No abstract

Alliance research has traditionally focused on structural and relational aspects of the networks in which firms are situated, paying less attention to the inherent characteristics of their partners. This study introduces the notion of alliance portfolio internationalization (API), which refers to the degree of foreignness of partners in a firm's collection of immediate alliance relationships. We develop a framework to explain how API impacts firm performance. We suggest that as a firm's API increases, financial performance is expected to initially decline, then improve, and finally decline again. This sigmoid relationship between API and financial performance is ascribed to evolving learning effects that shape the net benefits of API. When the firm's alliance portfolio, on average, consists of proximate foreign partners, the firm may fail to recognize latent national differences, but at moderate levels of API, its absorptive capacity and specialized collaborative routines support the exchange of valuable network resources. Nevertheless, high levels of API undermine firm performance because of the failure of collaborative routines and mounting liabilities of cross-national differences. We test the framework using data on the alliance portfolios of U.S.-based software firms from 1990 to 2001. The results provide support for the sigmoid relationship as well as for our predictions that firms, which have gained experience with foreign partners and maintained wholly owned subsidiaries in their partners' countries of origin, can overcome some of the liabilities of API and better leverage its benefits.

When a company operates outside of its home country, it may suffer a ‘liability of foreignness.’ Does this a priori theoretical expectation hold in the global banking industry? Banks increasingly compete outside of their home countries, and operating environments often differ sharply across countries, both in terms of financial markets and credit risk. In this paper, we report the results of an empirical test of the liability of foreignness in the global banking industry, using Fitch–IBCA BankScope data for the period 1989–96. Our findings strongly support the liability of foreignness hypothesis. Further, the data show some evidence that the X‐efficiency of a foreign‐owned bank is strongly influenced by the competitiveness of its home country and the host country in which it operates. Lastly, we find that in some environments U.S.‐owned banks are more X‐efficient than other foreign‐owned banks in some environments, but less X‐efficient in others. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

Prior studies have found that foreign affiliates of multinational enterprises (MNEs) suffer from liability of foreignness (LOF). Foreign affiliates may be able to improve their social legitimacy and overcome LOF by demonstrating social commitment to host-country constituents through corporate social responsibility (CSR). If LOF is positively related to the distance between the home and host countries, and CSR activities confer social legitimacy benefits on foreign affiliates, we should expect CSR activities and distance to be positively related. However, we argue that, despite this potential motivation, foreign affiliates from more distant home countries are in fact less likely to engage in host-country CSR. Our argument focuses on the ways in which distance affects the MNE's willingness and ability to engage in CSR abroad. We also predict that hostcountry CSR reputation negatively moderates this relationship. Using Community Reinvestment Act data for foreign bank affiliates from 32 countries in the United States over 1990-2007, we find strong support for our hypotheses. The paper enriches our understanding of CSR practices in MNEs, and of when and how MNEs try to overcome legitimacy issues in host countries.