Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:56:40.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowledge flows, strategic motives and innovation performance: Insights from Australian and New Zealand investment in Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2020

Igor Ingršt  and
Peter Zámborský Open the ORCID record for Peter Zámborský [Opens in a new window]
Igor Ingršt
Affiliation:
Department of Management and International Business, University of Auckland Business School, 12 Grafton Road, Auckland1142, New Zealand
Peter Zámborský*
Affiliation:
Department of Management and International Business, University of Auckland Business School, 12 Grafton Road, Auckland1142, New Zealand
*
*Corresponding author. Email: p.zamborsky@auckland.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We study the international innovation strategies of Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) firms in the European context, to explain their investment motives, knowledge flows and innovation performance. Our thematic analysis of seven case studies suggests that ANZ investors' motives for innovation in Europe are often both market- and knowledge-seeking and that some are also motivated by diversification and cooperation. While the strategic intent is often for the knowledge to flow in multiple directions among subsidiaries and headquarters (HQ), distance poses challenges to the efficiency of the process. European subsidiaries are often seen as potentially playing a key role in firms' global innovation systems, particularly with regards to radical innovation. However, because of distance and communication bottlenecks (e.g., time zone differences), HQ does not always recognise this potential. We develop a model proposing that HQ–subsidiary trust and strategic motives are moderators in the process of international knowledge connectivity and knowledge creation.

Keywords

innovation and R&Dknowledge diffusionknowledge acquisition and sharingevolving roles of subsidiaries and headquartersknowledge-based view
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 27 , Issue 5 , September 2021 , pp. 948 - 971
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(4), 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aichhorn, N., & Puck, J. (2017). Bridging the language gap in multinational companies: Language strategies and the notion of company-speak. Journal of World Business, 52(3), 386–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almeida, P., & Phene, A. (2004). Subsidiaries and knowledge creation: The influence of the MNC and host country on innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 847–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambos, B., & Ambos, T. C. (2011). Meeting the challenge of offshoring R&D: An examination of firm-and location-specific factors. R&D Management, 41(2), 107–119.Google Scholar
Andersson, U., & Forsgren, M. (2000). In search of centre of excellence: Network embeddedness and subsidiary roles in multinational corporations. MIR: Management International Review, 40(4), 329–350.Google Scholar
Andersson, U., Dasí, À., Mudambi, R., & Pedersen, T. (2016). Technology, innovation and knowledge: The importance of ideas and international connectivity. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arant, W., Fornahl, D., Grashof, N., Hesse, K., & Söllner, C. (2019). University-industry collaborations—The key to radical innovations?. Review of Regional Research, 39(2), 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arikan, A. T. (2009). Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 658–676.Google Scholar
Azar, G., & Ciabuschi, F. (2017). Organizational innovation, technological innovation, and export performance: The effects of innovation radicalness and extensiveness. International Business Review, 26(2), 324–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belderbos, R., Leten, B., & Suzuki, S. (2013). How global is R&D? Firm-level determinants of home-country bias in R&D. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(8), 765–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. Y., & Tung, R. L. (2011). From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 573–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanc, H., & Sierra, C. (1999). The internationalisation of R&D by multinationals: A trade-off between external and internal proximity. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2), 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond-Smith, S., Cassells, R., Duncan, A. S., Kiely, D., & Tarverdi, Y. (2016). Positioned for an ideas boom? Productivity and innovation in Australia (No. FS04). Perth: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School.Google Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buckley, P. J., Munjal, S., Enderwick, P., & Forsans, N. (2016). Cross-border acquisitions by Indian multinationals: Asset exploitation or asset augmentation?. International Business Review, 25(4), 986–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cano-Kollmann, M., Cantwell, J., Hannigan, T. J., Mudambi, R., & Song, J. (2016). Knowledge connectivity: An agenda for innovation research in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(3), 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantwell, J. (2009). Location and the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(1), 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantwell, J., & Janne, O. (1999). Technological globalisation and innovative centres: The role of corporate technological leadership and locational hierarchy. Research Policy, 28(2–3), 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. (2005). MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12), 1109–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantwell, J., & Piscitello, L. (2000). Accumulating technological competence: Its changing impact on corporate diversification and internationalization. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(1), 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantwell, J., & Vertova, G. (2004). Historical evolution of technological diversification. Research Policy, 33(3), 511–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castaldi, C., Frenken, K., & Los, B. (2015). Related variety, unrelated variety and technological breakthroughs: An analysis of US state-level patenting. Regional Studies, 49(5), 767–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciabuschi, F., Forsgren, M., & Martin, O. M. (2012). Headquarters involvement and efficiency of innovation development and transfer in multinationals: A matter of sheer ignorance?. International Business Review, 21(2), 130–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, H. L., & Huang, Y. (2004). The establishment of global marketing strategic alliances by small and medium enterprises. Small Business Economics, 22(5), 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, R. (1996). Technological expansion: The interaction between diversification strategy and organizational capability. Journal of Management Studies, 33(5), 649–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, T. J., Chen, H., & Ku, Y. H. (2004). Foreign direct investment and local linkages. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(4), 320–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiesa, V. (1995). Globalizing R&D around centres of excellence. Long Range Planning, 28(6), 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, W., & Alcacer, J. (2002). Knowledge seeking and location choice of foreign direct investment in the United States. Management Science, 48(12), 1534–1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, R., Fabling, R., Grimes, A., & Bonner, N. (2007). National R&D and patenting: Is New Zealand an outlier? New Zealand Economic Papers, 41(1), 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Criscuolo, P., & Narula, R. (2007). Using multi-hub structures for international R&D: Organisational inertia and the challenges of implementation. Management International Review, 47(5), 639–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Narula, R. (2015). A set of motives to unite them all? Revisiting the principles and typology of internationalization motives. The Multinational Business Review, 23(1), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dachs, B., Stehrer, R., & Zahradnik, G. (2014). The internationalisation of business R&D. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delios, A., & Beamish, P. W. (1999). Ownership strategy of Japanese firms: Transactional, institutional, and experience influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20(10), 915–933.3.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, P. (2004). Outward investment by Chinese MNCs: Motivations and implications. Business Horizons, 47(3), 8–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Minin, A., Zhang, J., & Gammeltoft, P. (2012). Chinese Foreign direct investment in R&D in Europe: A new model of R&D internationalization? European Management Journal, 30(3), 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doz, Y. (2011). Qualitative research for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 582–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driffield, N., Love, J. H., & Yang, Y. (2014). Technology sourcing and reverse productivity spillovers in the multinational enterprise: Global or regional phenomenon? British Journal of Management, 25(S1), S24–S41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, J. H. (1993). Internationalizing Porter's diamond. Management International Review, 33(2), 7.Google Scholar
Dunning, J. H. (2001). The eclectic (OLI) paradigm of international production: Past, present and future. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(2), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. (2009). The internationalization of corporate R&D: A review of the evidence and some policy implications for home countries. Review of Policy Research, 26(1–2), 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eapen, A., & Krishnan, R. (2019). Transferring tacit know-how: Do opportunism safeguards matter for firm boundary decisions? Organization Science, 30(4), 715–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estrin, S., & Meyer, K. (2013). How different are emerging economy MNEs? A comparison study of location choice. Retrieved from http://personal.lse.ac.uk/estrin/Publication%20PDF's/How%20Different%20are%20Emerging%20Economy%20MNEs_20130122km.pdfGoogle Scholar
European External Action Service (EEAS). (2019). The partnership on sustainable connectivity and quality infrastructure between the European Union and Japan. Retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/the_partnership_on_sustainable_connectivity_and_quality_infrastructure_between_the_european_union_and_japan.pdfGoogle Scholar
EY. (2019). How can Europe raise its game? EY Attractiveness Survey Europe. Retrieved from https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-europe-attractiveness-survey-2019/-File/ey-europe-attractiveness-survey-2019.pdfGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Vega, M. (2006). Does technological diversification promote innovation?: An empirical analysis for European firms. Research Policy, 35(2), 230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatignon, H., Tushman, M. L., Smith, W., & Anderson, P. (2002). A structural approach to assessing innovation: Construct development of innovation locus, type, and characteristics. Management Science, 48(9), 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaur, A. S., Ma, H., & Ge, B. (2019). MNC Strategy, knowledge transfer context, and knowledge flow in MNEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(9), 1885–1900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghauri, P. (2004). Designing and conducting case studies in international business research. In R. Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business (pp. 109–124). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giuliani, E., Gorgoni, S., Günther, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2014). Emerging versus advanced country MNEs investing in Europe: A typology of subsidiary global–local connections. International Business Review, 23(4), 680–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
Grant, R. M. (1996a). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, R. M. (1996b). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473–496.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadjimichael, D., & Tsoukas, H. (2019). Toward a better understanding of tacit knowledge in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 672–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagedoorn, J., Lokshin, B., & Zobel, A. K. (2018). Partner type diversity in alliance portfolios: Multiple dimensions, boundary conditions and firm innovation performance. Journal of Management Studies, 55(5), 809–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkanson, L., & Nobel, R. (1993). Determinants of foreign R&D in Swedish multinationals. Research Policy, 22(5), 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, J., Jo, G. S., & Kang, J. (2018). Is high-quality knowledge always beneficial? Knowledge overlap and innovation performance in technological mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(2), 258–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, V. R., Borini, F. M., Raziq, M. M., & Benito, G. R. (2019). From local to global innovation: The role of subsidiaries’ external relational embeddedness in an emerging market. International Business Review, 28(4), 638–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivarsson, I., & Jonsson, T. (2003). Local technological competence and asset-seeking FDI: An empirical study of manufacturing and wholesale affiliates in Sweden. International Business Review, 12(3), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jean, R., Kim, D., Chiou, J. S., & Calantone, R. (2018). Strategic orientations, joint learning, and innovation generation in international customer-supplier relationships. International Business Review, 27(4), 838–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, R., & Szulanski, G. (2004). Stickiness and the adaptation of organizational practices in cross-border knowledge transfers. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6), 508–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiao, J., Liu, Y., Wu, R., & Xia, J. (2019). Corporate strategy and subsidiary performance: The effect of product and geographic diversification. Management and Organization Review, 1–34. doi:10.1017/mor.2019.20.Google Scholar
Kazadi, K., Lievens, A., & Mahr, D. (2016). Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 525–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Kristiansen, J. N., & Ritala, P. (2018). Measuring radical innovation project success: Typical metrics don't work. Journal of Business Strategy, 39(4), 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurens, P., Le Bas, C., Schoen, A., Villard, L., & Larédo, P. (2015). The rate and motives of the internationalisation of large firm R&D (1994–2005): Towards a turning point? Research Policy, 44(3), 765–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavie, D. (2006). Capability reconfiguration: An analysis of incumbent responses to technological change. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, N., & Lings, I. (2008). Doing business research: A guide to theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Luedi, T. (2008). China's track record in M&A: China's companies are expanding the focus of their outbound M&A, but so far they have struggled to create value. McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 75.Google Scholar
Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. (2007). International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, S., & Hellgren, B. (1999). Supping with a short spoon: Suppression inherent in research methodology. Accountability in Research, 6(4), 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, B. R., & Johnston, R. (1999). Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system: Experiences in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60(1), 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. E. (2015). What is ‘strategic asset seeking FDI?’ The Multinational Business Review 23(1), 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michailova, S., & Mustaffa, Z. (2012). Subsidiary knowledge flows in multinational corporations: Research accomplishments, gaps, and opportunities. Journal of World Business, 47(3), 383–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. M. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Björkman, I., Fey, C. F., & Park, H. J. (2003). MNC Knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6), 586–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). (2019). New Zealand's high speed research network: at a critical juncture. Retrieved from https://www.mbie.govt.nz/about/news/connectivity-report/Google Scholar
Montout, S., & Sami, M. (2016). Determinants for locating research and development activity in Europe. International Economics, 145, 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1998). Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: Implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Research Policy, 27(5), 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Narula, R. (2014). Exploring the paradox of competence-creating subsidiaries: Balancing bandwidth and dispersion in MNEs. Long Range Planning, 47(1–2), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD and Eurostat (2005). Oslo Manual – Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
Papanastassiou, M., Pearce, R., & Zanfei, A. (2019). Changing perspectives on the internationalization of R&D and innovation by multinational enterprises: A review of the literature. Journal of International Business Studies, 1–42. doi:10.1057/s41267-019-00258-0.Google Scholar
Parker, A., Tippmann, E., & Kratochvil, R. (2019). Accessing diverse knowledge for problem solving in the MNC: A network mobilization perspective. Global Strategy Journal, 9(3), 423–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, P. C., Fernhaber, S. A., McDougall-Covin, P. P., & van der Have, R. P. (2014). Beating competitors to international markets: The value of geographically balanced networks for innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 35(5), 691–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peltokorpi, V., & Yamao, S. (2017). Corporate language proficiency in reverse knowledge transfer: A moderated mediation model of shared vision and communication frequency. Journal of World Business, 52(3), 404–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piscitello, L. (2004). Corporate diversification, coherence and economic performance. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(5), 757–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitelis, C. N., & Teece, D. J. (2010). Cross-border market co-creation, dynamic capabilities and the entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 1247–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qiu, R., & Cantwell, J. (2019). General Purpose Technologies and local knowledge accumulation – A study on MNC subunits and local innovation centers. International Business Review, 27(4), 826–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, J. (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, (3), 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuer, J. J., & Lahiri, N. (2014). Searching for alliance partners: Effects of geographic distance on the formation of R&D collaborations. Organization Science, 25(1), 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritala, P., Husted, K., Olander, H., & Michailova, S. (2018). External knowledge sharing and radical innovation: The downsides of uncontrolled openness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(5), 1104–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2004). A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rui, H., & Yip, G. S. (2008). Foreign acquisitions by Chinese firms: A strategic intent perspective. Journal of World Business, 43(2), 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalera, V. G., Perri, A., & Hannigan, T. J. (2018). Knowledge connectedness within and across home country borders: Spatial heterogeneity and the technological scope of firm innovations. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(8), 990–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmiele, A. (2012). Drivers for international innovation activities in developed and emerging countries. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 98–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, G. M., Styles, C., & Lages, L. F. (2017). Breakthrough innovation in international business: The impact of tech-innovation and market-innovation on performance. International Business Review, 26(2), 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smaliukienė, R., Bekešienė, S., Chlivickas, E., & Magyla, M. (2017). Explicating the role of trust in knowledge sharing: A structural equation model test. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(4), 758–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 346–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, C. Y., Lin, B. W., & Chen, C. J. (2016b). Knowledge co-creation across national boundaries: Trends and firms’ strategies. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14(4), 457–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, Z., Peng, M. W., & Xie, E. (2016a). A strategy tripod perspective on knowledge creation capability. British Journal of Management, 27(1), 58–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thakur-Wernz, P., & Samant, S. (2019). Relationship between international experience and innovation performance: The importance of organizational learning for EMNE s. Global Strategy Journal, 9(3), 378–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Un, C. A., & Rodríguez, A. (2018). Local and global knowledge complementarity: R&D collaborations and innovation of foreign and domestic firms. Journal of International Management, 24(2), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uygur, U. (2013). Determinants of causal ambiguity and difficulty of knowledge transfer within the firm. Journal of Management & Organization, 19(6), 742–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, A., Roberts, R. E., Delaney, D., Zámborský, P., Enderwick, P., & Nagar, S. (2019). Contemporary international business in the Asia-Pacific Region. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Von Zedtwitz, M., & Gassmann, O. (2002). Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization: four different patterns of managing research and development. Research Policy, 31(4), 569–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrontis, D., & Christofi, M. (2019). R&D internationalization and innovation: A systematic review, integrative framework and future research directions. Journal of Business Research. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.031.Google Scholar
Wang, P., Tong, T. W., & Koh, C. P. (2004). An integrated model of knowledge transfer from MNC parent to China subsidiary. Journal of World Business, 39(2), 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeoh, P. L. (2000). Information acquisition activities: A study of global start-up exporting companies. Journal of International Marketing, 8(3), 36–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeung, H. W. C., & Liu, W. (2008). Globalizing China: The rise of mainland firms in the global economy. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 49(1), 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. International Educational and Professional Publisher. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Zámborský, P., & Jacobs, E. J. (2016). Reverse productivity spillovers in the OECD: The contrasting roles of R&D and capital. Global Economy Journal, 16(1), 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zámborský, P., & Turner, P. (2017). Fisher & Paykel appliances: Fitting in to Haier's global innovation system. SAGE Business Cases. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1090–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, S. S., Zhou, A. J., Feng, J., & Jiang, S. (2019). Dynamic capabilities and organizational performance: The mediating role of innovation. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(5), 731–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar