Navigating MNE control and coordination: A critical review and directions for future research

Abstract

Control and coordination efforts are at the heart of MNE functioning. Yet, our review reveals that the literature on MNE control and coordination lacks conceptual clarity, which may hamper the development of the field. In this critical review, we synthesize the literature over the past decade using a conceptual framework rooted in new internalization theory. Research remains fairly coarse regarding how various configurations and interactions of control and coordination mechanisms affect intended outcomes. We note a paucity of multilevel studies, direct investigations of microfoundations, and comparison studies between intra-and inter-MNE relationships. Insufficient attention has been paid to adaptation issues and the impact of external dynamics on the need for, and operationalization of, control and coordination mechanisms. These gaps are concerning, since external trends are changing the organizational landscape and MNE boundaries are becoming increasingly fuzzy. Going forward, a more nuanced conceptualization of outcomes is needed, one that specifies proximal outcomes which mediate the achievement of distant goals. We use our augmented conceptual framework to identify other key areas for future research. We also call for more research on how disruptive forces affect both the use and outcomes of organizational mechanisms aimed at achieving control and coordination.

Re-solving wicked problems in global value chains: how probing into modern slavery can advance MNE research and support better policymaking

“…In my desire to contribute to the rapidly evolving field of IB policy research (Van Assche and De Marchi, 2024;Clegg, 2019;Lundan, 2018), I overlooked the import of unresolved theoretical issues from the IB discipline into IB policy researchlike conceptual clarity and the coarseness "regarding how various configurations and interactions of control and coordination mechanisms affect intended outcomes" of MNEs (Zeng et al, 2023(Zeng et al, , p. 1599, especially in a GVC context.…”

“…I fully agree that both control and coordination (not just control!) are "at the heart of MNE functioning" regardless of their increasingly fuzzy organizational boundaries (Zeng et al, 2023(Zeng et al, , p. 1599. While I agree with Forsgren and Holm's (2021) caution of adopting an overly MNE-centric approach to MNE controlÀcoordination efforts in a GVC context, I do not think the fact that MNEs neither "own their GVC" (Dindial and Voss, 2024, p. 322) nor are any longer able to "institute hierarchy-like behavioural constraints across its suppliers" (Dindial and Voss, 2024, p. 324) absolves them from a moral responsibility to re-solve modern slavery even under conditions of "distributed responsibility between the MNE, its contracted GVC partners and (non-)governmental organisations" (Dindial and Voss, 2024, p. 4;cf.…”

“…According to Burmester et al (2019), the key to solving it lies in MLG. But even if that system is the GVC, Dindial and Voss (2024) pointed to increasingly opaque GVCs, which in turn calls into question the amount of control MNEs are able to exert within GVCs (see Zeng et al , 2023). As Dindial and Voss have pointed out the “MNE is rarely the single benefactor of a particular GVC” and there seems to be a lot of “distributed responsibility between the MNE, its contracted GVC partners and (non-)government organisations” (2024, p. 4).…”

“…Thus, the purpose of my follow-up response to the TWPs was to answer some of the questions posed by Burmester (2024) in his response to the TWPs and address some of the issues raised by Dindial and Voss (2024) related to the MNE literature on control and coordination (see Zeng et al, 2023) in the context of increasingly opaque global value chains (hereinafter GVCs; see Kano et al, 2020). Regarding the points which Burmester (2024) or Probing theoretically into modern slavery Dindial and Voss (2024) raised but I did not directly respond to/engage with in my rejoinder, the reader should assume I agree with them and did not respond in the interest of keeping my response of a manageable length.…”

“…For Dindial and Voss (2024), the potential of TWPs lays hidden in its overall motivation to open the “door for research that can infuse the policy space and invigorate IB policy scholarship” ( ibid ., p. 2). I firmly believe that it is through an enriched theoretical understanding of both MNE control and coordination (Zeng et al , 2023; Kano et al , 2020) and the role MNEs play in MLG (Burmester et al , 2019) that the call by Michailova et al (2020) for IB scholars to rise to the occasion can become properly actioned through the theoretical toolkit of wicked problems. However, to do so, IB policy research ought to pay greater attention to the MLG nexus associated with de-integrated, network-based GVC governance modes where responsibility might be highly distributed (DeBerge, 2024).…”