Images of the multinational firm

A compilation of perspectives from leading authors from international business studies and organisation studies, including John Dunning, Eleanor Westney, John Cantwell, Richard Whitely and Alan Rugman.

Race-to-the-bottom or -top at home or abroad: Health and safety standards and the multinational firm

We develop a model to illustrate potential complexities in the relationship between corporate geographical diversification and the health and safety (H&S) standards set in national jurisdictions. A firm, that initially has a plant in its home country, may choose to also have one or two foreign plants in order to improve its bargaining position versus local governments, and so ensure reduced H&S standards, i.e. a race-to-the-bottom. However, contrary to the main focus of the popular debate on this topic, we note the potential for the race-to-the-bottom tendency to be exerted on H&S standards in the multinational company’s home rather than host country, and also for an upward push on H&S to instead result.

The economic theory of international business: a supply chain perspective

This paper proposes a way of addressing unresolved issues in international business theory by modelling the multinational enterprise as a coordinator of supply chains. It identifies a new market seeking strategy that is an alternative to conventional strategies such as exporting, licensing and FDI, and analyses the conditions under which it will be adopted by firms. The new strategy involves the off-shoring of production and the out-sourcing of R&D, and is implemented through co-operation between a source country firm and a host country firm.

Location and collocation advantages in international innovation

Purpose – This paper examines the role of location-specific (L) advantages in the spatial distribution of multinational enterprise (MNE) R&D activity. The meaning of L advantages is revisited. In addition to L advantages that are industry-specific, the paper emphasises that there is an important category of L advantages, referred to as collocation advantages. Design/methodology/approach – Using the OLI framework, this paper highlights that the innovation activities of MNEs are about interaction of these variables, and the essential process of internalising L advantages to enhance and create firm-specific advantages. Findings – Collocation advantages derive from spatial proximity to specific unaffiliated firms, which may be suppliers, competitors, or customers. It is also argued that L advantages are not always public goods, because they may not be available to all firms at a similar or marginal cost. These costs are associated with access and internalisation of L advantages, and – especially in the case of R&D – are attendant with the complexities of embeddedness. Originality/value – The centralisation/decentralisation, spatial separation/collocation debates in R&D location have been mistakenly viewed as a paradox facing firms, instead of as a trade-off that firms must make.

Communities of practice in UK large contracting firms: contrasting application and non-utilized merits

The idea of a community of practice (CoP) has been offered as the engine to unlock the potential of organizational resources, mainly knowledge and people, to achieve the strategic goal of sustained competitiveness. The relevance and application of CoPs in large UK contracting companies was investigated using two case studies. Contrasting variations in the understanding of the concept between the two contracting companies were observed. While a CoP was applied in one company with strategic intent, the concept was not fully understood in the other. In one company, only a third of CoP members surveyed agreed that CoPs were a vehicle for driving best practice and innovation throughout the business; this compared with more than 60% in agreement in the other contracting firm. The higher agreement and satisfaction of CoP members in the latter case study was the result of the management's understanding and commitment. CoPs require time and organizational support to mature. The strategic inception and management support of CoP application is vital for their maturation and progress. Although the construction industry change discourses portray CoPs as fostering an environment of trust, and hence serving as innovation and competiveness enablers, their potential contribution to contracting firms does not provide a compelling case and hence merits further research studies.

Do national cultural differences affect the nature and characteristics of HRM practices? Evidence from Australian and Hong Kong construction firms on remuneration and job autonomy

Human resource management (HRM) plays a pivotal role in attracting and retaining talents. However, there is growing recognition in international HRM literature that the adoption of the widely accepted US/Harvard-inspired HRM model ignores the influences of cultural contexts on HRM practices in different countries. This notion has not been empirically investigated in the construction industry. Based on survey responses from 604 construction professionals from Australia and Hong Kong, this study examines whether: (i) national cultural differences influence individuals’ preference for types of remuneration and job autonomy, (ii) actual organizational HRM practices reflect such preferences and (iii) gaps between individuals’ preferences and actual organizational HRM practices affect job satisfaction. Results showed significant difference in HRM preferences between Australian and Hong Kong respondents and these are reflected in the distinct types of HRM practices adopted by construction firms in the two countries. Findings further indicated that the gap between individuals’ preferences and actual organizational HRM practices is associated with job satisfaction. The results support existing mainstream research and highlight the deficiency of the acultural treatment of HRM that is still apparent in construction management literature. An uncritical literature in the area not only hinders theory development but also potentially undermines the ability of construction firms to attract, recruit, and retain scarce talents.

Corporate social responsibility in construction and engineering firms: key elements of effective strategy

Through multiple case studies of firms we argue that firms that have developed corporate responsibility strategies, albeit informally at first, do so by making intentional, informed and collective choices about CSR initiatives. More precisely, we point to the importance of considering corporate identity in making these choices and to the process of adaptive coordination, which includes both responding to and influencing the CSR environment. We conclude that CSR strategic landscape are determined more and more by the astute and careful management of a network of cooperative and competitive stakeholder interests which possess both tangible and intangible value to a firm.

Understanding the long term success of UK construction firms: the extent and role of 'hidden' corporate social responsibility

The construction sector is often described as lagging behind other major industries. At first this appears fair when considering the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR). It is argued that CSR is ill-defined, with firms struggling to make sense of and engage with it. Literature suggests that the short-termism view of construction firms renders the long-term, triple-bottom-line principle of CSR untenable. This seems to be borne out by literature indicating that construction firms typically adopt a compliance-based approach to CSR instead of discretionary CSR which is regarded as adding most value to firms and benefiting the broadest group of stakeholders. However, this research conducted in the UK using a regional construction firm offers a counter argument whereby discretionary CSR approaches are well embedded and enacted within the firms’ business operations even though they are not formally articulated as CSR strategies and thus remain 'hidden'. This raises questions in the current CSR debate. First, is ‘hidden’ CSR relevant to the long term success of construction firms? and to what extent do these firms need to reinvent themselves to formally take advantage of the CSR agenda?