb00426.x.Google Scholar
  6. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1986). Tap Your Subsidiaries for Global Reach. Harvard Business Review, 64(6), 87–94.Google Scholar
  7. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  8. Birkinshaw, J. M. (1995). Encouraging entrepreneurial activity in multinational corporations. Business Horizons, 38(3), 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birkinshaw, J. M. (1996). How multinational subsidiary mandates are gained and lost. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3), 467–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birkinshaw, J. M. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Birkinshaw, J. M. (1998). Corporate entrepreneurship in network organizations: How subsidiary initiative drives internal market efficiency. European Management Journal, 16(3), 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Birkinshaw, J. M., & Fry, N. (1998). Subsidiary initiatives to develop new markets. MIT Sloan Management Review, 39(3), 51–61.Google Scholar
  13. Birkinshaw, J. M., & 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
  14. Birkinshaw, J. M., & Pedersen, T. (2009). Strategy and Management in MNE subsidiaries. In A. M. Rugman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of International Business (2nd ed.). L, Leslie waters chair of international business.Google Scholar
  15. Birkinshaw, J. M., & Riddlerstrale, J. (1999). Fighting the corporate immune system: a process study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations. [Article]. International Business Review, 8(2), 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Birkinshaw, J. M., Hood, N., & Jonsson, S. (1998). Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: The role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Birkinshaw, J. M., Hood, N., & Young, S. (2005). Subsidiary entrepreneurship, internal and external competitive forces, and subsidiary performance. International Business Review, 14(2), 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Björkman, I., Fey, C. F., & Park, H. J. (2007). Institutional Theory and MNC Subsidiary HRM Practices: Evidence from a Three-Country. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(3), 430–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Borini, F. M., Junior, M. D. M. O., & Proenca, E. R. (2005). Competências de marketing e vendas em subsidiárias estrangeiras e as estratégias das multinacionais. Economia Global e Gestão, 10(3), 109–128.Google Scholar
  20. Borini, F. M., Fleury, M. T. L., Fleury, A. C. C., & Junior, M. D. M. O. (2009). The relevance of subsidiary initiatives for Brazilian multinationals. RAE-revista de administração de empresas, 49(3), 253–265.Google Scholar
  21. Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. M. (2008). Managing power in the multinational corporation: How low-power actors gain influence. Journal of Management, 34(3), 477–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Brock, D. M. (2003). Autonomy of individuals and organizations: Towards a strategy research agenda. International Journal of Business and Economics, 2(1), 57–73.Google Scholar
  23. Brock, D. M. (2005). Multinational acquisition integration: The role of national culture in creating synergies. International Business Review, 14(3), 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Brooke, M. Z. (1984). Centralization and autonomy: A study in organization behaviour. London and New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  25. Buckley, P. J., Clegg, J., Forsans, N., & Reilly, K. (2001). Increasing the Size of the “Country” Regional Economic Integration and Foreign Direct Investment in a Globalised World Economy. Management International Review, 41(3), 251–274.Google Scholar
  26. Chang, E., & Taylor, M. S. (1999). Control in Multinational Corporations (MNCs): The Case of Korean Manufacturing Subsidiaries. Journal of Management, 25(4), 541–565. doi:10.1177/014920639902500404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Chudnovsky, D., & Lopez, A. (1999). As estratégias das empresas transnacionais na Argentina, no Brasil e no Uruguai. O que há de novo nos anos 90? In D. Chudnovsky (Ed.), Investimento direto estrangeiro no Mercosul. Unicamp: Campinas.Google Scholar
  28. CIA. (2009). The World Factbook 2009. from Central Intelligence Agency
  29. Crookell, H. H. (1986). Specialization and international competitiveness. In H. Etemad & L. S. Dulude (Eds.), Managing the Multinational Subsidiary (pp. 102–111). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  30. Davis, L. N., & Meyer, K. E. (2004). Subsidiary research and development, and the local environment. International Business Review, 13(3), 359–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dörrenbächer, C., & Geppert, M. (2009). A micro-political perspective on subsidiary initiative-taking: Evidence from German-owned subsidiaries in France. European Management Journal, 27(2), 100–112. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2008.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Edwards, R., Ahmad, A., & Moss, S. (2002). Subsidiary autonomy: The case of multinational subsidiaries in Malaysia. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1), 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. English, B. (2010). New investment rules strike the right balance, from
  34. Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2002). Transferring knowledge in MNCs: The role of sources of subsidiary knowledge and organizational context. Journal of International Management, 8(1), 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Frost, T. S., Birkinshaw, J. M., & Ensign, P. C. (2002). Centers of excellence in multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 23(11), 997–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gammelgaard, J., McDonald, F., Tüselmann, H., Dörrenbächer, C., & Stephan, A. (2009). Subsidiary Role and Skilled Labour Effects in Small Developed Countries. Management International Review, 49(1), 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Garnier, G. (1982). Context and Decision Making Autonomy in the Foreign Affiliates of U.S. Multinational Corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 25(4), 893–908.Google Scholar
  38. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  39. Ghoshal, S. (1986). The innovative multinational: A differentiated network of organizational roles and management processes. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  40. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 91–112. doi:10.1002/smj.4250151007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ghoshal, S., & Nohria, N. (1989). International differentiation within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 10(4), 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Haas, M. R., & Hansen, M. T. (2001). Competing for attention in knowledge markets: Electronic document dissemination in a management consulting company. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Harman, H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Harzing, A. W. K. (1997). Response rates in international mail surveys: Results of a 22 country study. International Business Review, 6(6), 641–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Harzing, A. W. K., & Noorderhaven, N. (2006). Geographical distance and the role and management of subsidiaries: The case of subsidiaries down-under. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(2), 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hedlund, G. (1981). Autonomy of Subsidiaries and Formalization of Headquarters–Subsidiary Relationships in Swedish MNCs. In L. Otterbeck (Ed.), The Management of Headquarters: Subsidiary Relationships in Multinational Corporations (pp. 25–78). Gower: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  47. Hedlund, G. (1986). The hypermodern MNC—A heterarchy? Human Resource Management, 25(1), 9–35. doi:10.1002/hrm.3930250103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Inkson, J. H. K., Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (1970). ORGANIZATION CONTEXT AND STRUCTURE: AN ABBREVIATED REPLICATION. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(3), 318–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jakobsen, S., & Rusten, G. (2003). The autonomy of foreign subsidiaries: An analysis of headquarter-subsidiary relations. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 57(1), 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Johnson, W. H. A., & Medcof, J. W. (2002). Entrepreneurial behaviour in the MNC: an extended agency theory analysis of the parent-subsidiary relationship and subsidiary initiative. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 2(2/3), 186–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Johnston, S., & Menguc, B. (2007). Subsidiary size and the level of subsidiary autonomy in multinational corporations: A quadratic model investigation of Australian subsidiaries. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 787–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Junior, M. D. M. O., & Borini, F. M. (2006). Subsidiárias de corporações multinacionais: estratégia, inovação e criação de valor. In B. Tanure & R. G. Duarte (Eds.), Gestão internacional (Vol. 1, pp. 81–106). São Paulo: Saraiva.Google Scholar
  53. Junior, M. D. M. O., Boehe, D. M., & Borini, F. M. (2009). Estratégia e Inovação em Corporações Multinacionais - A Transformação das subisidiárias Brasileiras (1 ed (Vol. 3000)). São Paulo: Saraiva.Google Scholar
  54. Kanter, R. M. (1982). The middle manager as innovator. Harvard Business Review, 60(4), 95–105.Google Scholar
  55. Manolopoulos, D. (2006). The concept of autonomy in the subsidiary management research: A conceptual investigation. Journal of Transnational Management, 11(4), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Manolopoulos, D., Papanastassiou, M., & Pearce, R. (2005). Technology sourcing in multinational enterprises and the roles of subsidiaries: An empirical investigation. International Business Review, 14(3), 249–267. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2005.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McDonald, F., Tüselmann, H. J., Voronkova, S., & Allen, M. (2006). The development of foreign-owned subsidiaries and the supply of European markets. Working Paper 06-03. Manchester Metropolitan University.Google Scholar
  58. McDonald, F., Warhurst, S., & Allen, M. (2008). Autonomy, Embeddedness, and the Performance of Foreign Owned Subsidiaries. Multinational Business Review, 16(3), 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McDonald, F., Tüselmann, H. J., Voronkova, S., & Golesorkhi, S. (2011). The strategic development of subsidiaries in regional trade blocs. Multinational Business Review, 19(3), 256–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  62. O’Donnell, S. W. (2000). Managing foreign subsidiaries: Agents of headquarters, or an interdependent network? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 525–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. OECD. (2011). OECD Economic Surveys: New Zealand OECD.Google Scholar
  65. Paterson, S. L., & Brock, D. M. (2002). The development of subsidiary-management research: Review and theoretical analysis. International Business Review, 11(2), 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pearce, R., & Papanastassiou, M. (1997). European markets and the strategic roles of multinational enterprise subsidiaries in the UK. Journal of Common Market Studies, 35(2), 243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Peng, M. W., Denis, Y. L. W., & Yi, J. (2008). An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5), 920–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Penrose, E. T. (1995). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Picard, J. (1977). Factors of variance in multinational marketing control. In L. G. Mattson & F. Widersheim-Pau (Eds.), Recent Research on the Internationalization of Business. Almqvist & Wikse: Uppsala.Google Scholar
  70. Pike, A. (1998). Making performance plants from branch plants? In-situ restructuring in the automotive industry in UK Region. Environment and Planning A(30), 881–900.Google Scholar
  71. Pike, A., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Tomaney, J. (2007). What Kind of Local and Regional Development and for Whom? Regional Studies, 41(9), 1253–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Raziq, M. M., & Perry, M. (2012). Foreign Direct Investment in New Zealand: The Subsidiary-Management Perspective. Proceedings of the British Academy of Management 2012 Conference, Cardiff, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  73. Rugman, A. M. (1996). The theory of the multinational enterprise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  74. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2001). Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Scott-Kennel, J. (2007). Foreign direct investment and local linkages: An empirical investigation. Management International Review, 47(1), 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Soliani, A., & Dantas, L. (2009). Brazil’s Foreign Direct Investment Surged in December (Update1), from
  78. Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(Special Issue), 17–27.Google Scholar
  79. Taggart, J. H. (1997). Autonomy and procedural justice: A framework for evaluating subsidiary strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(1), 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. UNCTAD. (1999). World investment report: Foreign direct investment and the challenge of development. New York and Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  81. UNCTAD. (2011). Global Investmnet Trends Monitor: Global and Regional FDI Trends in 2010. United Nations. Retrieved from
  82. Venaik, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wilson, J. (2010). Short History of Post-Privatisation in New Zealand. Treasury Report T2010/2642 : Privatisation in New Zealand: An assessment of a series of company experiences. Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit. Retrieved from
  84. Young, S., & Tavares, A. T. (2004). Centralization and autonomy: Back to the future. International Business Review, 13(2), 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muhammad Mustafa Raziq
    • 1
  • Felipe Mendes Borini
    • 2
  • Martin Perry
    • 3
  1. 1.School of ManagementMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand
  2. 2.Escola Superior de Propaganda e Marketing (ESPM)São PauloBrasil
  3. 3.School of ManagementMassey UniversityWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations