Subsidiary Combinative Capability for Knowledge Creation as a Co-evolutionary Development Process

  • Johanna Clancy
  • Paul Ryan
  • Ulf Andersson
  • Majella Giblin
Part of the The Academy of International Business book series (AIB)


Understanding how the subsidiary develops a knowledge-creating role while operating in a dual context of an internal corporate environment, and external local network is the focus of this chapter. The authors discuss the need for the subsidiary to develop a combinative capability of managing relations in both contexts. To explore this combinative capability, the authors argue for a much-needed evolutionary perspective of the subsidiary in its host location and internal context. It adds to the theory of subsidiary role evolution . A conceptual framework for future research is developed in the chapter, which uses a co-evolutionary lens. It is advocated that process studies of longitudinal forms should be undertaken in future research, which take a rich in-depth empirical investigation of dynamic processes over time.


  1. Achcaoucaou, F., Miravitlles, P., & Leon-Darder, F. (2014). Knowledge sharing and subsidiary R&D mandate development: A matter of dual embeddedness. International Business Review, 23, 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Achcaoucaou, F., Miravitlles, P., & Leon-Darder, F. (2017). Do we really know the predictors of competence-creating R&D subsidiaries? Uncovering the mediation of dual network embeddedness. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcacer, J., & Chung, W. (2007). Location strategies and knowledge spillovers. Management Science, 53, 760–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambos, T., Andersson, U., & Birkinshaw, J. (2010). What are the consequences of initiative taking in multinational subsidiaries? Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1099–1118.Google Scholar
  5. Ambos, T., & Birkinshaw, J. (2010). Headquarters’ attention and its effect on subsidiary performance. Management International Review, 50, 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andersson, U., Björkman, I., & Forsgren, M. (2005). Managing subsidiary knowledge creation: The effect of control mechanisms on subsidiary local embeddedness. International Business Review, 14, 521–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andersson, U., Dellestrand, H., & Pedersen, T. (2014). The contribution of local environments to competence creation in multinational enterprises. Long Range Planning, 47, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. (2001). Subsidiary embeddedness and competence development in MNCs a multi-level analysis. Organization Studies, 22, 1013–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. (2002). The strategic impact of external networks—Subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 979–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. (2007). Balancing subsidiary influence in the federative MNC: A business network view. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 802–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Asakawa, K. (2001). Organizational tension in international R&D management: The case of Japanese firms. Research Policy, 30, 735–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1986). Tap your subsidiaries for global reach. Harvard Business Review, 64, 87–94.Google Scholar
  13. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  14. Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Birkinshaw, J. (1998). Foreign-owned subsidiaries and regional development: The case of Sweden. In J. Birkinshaw & N. Hood (Eds.), Multinational corporate evolution and subsidiary development (pp. 268–298). Houndmills: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N., & Young, S. (2005). Subsidiary entrepreneurship, internal and external competitive forces, and subsidiary performance. International Business Review, 14, 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Birkinshaw, J., & Pedersen, T. (2008). Strategy and management in MNE subsidiaries. In A. M. Rugman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of international business (pp. 367–388). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Birkinshaw, J., & Ridderstråle, J. (1999). Fighting the corporate immune system: A process study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations. International Business Review, 8, 149–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Boschma, R. (2015). Towards an evolutionary perspective on regional resilience. Regional Studies, 49(5), 733–751.Google Scholar
  20. Boschma, R., & Fornahl, D. (2011). Cluster evolution and a roadmap for future research. Regional Studies, 45, 1295–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. M. (2008). Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 577–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bresciani, S., & Ferraris, A. (2016). Innovation-receiving subsidiaries and dual embeddedness: Impact on business performance. Baltic Journal of Management, 11, 108–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cano-Kollmann, M., Cantwell, J., Hannigan, T., Mudambi, R., & Song, J. (2016). Knowledge connectivity: An agenda for innovation research in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 47, 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cantwell, J. (2014). The role of international business in the global spread of technological innovation. In Y. Temouri & C. Jones (Eds.), International business after the financial crisis. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Cantwell, J. (2017). Innovation and international business. Industry and Innovation, 24, 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cantwell, J., Dunning, J., & Lundan, S. (2010). An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: The coevolution of MNEs and the institutional environment. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. (2005). MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1109–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cantwell, J. A., & Mudambi, R. (2011). Physical attraction and the geography of knowledge sourcing in multinational enterprises. Global Strategy Journal, 1, 206–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cavanagh, A., Freeman, S., Kalfadellis, P., & Cavusgil, S. (2017). How do subsidiaries assume autonomy? A refined application of agency theory within the subsidiary-headquarters context. Global Strategy Journal, 7, 172–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ciabuschi, F., Holm, U., & Martin Martin, O. (2014). Dual embeddedness, influence and performance of innovating subsidiaries in the multinational corporation. International Business Review, 23, 897–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Collinson, S., & Wang, R. (2012). The evolution of innovation capability in multinational enterprise subsidiaries: Dual network embeddedness and the divergence of subsidiary specialisation in Taiwan. Research Policy, 41, 1501–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Conroy, K. M., & Collings, D. G. (2016). The legitimacy of subsidiary issue selling: Balancing positive & negative attention from corporate headquarters. Journal of World Business, 51, 612–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Delaney, E. (2000). Strategic development of the multinational subsidiary through subsidiary initiative-taking. Long Range Planning, 33, 220–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dörrenbächer, C., & Gammelgaard, J. (2010). Multinational corporations, inter-organizational networks and subsidiary charter removals. Journal of World Business, 45, 206–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Doz, Y., Santos, J., & Williamson, P. (2001). From global to metanational: How companies win in the knowledge economy. Brighton: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  36. Feldman, M. (2001). Where science comes to life: University bioscience, commercial spin-offs, and regional economic development. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 2, 345–361.Google Scholar
  37. Figueiredo, P. (2008). Industrial policy changes and firm-level technological capability development: Evidence from Northern Brazil. World Development, 36, 55–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Figueiredo, P. (2011). The role of dual embeddedness in the innovative performance of MNE subsidiaries: Evidence from Brazil. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 417–440.Google Scholar
  39. Figueiredo, P. (2012). MNE-subsidiaries’ innovation capability building and learning in emerging economies: Firm-level evidence from the ICT industry in Brazil. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 11(1), 12–43.Google Scholar
  40. Frost, T., Birkinshaw, J., & Ensign, P. (2002). Centers of excellence in multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 997–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gammelgaard, J., McDonald, F., Stephan, A., Tuselmann, H., & Dorrenbacher, C. (2012). The impact of increases in subsidiary autonomy and network relationships on performance. International Business Review, 21, 1158–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gammelgaard, J., & Pedersen, T. (2010). Internal versus external knowledge sourcing of subsidiaries and the impact of headquarters control. In U. Andersson & U. Holm (Eds.), Managing the contemporary multinational: The role of headquarters. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  43. Garcia-Pont, C., Canales, J., & Noboa. (2009). Subsidiary strategy: The embeddedness component. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 182–214.Google Scholar
  44. Giblin, M., & Ryan, P. (2012). Tight clusters or loose networks? The critical role of inward foreign direct investment in cluster creation. Regional Studies, 46, 245–258.Google Scholar
  45. Giroud, A., & Scott-Kennel, J. (2009). MNE linkages in international business: A framework for analysis. International Business Review, 18, 555–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (1991). Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16, 768–792.Google Scholar
  47. Holm, U., Holmström, C., & Sharma, D. (2005). Competitive development through business relationships or competitive environment? Subsidiary impact on MNC competitive advantage. Management International Review, 45, 197–218.Google Scholar
  48. Jenkins, M., & Tallman, S. (2010). The shifting geography of competitive advantage: Clusters, networks and firms. Journal of Economic Geography, 10, 599–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kostova, T., Marano, V., & Tallman, S. (2016). Headquarters–subsidiary relationships in MNCs: Fifty years of evolving research. Journal of World Business, 51, 176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management, 19, 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lewin, A., & Volberda, H. (1999). Prolegomena on coevolution: A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10, 519–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lewin, A., & Volberda, H. (2011). Co-evolution of global sourcing: The need to understand the underlying mechanisms of firm-decisions to offshore. International Business Review, 20, 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Madhok, A., & Liu, C. (2006). A coevolutionary theory of the multinational firm. Journal of International Management, 12, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2002). The elusive concept of localization economies: Towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning, 34, 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2011). Conceptualizing cluster evolution: Beyond the life cycle model? Regional Studies, 45, 1299–1318.Google Scholar
  57. McKelvey, B. (1997). Quasi-natural organization science. Organization Science, 8, 352–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Menzel, M., & Fornahl, D. (2009). Cluster life cycles—Dimensions and rationales of cluster evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 205–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Meyer, K., Mudambi, R., & Narula, R. (2011). Multinational enterprises and local contexts: The opportunities and challenges of multiple-embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 235–252.Google Scholar
  60. Michailova, S., & Mustaffa, Z. (2012). Subsidiary knowledge flows in multinational corporations: Research accomplishments, gaps and opportunities. Journal of World Business, 47, 383–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mudambi, R., & Navarra, P. (2004). Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mudambi, R., & Swift, T. (2012). Multinational enterprises and the geographical clustering of innovation. Industry and Innovation, 19, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Murmann, J. P. (2013). The coevolution of industries and important features of their environments. Organization Science, 24, 58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Narula, R. (2002). Innovation systems and ‘inertia’ in R&D location: Norwegian firms and the role of systemic lock-in. Research Policy, 31, 795–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Perri, A., & Andersson, U. (2014). Knowledge outflows from foreign subsidiaries: The tension between knowledge creation and knowledge protection. International Business Review, 23, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Perri, A., Andersson, U., Nell, P. C., & Santangelo, G. (2013). Balancing the trade-off between learning prospects and spillover risks: MNC subsidiaries vertical linkage patterns in developed countries. Journal of World Business, 48, 503–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Phelps, N. A., & Fuller, C. (2000). Multinationals, intracorporate competition, and regional development. Economic Geography, 76, 224–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Phene, A., & Almeida, P. (2008). Innovation in multinational subsidiaries: The role of knowledge assimilation and subsidiary capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 901–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rugman, A. (2014, July). Subsidiary specific advantages and multiple embeddedness in multinational enterprises. Academy of Multinational Enterprises, 7, 1–8.Google Scholar
  70. Rugman, A., Verbeke, A., & Yuan, W. (2011). Re-conceptualising Bartlett and Ghoshal’s classification of national subsidiary roles in the multinational enterprise. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 253–277.Google Scholar
  71. Santangelo, G. D. (2012). The tension of information sharing: Effects on subsidiary embeddedness. International Business Review, 21, 180–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shaver, J., & Flyer, F. (2000). Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1175–1193.Google Scholar
  73. Ter Wal, A., & Boschma, R. (2011). Co-evolution of firms, industries and networks in space. Regional Studies, 45, 919–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Welch, C., Pekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mantymaki, E. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 740–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yamin, M., & Andersson, U. (2011). Subsidiary importance in the MNC: What role does internal embeddedness play? International Business Review, 20, 151–162.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johanna Clancy
    • 1
  • Paul Ryan
    • 2
  • Ulf Andersson
    • 3
    • 4
  • Majella Giblin
    • 1
  1. 1.J.E. Cairnes School of Business & EconomicsNUI GalwayGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Trinity Business SchoolTrinity College DublinDublinIreland
  3. 3.Mälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden
  4. 4.BI Norwegian Business SchoolOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations