Advertisement

Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 48, Issue 7, pp 787–807 | Cite as

Managing valuable knowledge in weak IP protection countries

  • Heather BerryEmail author
Article

Abstract

Although knowledge assets provide multinational corporations (MNCs) with competitive advantages in foreign markets, it can be difficult for firms to protect their knowledge in foreign countries – especially countries with weak intellectual property (IP) protection. Building on and extending the knowledge management, institutional theory and expatriate literatures, this article explores whether home country expatriates can substitute for weak IP protection and drive an increase in more and more valuable knowledge transfers to foreign operations located in weak IP protection countries. Because of their ties to headquarters, knowledge of parent firm assets, priorities and routines, and activities in local operations, I argue that home country expatriates can transform the local operation to offer higher protection for parent firm knowledge in weak IP countries in ways that local managers cannot. The results from a comprehensive panel of US multinationals suggest that home country expatriates can substitute for weak IP protection, but that this effect is contingent on the manufacturing and knowledge capabilities of foreign operations for higher value parent firm knowledge transfers. Overall, this article extends our understanding of the global management and protection of knowledge by MNCs by exploring how organizational practices can buffer country-level institutional deficiencies for firm knowledge.

Keywords

knowledge transfer multinational corporations (MNCs) and enterprises (MNEs) intellectual property protection innovation patents knowledge value 

Résumé

Même si le capital des connaissances fournit aux entreprises multinationales des avantages concurrentiels sur les marchés étrangers, il peut être difficile pour les entreprises de protéger leurs savoirs dans les pays étrangers – en particulier dans les pays offrant une faible protection concernant la propriété intellectuelle (PI). Reprenant et prolongeant les littératures sur la gestion des connaissances, la théorie institutionnelle et les expatriés, cet article étudie si les expatriés du pays d’origine peuvent se substituer à la faible protection de la propriété intellectuelle et conduire à une augmentation des transferts de connaissances de plus grande valeur pour les opérations situées dans des pays à faible protection de la PI. En raison de leurs liens avec le siège, le capital des connaissances de la maison mère, des priorités et routines, et des activités relatives aux opérations locales, j’argumente que les expatriés du pays d’origine peuvent transformer l’opération locale pour offrir une meilleure protection des connaissances de la maison mère dans les pays à faible protection de la PI, et ce d’une façon que les dirigeants locaux ne peuvent pas faire. Les résultats d’un vaste panel de multinationales américaines suggèrent que les expatriés du pays d’origine peuvent se substituer à la faible protection de la propriété intellectuelle, mais que cet effet dépend des capacités de production et de connaissances des opérations à l’étranger pour des transferts de connaissances de la maison mère à plus forte valeur. Dans l’ensemble, cet article élargit notre compréhension de la gestion globale et de la protection des connaissances par les multinationales en explorant comment les pratiques organisationnelles peuvent limiter les effets des déficiences institutionnelles d’un pays concernant les connaissances des firmes.

Resumen

Aunque los activos de conocimiento dan a las empresas multinacionales ventajas competitivas en mercados extranjeros, puede ser difícil para las empresas proteger su conocimiento en países extranjeros – especialmente en países con una débil protección de la propiedad intelectual (IP). Sobre la base y extendiendo las literaturas de gestión del conocimiento, teoría institucional y expatriados, este artículo explora si los expatriados en el país de origen pueden sustituir la debilidad de la protección de la propiedad intelectual e impulsar un aumento en más y más transferencias valiosas de conocimiento a las operaciones extranjeras ubicadas en países con débil protección de la propiedad intelectual. Debido a sus vínculos con la casa matriz, el conocimiento de los activos de la empresa, las prioridades y rutinas, y las actividades de las operaciones locales, sostengo que los expatriados en el país de origen pueden transformar las operaciones locales para ofrecer mejor protección para el conocimiento de la casa matriz en países con propiedad intelectual débil en maneras que los gerentes locales no pueden. Los resultados de un amplio panel de multinacionales estadounidenses sugieren que los expatriados en el país de origen pueden sustituir la debilidad de la protección de propiedad intelectual, pero que este efecto es contingente de las capacidades de manufactura y conocimiento de las operaciones extranjeras para transferencias de conocimiento de mayor valor para la empresa matriz. En general, este artículo extiende nuestro entendimiento de la gestión global y la protección de conocimiento por parte de las multinacionales mediante la exploración de cómo las prácticas organizacionales pueden amortiguar las deficiencias institucionales a nivel país para el conocimiento de la empresa.

Resumo

Embora os ativos de conhecimento ofereçam às empresas multinacionais vantagens competitivas em mercados estrangeiros, pode ser difícil para as empresas protegerem seus conhecimentos em tais países - especialmente em países onde a proteção à propriedade intelectual (IP) é fraca. Baseando-se e estendendo as literaturas sobre gestão do conhecimento, teoria institucional e expatriados, este artigo explora se os expatriados do país de origem podem substituir a fraca proteção à IP e impulsionar um aumento na quantidade e no valor das transferências de conhecimento para operações no exterior localizadas em países em que é fraca a proteção da IP. Por causa de seus vínculos com a matriz, de seu conhecimento dos ativos, prioridades e rotinas da empresa controladora, e das atividades nas operações locais, eu argumento que os expatriados do país de origem podem transformar a operação local para oferecer maior proteção aos conhecimentos da empresa controladora em países de fraca IP de formas que os gerentes não podem. Os resultados de um painel abrangente de multinacionais norte-americanas sugerem que os expatriados do país de origem podem substituir a fraca proteção da PI, mas que esse efeito depende das capacidades de fabricação e conhecimento das operações no exterior para transferências de conhecimento de maior valor da empresa controladora. No geral, este artigo estende a nossa compreensão sobre gestão global e proteção do conhecimento por empresas multinacionais ao explorar como as práticas organizacionais podem amortecer deficiências institucionais a nível de país para o conhecimento da empresa.

概要

虽然知识资产在外国市场为跨国公司提供竞争优势,公司在外国可能难以保护它们的知识 —尤其是在对知识产权(IP)保护薄弱的国家。建立于并拓展知识管理、制度理论及外派文献,本文探讨了本国的外派人员是否可以在薄弱的IP保护国家里替代薄弱的知识产权保护,并推动对海外运营有更多价值的知识转移的增长。因为他们与总部的关系,有关母公司资产、优先事项和程序以及当地运营活动的知识,我认为本国外派人员可以改良当地运营,在薄弱的IP国家以当地经理人不能办到的方式为母公司知识给予更高的保护。来自美国跨国公司的一个综合专家组的调查结果表明,母国的外派人员可以替代薄弱的知识产权保护,但效果由为母公司更高价值知识转移的海外运营的制造和知识能力而定。总之,本文通过对组织实践如何能缓冲国家层面公司知识制度不健全的探讨,拓展了我们对跨国公司全球知识管理和保护的理解。

Notes

Acknowledgements

The statistical analysis of firm level data on US multinational companies was conducted at the BEA US Department of Commerce under arrangements that maintain legal confidentiality requirements. Views expressed in this article do not reflect those of the BEA or the Department of Commerce. I thank three anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. I also appreciate helpful comments from Raymond Mataloni and William Zeile on the BEA data. I am grateful to participants at the Academy of Management and Academy of International Business conferences for feedback on earlier versions of this article. Finally, I thank and acknowledge Mack Institute for Innovation funding for access to the Derwent Patent Database Index.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., Antras, P., & Helpman, E. 2007. Contracts and technology adoption. American Economic Review, 97(3): 916–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. 2005. Unbundling institutions. Journal of Political Economy, 113(5): 949–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. 2001. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7): 521–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alcacer, J. 2006. Location choices across the value chain: How activity and capability influence colocation. Management Science, 52(10): 1457–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alcacer, J., & Zhao, M. 2012. Local R&D strategies and multi-location firms: The role of internal linkages. Management Science, 58(4): 734–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Almeida, P., & Phene, A. 2004. Subsidiaries and knowledge creation: The influence of the MNC and host country on innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 847–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anand, J., & Delios, A. 1997. Location specificity and the transferability of downstream assets to foreign subsidiaries. Journal of International Business Studies, 9(1): 579–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belderbos, R., & Heijltjes, M. 2005. The determinants of expatriate staffing by Japanese multinationals in Asia: Control, learning and vertical business groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 36: 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berry, H. 2006. Leaders, laggards and the pursuit of foreign knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berry, H. 2014. Global integration and innovation: Multi-country knowledge generation within MNCs. Strategic Management Journal, 35(6): 869–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berry, H. 2015. Knowledge inheritance in global industries: The impact of parent firm knowledge on the performance of foreign subsidiaries. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5): 1438–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berry, H., & Sakakibara, M. 2008. Resource accumulation and overseas expansion by Japanese multinationals. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 65(2): 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berry, H., Guillen, M., & Zhou, N. 2010. An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(9): 1460–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bjorkman, I., Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Li, L. 2004. Managing knowledge transfer in MNCs: The impact of headquarters control mechanisms. Journal of international Business Studies, 35: 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Black, J., Gregersen, H., & Mendenhall, M. 1992. Toward a theoretical framework of repatriation adjustment. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4): 737–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blomstrom, M., & Kokko, A. 1998. Multinational corporations and spillovers. Journal of Economic Surveys, 12(3): 247–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bonache, J., & Brewster, C. 2001. Knowledge transfer and the management of expatriation. Thunderbird International Business Review, 43(1): 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Branstetter, L., Fisman, R., & Foley, C. F. 2006. Do stronger intellectual property rights increase technology transfer? Empirical evidence from US firm-level data. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(1): 321–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Buckley, P., & Casson, M. 1976. The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cantwell, J. 1989. Technological innovation and multinational corporations. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Caves, R. 1996. Multinational enterprise and economic analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Chang, Y., & Smale, A. 2013. Expatriate characteristics and the stickiness of HRM knowledge transfer. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(12): 2394–2410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chang, Y., Gong, Y., & Peng, M. 2012. Expatriate knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity and subsidiary performance. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 927–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. K. 1987. The multinational mission, balancing global integration with local responsiveness. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dunning, J. 1980. Toward an eclectic theory of international production: Some empirical tests. Journal of International Business Studies, 11: 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Edstrom, A., & Galbraith, J. 1977. Transfers of managers as a coordination and control strategy in multinational corporations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 248–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fang, R., Jiang, G., Makino, S., & Beamish, P. 2010. Multinational firm knowledge, use of expatriates and foreign subsidiary performance. Journal of Management Studies, 47(1): 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Forster, N. 1997. The persistent myth of high expatriate failure rates: A reappraisal. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(4): 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gaur, A., Delios, A., & Singh, K. 2007. Institutional environments, staffing strategies and subsidiary performance. Journal of Management, 33(4): 611–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gimeno, J., & Woo, C. 1999. Multimarket contact, economies of scope and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3): 239–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ginarte, J., & Park, W. 1997. Determinants of patent rights: A cross national study. Research Policy, 26: 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gong, Y. 2003. Subsidiary staffing in international enterprises, agency, resources, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 728–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grant, R. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grubert, H. 1988. Taxes and the division of foreign operating income among royalties, interest, dividends and retained earnings. Journal of Public Economics, 68: 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. 2000. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hall, B., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. 2001. The NBER patent citations file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper 8498.Google Scholar
  38. Hansen, M. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1): 82–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F., & Vopel, K. 1999. Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3): 511–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harzing, A. 2001a. Who’s in charge? An empirical study of executive staffing practices in foreign subsidiaries. Human Resource Management, 40(2): 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harzing, A. 2001b. Of bears, bumble-bees and spiders: The role of expatriates in controlling foreign subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 36(4): 366–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Harzing, A., Pudelko, M., & Reiche, B. 2016. The bridging role of expatriates and inpatriates in knowledge transfer multinational corporations. Human Resource Management, 55(4): 679–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Henisz, W. J. 2000. The institutional environment for economic growth. Economics and Politics, 12(1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hennart, J., & Park, Y. 1994. Location, governance, and strategic determinants of Japanese manufacturing investment in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hines, J. 1995. Taxes, technology transfer and R&D by multinational firms. In M. Feldstein, J. Hines, & R. G. Hubbard (Eds.), Taxing multinational corporations: 225–248. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Hutchings, K. 2002. Improving selection processes but providing marginal support: A review of cross-cultural difficulties for expatriates in Australian organizations in China. Cross Cultural Management, 9(3): 32–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hymer, S. 1960. The international operations of national firms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Jandhyala, S. 2013. Property rights and international investment in information technology services. Strategic Management Journal, 34(7): 877–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Javorcik, B. 2004. Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages. American Economic Review, 94(3): 605–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Zoido-Lobaton, P. 1999. Governance matters. Working Paper 2196. Washington, DC: World Bank Development Research Group.Google Scholar
  51. Keller, W., & Yeaple, S. 2009. Multinational enterprises, international trade, and productivity growth: Firm-level evidence from the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(4): 821–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Knickerbocker, F. T. 1973. Oligopolistic reaction and multinational enterprises. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  53. Kobrin, S. 1988. Expatriate reduction and strategic control in American multinational corporations. Human Resource Management, 27: 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kogan, L., Papanikolaou, D., Seru, A., & Stoffman, N. 2012. Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. NBER Working Paper 17769.Google Scholar
  55. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kwon, S. W., Haleblian, J., & Hagedoorn, J. 2016. In country we trust: National trust and the governance of international R&D alliances. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(7): 807–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. 2008. The economic consequences of legal origins. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(2): 285–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Laing, D. 1994. Involuntary layoffs in a model with asymmetric information concerning worker ability. Review of Economic Studies, 61: 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lane, P., & Lubatkin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5): 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lane, P., Salk, J., & Lyles, M. 2001. Absorptive capacity, learning and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 1–20.Google Scholar
  63. Mansfield, E. 1994. Intellectual property protection, foreign direct investment, and technology transfer. Discussion Paper 19. International Finance Corporation.Google Scholar
  64. Martin, X., & Salomon, R. 2003. Knowledge transfer capacity and its implications for the theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 34:356–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mataloni, R., & Yorgason, D. 2006. Operations of US multinational companies: Preliminary results from the 2004 benchmark survey. Survey of Current Business, 86: 37–68.Google Scholar
  66. Minbaeva, D., & Michailova, S. 2004. Knowledge transfer and expatriation in multinational corporations: The role of disseminative capacity. Employee Relations, 26(2): 663–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Morck, R., & Yeung, B. 1991. Why investors value multinationality. Journal of Business, 64: 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mudambi, R., & Navarra, P. 2004. Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5): 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. OECD. 2004. Compendium of patent statistics. Economic Analysis and Statistics Division of the OECD for Science, Technology and Industry.Google Scholar
  71. Park, W. 2008. International patent protection: 1960–2005. Research Policy, 37: 761–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Polanyi, M. 1962. Personal knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Reiche, B., Harzing, A., & Kraimer, M. 2009. The role of international assignees’ social capital in creating inter-unit intellectual capital: A cross-level model. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3): 509–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schotter, A., & Teagarden, M. 2014. Protecting intellectual property in China. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved January 4, 2017 from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/protecting-intellectual-property-in-china/.
  75. Shaver, J. M., & Flyer, F. 2000. Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 21(12): 1175–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Steensma, K., & Lyles, M. 2000. Explaining IJV survival in a transitional economy through social exchange and knowledge based perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8): 831–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sugathan, A., & George, R. 2015. The influence of governance infrastructure and corporate governance on profit sharing. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(8): 886–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Suutari, V. 2003. Global managers: Career orientation, career tracks, life-style implications and career commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18: 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tan, D., & Mahoney, J. 2006. Why a multinational firm chooses expatriates: Integrating resource-based, agency and transaction costs perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3): 457–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Teece, D. 1977. Technology transfer by multinational firms: The resource costs of transferring technological know-how. The Economic Journal, 87: 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Teece, D. 1996. Firm organization, industrial structure and technological innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 31(2): 193–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Trajtenberg, M. 1990. A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1): 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. UNCTAD. 2005. World investment report: Transnational corporations and the internationalization of R&D. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  85. Yang, Q., Mudambi, R., & Meyer, K. E. 2008. Conventional and reverse knowledge flows in multinational corporations. Journal of Management, 34(5): 882–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 341–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zahra, S., & George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization and extension. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 185–203.Google Scholar
  88. Zhang, Y., George, J., & Chan, T. 2006. The paradox of dueling identities: The case of local senior executives in MNC subsidiaries. Journal of Management, 32(3): 400–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zhao, M. 2006. Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection. Management Science, 52: 1185–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessGeorge Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations