PL EN
RESEARCH PAPER
Innovation Performance of Foreign Subsidiaries in Post-Transition Economy: Evidence from Poland
 
More details
Hide details
1
Collegium of World Economy, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Poland
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Małgorzata Stefania Lewandowska   

Collegium of World Economy, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Poland
Submission date: 2021-10-22
Final revision date: 2022-02-09
Acceptance date: 2022-07-01
Publication date: 2022-09-30
 
GNPJE 2022;311(3):46–66
 
KEYWORDS
JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES
ABSTRACT
The host country environment is an important source of knowledge for multinational enterprises (MNEs). The resources and competencies of MNEs’ foreign subsidiaries (FS) as well as internal and external relationships are perceived to be critically important for their performance. This study intends to fill a cognitive gap in the understanding of factors influencing the innovation performance of FS established in Poland. FS innovation performance is explained by their resourcebased specific advantages, internal embeddedness in the corporate network, external embeddedness, and by interactions between their systemic power and autonomy. The analysis is based on a 2018 survey of 436 manufacturing FS in Poland. The ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model was applied, along with three quantile regression equations to provide additional layers of detail. We observed a positive influence of FS’ own assets on innovation performance, especially if coupled with their deep internal embeddedness. The study also found a positive influence of internal embeddedness on innovation performance enhanced for high/ medium-high-tech firms if coinciding with strong resource-based specific advantages. Another finding was that the external embeddedness of FS had a positive effect on their innovation performance. Besides, the positive influence of systemic power on innovation performance was only revealed for high/medium-high-tech FS, while the subsidiaries’ autonomy showed no significant influence on their innovation performance.
 
REFERENCES (119)
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.
 
2.
Alharbi J., Gelaidan H., Al-Swidi A., Saeed A. [2016], Control mechanisms employed between headquarters and subsidiaries in Multinational Enterprises (MNEs), Review of International Business and Strategy, 26 (4): 493–516.
 
3.
Ambos B., Ambos T. C. [2009], Location choice, management and performance of international R&D investments in peripheral economies, International Journal of Technology Management, 48 (1): 24–41.
 
4.
Ambos B., Kunisch S., Leicht-Deobald U., Schulte Steinberg A. [2019], Unravelling agency relations inside the MNC: The roles of socialization, goal conflicts and second principals in headquarters-subsidiary relationships, Journal of World Business, 54 (2): 67–81.
 
5.
Ambos, B. Schlegelmilch B. B. [2007], Innovation and control in the multinational firm: A comparison of political and contingency approaches, Strategic Management Journal, 28 (5): 473–486.
 
6.
Ambos T. C., Ambos B., Schlegelmilch B. B. [2006], Learning from foreign subsidiaries: An empirical investigation of headquarters’ benefits from reverse knowledge transfers, International Business Review, 15 (3): 294–312.
 
7.
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.
 
8.
Andersson U., Björkman I., Forsgren M. [2005], Managing subsidiary knowledge creation: The effect of control mechanisms on subsidiary local embeddedness, International Business Review, 14 (5): 521–538.
 
9.
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.
 
10.
Andersson U., Forsgren M., Pedersen T. [2001], Subsidiary performance in multinational corporations: The importance of technology embeddedness, International Business Review, 10 (1): 3–23.
 
11.
Asakawa K. [2001], Organizational tension in international R&D management: The case of Japanese firms, Research Policy, 30 (5): 735–757.
 
12.
Asakawa K., Park Y., Song J., Kim S.‑J. [2018], Internal embeddedness, geographic distance, and global knowledge sourcing by overseas subsidiaries, Journal of International Business Studies, 49 (6): 743–752.
 
13.
Berchicci L. [2013], Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance, Research Policy, 42 (1): 117–127.
 
14.
Beugelsdijk S., Jindra B. [2018], Product innovation and decision-making autonomy in subsidiaries of multinational companies, Journal of World Business, 53 (4): 529–539.
 
15.
Birkinshaw J. M., Hood N. [2001], Unleash Innovation in Foreign Subsidiaries, Harvard Business Review, March.
 
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): 221–242.
 
17.
Birkinshaw J. M., Morrison A. J. [1995], Configurations of Strategy and Structure in Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations, Journal of International Business Studies, 26 (4): 729–753.
 
18.
Birkinshaw J. M., Ridderstråle J. [1999], Fighting the corporate immune system: a process study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations, International Business Review, 8 (2): 149–180.
 
19.
Blomkvist K., Kappen P., Zander I. [2010], Quo vadis? The entry into new technologies in advanced foreign subsidiaries of the multinational enterprise, Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (9): 1525–1549.
 
20.
Blomkvist K., Kappen P., Zander I. [2019], Who is in and who is out? Integration of technological knowledge in the multinational corporation, Industrial and Corporate Change, 28 (3): 437–457.
 
21.
Boehe D. M. [2007], Product development in MNC subsidiaries: Local linkages and global interdependencies, Journal of International Management, 13 (4): 488–512.
 
22.
Bouquet C., Birkinshaw J. M. [2008a], Managing Power in the Multinational Corporation: How Low-Power Actors Gain Influence, Journal of Management, 34 (3): 477–508.
 
23.
Bouquet C., Birkinshaw J. M. [2008b], Weight Versus Voice: How Foreign Subsidiaries Gain Attention from Corporate Headquarters, The Academy of Management Journal, 51 (3): 577–601.
 
24.
Bresciani S., Ferraris A. [2016], Innovation-receiving subsidiaries and dual embeddedness: Impact on business performance, Baltic Journal of Management, 11 (1): 108–130.
 
25.
Buckley P. J., Carter M. J. [1999], Managing Cross-Border Complementary Knowledge: Conceptual Developments in the Business Process Approach to Knowledge Management in Multinational Firms, International Studies of Management & Organization, 29 (1): 80–104.
 
26.
Cavanagh A., Freeman S. [2012], The development of subsidiary roles in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry, International Business Review, 21 (4): 602–617.
 
27.
Cenamor J., Parida V., Oghazi P., Pesämaa O., Wincent J. [2019], Addressing dual embeddedness: The roles of absorptive capacity and appropriability mechanisms in subsidiary performance, Industrial Marketing Management, 78: 239–249.
 
28.
Chesbrough H. W. [2003], Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, Boston.
 
29.
Ciabuschi F., Dellestrand H., Kappen P. [2012], The good, the bad, and the ugly: Technology transfer competence, rent-seeking, and bargaining power, Journal of World Business, 47 (4): 664–674.
 
30.
Ciabuschi F., Dellestrand H., Martín Martin O. [2011], Internal Embeddedness, Headquarters Involvement, and Innovation Importance in Multinational Enterprises, Journal of Management Studies, 48 (7): 1612–1639.
 
31.
Ciabuschi F., Forsgren M., Martín Martín O. [2012], Headquarters involvement and efficiency of innovation development and transfer in multinationals: A matter of sheer ignorance?, International Business Review, 21 (2): 130–144.
 
32.
Ciabuschi F., Holm U., Martín Martín O. [2014], Dual embeddedness, influence and performance of innovating subsidiaries in the multinational corporation, International Business Review, 23 (5): 897–909.
 
33.
Ciabuschi F., Martín Martín O. [2011], Effects of Subsidiary Autonomy on Innovation Development and Transfer Intensities, in: van Tulder R., Verbeke A., Drogendijk R. (eds.), Progress in International Business Research. The Future of Global Organizing: 251–273, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
 
34.
Cieślik A. [2017], Firmy z udziałem kapitału zagranicznego w Polsce. Lokalizacja i orientacja eksportowa, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 498, 48–56.
 
35.
Cieślik A. [2019], Bezpośrednie inwestycje zagraniczne w Polsce: stan obecny i perspektywy rozwoju, Rocznik Instytutu Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, 17: 245–263.
 
36.
Dahl R. A. [1957], The Concept of Power, Behavioral Science, 2 (3): 201–215.
 
37.
Damijan J. P., Kostevc Č., Rojec M. (2010), Does a foreign subsidiary’s network status affect its innovation activity? Evidence from postsocialist economies, Working Papers del Instituto Complutense de Estudios Internacionales 1006.
 
38.
De Jong G., Van Vo D., Beugelsdijk S., Jindra B. (2014), The future of successful MNC: subsidiary decision-making autonomy, embeddedness and innovation, Proceedings of the 40th EIBA Annual Conference, Uppsala.
 
39.
Demeter K., Szász L., Rácz B.‑G. [2016], The impact of subsidiaries’ internal and external integration on operational performance, International Journal of Production Economics, 182: 73–85.
 
40.
Dörrenbächer C., Gammelgaard J. [2011], Subsidiary power in multinational corporations: The subtle role of micro-political bargaining power, Critical perspectives on international business, 7 (1): 30–47.
 
41.
Doz Y., Prahalad C. K. [1984], Patterns of Strategic Control Within Multinational Corporations, Journal of International Business Studies, 15 (2): 55–72.
 
42.
Dunning J. H., Lundan S. M. [2008], Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton.
 
43.
Dymitrowski A., Ratajczak-Mrozek M. [2019], The changing roles of a multinational enterprise’s subsidiaries and headquarters in innovation transfer: A network perspective, Creativity and Innovation Management, 28 (4): 550–562.
 
44.
Emerson R. M. [1962], Power-Dependence Relations, American Sociological Review, 27 (1): 31–41.
 
45.
Engle A. D., Zaharie M., Kerekes K., Poór J. [2020], Who Is in Charge Here? Evidence of the Division of Roles and Responsibilities Between Global and Local HR Managers in MNEs Operating in the CEE Region, Journal of East-West Business, 26 (1): 81–107.
 
46.
Ferraris A., Santoro G., Dezi L. [2017], How MNC’s subsidiaries may improve their innovative performance? The role of external sources and knowledge management capabilities, Journal of Management Studies, 21 (3): 540–552.
 
47.
Figueiredo P. N., Larsen H., Hansen U. E. [2020], The role of interactive learning in innovation capability building in multinational subsidiaries: A micro-level study of biotechnology in Brazil, Research Policy, 49 (6): 103995.
 
48.
Filippov S., Duysters G. [2011], Competence-building in foreign subsidiaries: The case of new EU member states, Journal for East European Management Studies, 4: 286–314.
 
49.
Foss N. J., Pedersen T. [2002], Transferring knowledge in MNCs, Journal of International Management, 8 (1): 49–67.
 
50.
Frenz M., Ietto-Gillies G. [2009], The impact on innovation performance of different sources of knowledge: Evidence from the UK Community Innovation Survey, Research Policy, 38 (7): 1125–1135.
 
51.
Frost T. S., Birkinshaw J. M., Ensign P. C. [2002], Centers of excellence in multinational corporations, Strategic Management Journal, 23 (11): 997–1018.
 
52.
Galli Geleilate J.‑M., Andrews D. S., Fainshmidt S. [2020], Subsidiary autonomy and subsidiary performance: A meta-analysis, Journal of World Business, 55 (4): 101049.
 
53.
Gammelgaard J., Kumar R. [2016], Legitimacy Dynamics in Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationships, in: Ambos T. C., Ambos B., Birkinshaw J. M. (eds), Perspectives on Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationships in the Contemporary MNC: 121–140, Research in Global Strategic Management, vol. 17.
 
54.
Gammelgaard J., McDonald F., Stephan A., Tüselmann H., Dörrenbächer C. [2012], The impact of increases in subsidiary autonomy and network relationships on performance, International Business Review, 21 (6): 1158–1172.
 
55.
Garcia-Pont C., Canales J. I., Noboa F. [2009], Subsidiary Strategy: The Embeddedness Component, Journal of Management Studies, 46 (2): 182–214.
 
56.
Gerschewski S., Lindsay V. J., Rose E. [2016], Advancing the entrepreneurial orientation construct: The role of passion and perseverance, Review of International Business and Strategy, 26 (4): 446–471.
 
57.
Ghoshal S., Bartlett C. A. [1988], Creation, Adoption, and Diffusion of Innovations by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations, Journal of International Business Studies, 19 (3): 365–388.
 
58.
Ghoshal S., Bartlett C. A. [1990], The Multinational Corporation as an Interorganizational Network, The Academy of Management Review, 15 (4): 603.
 
59.
Gnyawalị D. R., Singal M., Mu S. [2009], Knowledge ties among subsidiaries in MNCs: A multi-level conceptual model, Journal of International Management, 15 (4): 387–400.
 
60.
Gołębiowski T., Jankowska B., Danik L., Dzikowska M., Gorynia, M., Lewandowska M. S. [2021], Sprawność innowacyjna filii zagranicznej a jej pozycja w sieci przedsiębiorstwa międzynarodowego. Perspektywa filii utworzonych w Polsce, Difin, Warszawa.
 
61.
Gołębiowski T., Lewandowska M. S. [2015], Influence of internal and external relationships of foreign subsidiaries on innovation performance. Evidence from Germany, Czech Republic and Romania, Journal of East European Management Studies, 20 (3): 304–327.
 
62.
Gołębiowski T., Lewandowska M., Rószkiewicz M. [2019], Subsidiaries’ dual embeddedness and innovation-related competitive advantage, Gospodarka Narodowa, 299 (3): 5–30.
 
63.
Granovetter M. [1995], Problems of Explanation in Economic Sociology, in: Nohria N. (ed.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action; [papers originally presented at a conference held in 1990: 25–56, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.
 
64.
Gupta A. K., Govindarajan V. [1991], Knowledge Flows and the Structure of Control within Multinational Corporations, The Academy of Management Review, 16 (4): 768–792.
 
65.
Gupta A. K., Govindarajan V. [2000], Knowledge flows within multinational corporations, Strategic Management Journal, 21 (4): 473–496.
 
66.
Ha Y. J., Giroud A. [2015], Competence-creating subsidiaries and FDI technology spillovers, International Business Review, 24 (4): 605–614.
 
67.
Holm U., Pedersen T. (eds.) [2000], The emergence and impact of MNC centres of excellence: A subsidiary perspective, Basingstoke, Macmillan Press.
 
68.
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.
 
69.
Jose P. E. [2013], Doing statistical mediation and moderation. Methodology in the social sciences: 2013: 5, The Guilford Press, New York.
 
70.
Keupp M. M., Palmié M., Gassmann O. [2011], Achieving Subsidiary Integration in International Innovation by Managerial “Tools”, Management International Review, 51 (2): 213–239.
 
71.
Koenker R., Hallock K. F. [2001], Quantile Regression, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15 (4): 143–156.
 
72.
Laursen K., Salter A. [2006], Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U. K. manufacturing firms, Strategic Management Journal, 27 (2): 131–150.
 
73.
Lavie D. [2006], The Competitive Advantage of Interconnected Firms: An Extension of the Resource-Based View, Academy of Management Review, 31 (3): 638–658.
 
74.
Leiponen A., Helfat C. E. [2010], Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth, Strategic Management Journal, 31 (2): 224–236.
 
75.
Lowe M., Wrigley N. [2010], The “Continuously Morphing” Retail TNC During Market Entry: Interpreting Tesco’s Expansion into the United States, Economic Geography, 86 (4): 381–408.
 
76.
Lundan S., Cantwell J. [2020], The local co-evolution of firms and governments in the Information Age, Journal of International Business Studies: 1–13.
 
77.
Magee J. C., Galinsky A. D. [2008], Chapter 8 Social Hierarchy: The Self-Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status, The Academy of Management Annals, 2 (1): 351–398.
 
78.
Meyer K. E., Li C., Schotter A. P. J. [2020], Managing the MNE subsidiary: Advancing a multi-level and dynamic research agenda, Journal of International Business Studies, 51 (4): 538–576.
 
79.
Meyer K. E., Mudambi R., Narula R. [2010], Multinational Enterprises and Local Contexts: The Opportunities and Challenges of Multiple-Embeddedness, Journal of Management Studies, 48 (2): 235–252.
 
80.
Michailova S., Mustaffa Z. [2012], Subsidiary knowledge flows in multinational corporations: Research accomplishments, gaps, and opportunities, Journal of World Business, 47 (3): 383–396.
 
81.
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.
 
82.
Mudambi R., Pedersen T., Andersson U. [2014], How subsidiaries gain power in multinational corporations, Journal of World Business, 49 (1): 101–113.
 
83.
Mudambi R., Piscitello L., Rabbiosi L. [2014], Reverse Knowledge Transfer in MNEs: Subsidiary Innovativeness and Entry Modes, Long Range Planning, 47 (1–2): 49–63.
 
84.
Najafi-Tavani Z., Giroud A., Andersson U. [2014], The interplay of networking activities and internal knowledge actions for subsidiary influence within MNCs, Journal of World Business, 49 (1): 122–131.
 
85.
Najafi-Tavani Z., Zaefarian G., Naudé P., Giroud A. [2015], Reverse knowledge transfer and subsidiary power, Industrial Marketing Management, 48, July: 103–110.
 
86.
Narula R. [2014], Exploring the Paradox of Competence-Creating Subsidiaries: Balancing Bandwidth and Dispersion in MNEs, Long Range Planning, 47 (1–2): 4–15.
 
87.
Narula R., Guimon J. [2010], The R&D activity of multinational enterprises in peripheral economies: evidence from the EU new member states, MERIT Working Papers 2010–048, United Nations University – Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
 
88.
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.
 
89.
Nieto M. J., Santamaría L. [2007], The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation, Technovation, 27 (6–7): 367–377.
 
90.
O’Donnell S. W. [2000], Managing foreign subsidiaries: agents of headquarters, or an interdependent network?, Strategic Management Journal, 21 (5): 525–548.
 
91.
Palmié M., Keupp M. M., Gassmann O. [2014], Pull the Right Levers: Creating Internationally “Useful” Subsidiary Competence by Organizational Architecture, Long Range Planning, 47 (1–2): 32–48.
 
92.
Pereira R. M., Borini F. M., Santos L. L., Oliveira Jr M. M. [2020], Environmental conditions, subsidiaries’ autonomy and global innovation in multinational enterprises, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 11 (2): 247–262.
 
93.
Petricevic O., Teece D. J. [2019], The structural reshaping of globalization: Implications for strategic sectors, profiting from innovation, and the multinational enterprise, Journal of International Business Studies, 50 (9), 1487–1512.
 
94.
Pfeffer J., Salancik G. R. [1978], The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective, Harper & Row, New York.
 
95.
Phene A., Almeida P. [2008], Innovation in Multinational Subsidiaries: The Role of Knowledge Assimilation and Subsidiary Capabilities, Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (5): 901–919.
 
96.
Pisoni A., Fratocchi L., Onetti A. [2013], Subsidiary autonomy in transition economies: Italian SMEs in Central and Eastern European countries, Journal of East European Management Studies, 18 (3): 336–370.
 
97.
Polanyi K. [1944], The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time, Beacon Press, Boston.
 
98.
Raziq M. M., Benito G. R., Toulson P., Malik O. F., Ahmad M. [2019], Roles and strategies of foreign MNE subsidiaries in New Zealand, European Journal of International Management, 13 (6): 757–784.
 
99.
Reilly M., Scott P., Mangematin V. [2012], Alignment or independence? Multinational subsidiaries and parent relations, Journal of Business Strategy, 33 (2): 4–11.
 
100.
Roolaht T. (ed.) [2004], The Inter-Company Relationships and Strategic Autonomy.
 
101.
Rugman A. M., Verbeke A. [2001], Subsidiary-Specific Advantages in Multinational Enterprises, Strategic Management Journal, 22 (3): 237–250.
 
102.
Rule of Law Index [2021], World of Justice Project, Washington D. C.
 
103.
Sarstedt M., Mooi E. [2019], A Concise Guide to Market Research: The Process, Data, and Methods Using IBM SPSS Statistics (third edition 2019). Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Springer, Berlin–Heidelberg.
 
104.
Schmid S., Hartmann S. [2011], Product innovation processes in foreign subsidiaries – The influence of local embeddedness, 37th Annual Conference, European International Business Academy, Bucharest.
 
105.
Søberg P. V., Wæhrens B. V. [2020], Subsidiary autonomy and knowledge transfer, Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, 13 (2): 149–169.
 
106.
Thompson J. D. [1967], Organizations in action, McGraw-Hill, New York.
 
107.
Tsai W. [2001], Knowledge Transfer in Intraorganizational Networks: Effects of Network Position and Absorptive Capacity on Business Unit Innovation and Performance, The Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5): 996–1004.
 
108.
Uzzi B. [1997], Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1): 35–67.
 
109.
Van Beers C., Zand F. [2014], R&D Cooperation, Partner Diversity, and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Analysis, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31 (2): 292–312.
 
110.
Van der Straaten K., Pisan N., Kolk A. [2020], Unraveling the MNE wage premium, Journal of International Business Studies, 51 (9): 1355–1390.
 
111.
Van Tulder R., Verbeke A., Jankowska B. (eds.) [2020], International Business in a VUCA World. PIBR, vol. 14, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, UK.
 
112.
Veugelers R. [1997], Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing, Research Policy, 26 (3): 303–315.
 
113.
Wach K., Głodowska A., Maciejewski M. [2018], Entrepreneurial Orientation, Knowledge Utilization and Internationalization of Firms, Sustainability, 10 (12): 4711.
 
114.
Wang J., Liu X., Li X. [2009], A dual-role typology of multinational subsidiaries, International Business Review, 18 (6): 578–591.
 
115.
Wang N., Hua Y., Wu G., Zhao C., Wang Y. [2019], Reverse transfer of innovation and subsidiary power: A moderated mediation model, Journal of Business Research, 103: 328–337.
 
116.
Weber M. [1978], The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, The Free Press, New York.
 
117.
Weresa M. A. [2020], Determinanty zdolności innowacyjnej Polski a doganianie innowacyjnych liderów, Biuletyn PTE, 2 (89), 33–41.
 
118.
Yamin M., Andersson U. [2011], Subsidiary importance in the MNC: What role does internal embeddedness play?, International Business Review, 20 (2): 151–162.
 
119.
Young S., Tavares A. T. [2004], Centralization and autonomy: back to the future, International Business Review, 13 (2): 215–237.
 
eISSN:2300-5238