Journal of East European Management Studies …doctorat.feaa.uaic.ro/secretariat/Lists/AnunuriEvenimente...Journal of East European Management Studies ... The main aim of the Journal

Journal of East European Management Studies (JEEMS) Editorial Committee: Thomas Steger (Editor-in-chief), University of Regensburg

Rainhart Lang, Chemnitz University of Technology Irma Rybnikova, Chemnitz University of Technology

Advisory Board: Ed Clark, Royal Holloway University of London Eckhard Dittrich, Otto-von-Guericke-University of Magdeburg Miklós Dobák, Corvinus University of Budapest Ivan Nový, University of Economics Prague Anna Soulsby, Nottingham University Business School Dieter Wagner, University of Potsdam

Honorary Board: Vince Edwards, Buckinghamshire College Dirk Holtbrügge, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg Fred Luthans, University of Nebraska Lincoln Sheila M. Puffer, Northeastern University Boston Rudi Schmidt, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena Raoul Üksvärav, University of Tallinn Hartmut Wächter, University of Trier Ingo Winkler, University of Southern Denmark

Editorial Board:

R. Alas, Estonian Business School G. Bakacsi, Semmelweis University, Budapest K. Balaton, Corvinus University of Budapest G. Belz, Wroclaw University of Economics Y.E. Blagov, St. Petersburg State University S. Blazejewski, Alanus University D.J. Bourne, Queen Mary University of London Z. Buzády, CEU Business School, Budapest D. Catana, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca T. Čater, University of Ljubljana S.-O. Collin, Linnæus University B. Dallago, Università di Trento M. Dowling, University of Regensburg J. Erpenbeck, SIBE Herrenberg J.H. Fisch, University of Economics Vienna A. Geigenmüller, Ilmenau University of Technology M. Geppert, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena M. Glowik, Berlin School of Economics and Law V. Golikova, Higher School of Economics, Moscow I. Gurkov, Higher School of Economics, Moscow B. Heidrich, Budapest Business School J. Hentze, Technical University of Braunschweig N. Hermes, University of Groningen N. Holden, University of Leeds G. Hollinshead, University of Hertfordshire

S. Hüsig, Chemnitz University of Technology A. Ishikawa, Chuo University A. Jaklič, University of Ljubljana

J. Kovac, University of Maribor K. Liuhto, Turku School of Economics S. Llaci, University of Tirana C. Makó, Hungarian Academy of Science Budapest M. Malý, University of Economics Prague W. Mayrhofer, Vienna University of Econ. and Business S. Michailova, University of Auckland Business School J.-P. Neveu, Université de Montpellier 2 R. Nurmi, Turku School of Economics A. Panibratov, St. Petersburg State University M. Pawlak, University of Warsaw A. Pocztowski, Cracow University of Economics E. Polyakov, Elliott Group, Ebara Corporation T. Postma, University of Groningen D. Pučko, University of Ljubljana A. Remisova, Comenius University Bratislava A. Schuh, Vienna University of Economics and Business T. Specker, University of Applied Sciences Kiel C. Stojanov, Otto-von-Guericke-University of Magdeburg E. Szabo, Johannes-Kepler-University Linz P. Wald, University of Applied Sciences Leipzig A. Wasowska, University of Warsaw

Address: JEEMS, c/o Lehrstuhl Führung und Organisation, Universität Regensburg, Universitätsstr. 31,

D- 93053 Regensburg Tel.: +49 941 943 2680, Fax: +49 941 943 4206 E-Mail: [email protected]

URL: http://www.hampp-verlag.de/Hampp_JEEMS.html

Journal of East European Management Studies Print: ISSN 0949-6181 Internet: 1862-0019 The Journal of East European Management Journal (JEEMS) is published four times a year. The personal subscription rate is € 80,00, the institutional rate (IP account + print) is € 150,00 including delivery and value added tax. For delivery outside Germany an additional € 12,00 are added. Cancellation is only possible six weeks before the end of each year. Single issues of JEEMS may be obtained at € 24,80. The contributions published in JEEMS are protected by copyright. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise without permission in writing from the publisher. That includes the use in lectures, radio, TV or other forms. Copies are only permitted for private purposes and use and only of single contributions or parts of them. For any copy produced or used in a private corperation serving private purposes (due to §54(2) UrhG) one is obliged to pay a fee to VG Wort, Abteilung Wissenschaft Goethestraße 49, D-80336 München, where one can ask for details. Das Journal of East European Management Studies (JEEMS) erscheint 4x im Jahr. Der jährliche Abonnementpreis für Privatpersonen (Printausgabe) beträgt 80,00 €, für Institutionen (IP-Zugang + Print) € 150,00 inkl. MWSt und Versandkosten. Für den Versand ins Ausland werden jeweils zusätzlich 12,00 € berechnet. Kündigungsmöglichkeit: 6 Wochen vor Jahresende. Einzelhefte von JEEMS sind zum Preis von 24,80 € erhältlich. Die in der Zeitschrift JEEMS veröffentlichten Beiträge sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Alle Rechte, insbesondere das der Übersetzung in fremde Sprachen, vorbehalten. Kein Teil darf ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages in irgendeiner Form - durch Fotokopie, Mikrofilm oder andere Verfahren - reproduziert oder in eine von Maschinen, insbesondere von Datenverarbeitungsanlagen, verwendete Sprache übertragen werden. Auch die Rechte der Weitergabe durch Vortrag, Funk- und Fernseh-sendung, im Magnettonverfahren oder ähnlichem Wege bleiben vorbehalten. Fotokopien für den persönlichen und sonstigen eigenen Gebrauch dürfen nur von einzelnen Beiträgen oder Teilen daraus als Einzelkopien hergestellt werden. Jede im Bereich eines gewerblichen Unternehmens hergestellte oder benützte Kopie dient gewerb-lichen Zwecken gemäß § 54(2) UrhG und verpflichtet zur Gebührenzahlung an die VG Wort, Abteilung Wissenschaft, Goethestraße 49, D-80336 München, von der die einzelnen Zahlungs-modalitäten zu erfragen sind.

Journal of East European Management Studies is being indexed by Social Sciences Citation of the

Index® and by the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS).

Database Research Pool: www.hampp-verlag.de Six journals - one search engine: Our new online-archive allows for searching in full-text databases covering five journals: Industrielle Beziehungen, beginning in 1998 International Journal of Action Research, beginning in 2005 Journal of East European Management Studies, beginning in 1998 management revue, beginning in 2004 Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, beginning in 1998 Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, beginning in 1998

Free research: Research is free. You have free access to all hits for your search. The hit list shows the relevant articles relevant to your search. In addition, the list references the articles found in detail (journal, volume etc.). Browse or download articles via GBI: If you want to have access to the full-text article, our online-partner GENIOS will raise a fee of 10.- Euro. If you are registered as a „GENIOS-Professional Customer” you may pay via credit card or invoice.

JEEMS • Volume 21• Number 2 • 2016

Guest Editorial

Łukasz Puślecki, Piotr Trąpczyński 135

Articles

Łukasz Puślecki, Piotr Trąpczyński, Michał Staszków Emerging advanced topics in an advanced emerging market? International business research in Poland in the period 1990-2014

139

Tobias Dauth, Agata Tomczak Internationalization of top management teams: A comprehensive analysis of Polish stock-listed firms

167

Krisztina Demeter, Levente Szász The diversity of European manufacturing plant roles in international manufacturing networks

184

Tiia Vissak, Xiaotian Zhang A born global’s radical, gradual and nonlinear internationalization: A case from Belarus

209

Rafal Sliwinski, Magdalena Sliwinska Growth and internationalization of fast growing firms

231

News/Information

254

Con

tent

s

Editorial Mission of JEEMS

The main aim of the Journal of East European Management Studies (JEEMS) is to promote dialogue and cooperation among scholars from all countries who seek to examine, explore and explain the behaviour and practices of management within the transforming societies of Central and Eastern Europe. As such, the theoretical interests of the journal focus on a) organizational and management change; b) Central and East European societies (including those on the fringes of Europe) undergoing processes of transition or transformation; and c) scientific issues of business, management and organisation that arise in such contexts. In this regard, JEEMS particularly welcomes papers that draw on a behavioral perspective.

By fostering the exchange of ideas within the academic community and between management academics and management practitioners, JEEMS aims to contribute to the development of knowledge and practice across the Central and East European region. In this way, the journal hopes to cultivate and spread a sophisticated understanding of management trends and tendencies as they emerge through the process of transformation. The concern with management practices and issues is meant in the broadest sense to include the problems of steering politico-economic processes and the management of all types of organized action and their social embeddedness.

JEEMS aims to attract social scientific contributions from scholars of any nation and region, but particularly wishes to encourage authors from those countries directly experiencing transformational change. Its potential readership is international, comprising academics and practitioners with an involvement or interest in the management of change in transforming societies in Central and Eastern Europe.

135

Guest Editorial

Dear Reader,

the aim of the present issue of the Journal for East European Management Stud-ies is to contribute to the recent debate as to the state of development of both international management practices in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), and the related academic research (Schuh/Rossmann, 2010). In fact, while the classi-fication of CEE countries by some international organisations including the OECD (2015) indicates that the transition process is complete, others including IMF (2015) and MSCI (2015) point to still persistent disparities in terms of eco-nomic and institutional development. In line with the latter, investment-oriented classificatory approach, Poland, the Czech Republic, Russia and Hungary can be ranked as emerging markets, while other CEE, CIS and Southern European countries – even as frontier markets. CEE countries can be – with some degree of simplification – referred to as mid-range emerging economies, i.e. ones with a relatively advanced level of institutional development, yet still lagging in terms of infrastructure and factor market development (Hoskisson et al., 2012). Their unique, intermediate position on the ladder of economic and institutional ad-vancement, as well as a geographic location between advanced and emerging markets raise the questions as to the specific character of these firms' behavior, as well as the potential for enriching existing knowledge on the management of firm internationalization in the case of newly internationalized firms from transi-tion economies.

The present issue is a coherent collection of contributions submitted to the inter-national conference focused around international business in the CEE region entitled "Competitiveness of the CEE Region in the Global Economy", organ-ised by the CEE Chapter of the Academy of International Business (AIB-CEE) in Budapest on 9-11.10.2014. The papers share a common focus on firm-level management issues pertaining to different aspects of cross-border operations in the CEE region, taking into account its particularities. Thus, the issue involves both a review of current research on international business in Poland in order to diagnose the current state of academic development in this discipline in one of the leading markets of the region, as well as subsequently different facets of the firm internationalization process taking into account most recent empirical evi-dence from the region.

The first paper titled “Emerging advanced topics in an advanced emerging mar-ket? International business research in Poland in the period 1990-2014” written by Łukasz Puślecki, Piotr Trąpczyński, and Michał Staszków presents the find-ings of a structured review of contributions to international business research in Poland in the period 1990-2014. In order to address this objective, qualitative and quantitative methods were integrated to identify main research areas, their

136

relative importance and changes thereof within the analysed timeframe, as well as specific research topics within each area.

The second paper entitled “Internationalization of top management teams: A comprehensive analysis of Polish stock-listed firms” is authored by Tobias Dauth and Agata Tomczak and aims to identify whether the firms’ international-ization is reflected by the internationalization of their upper echelons. In order to verify that author conduct a study on top managers of firms listed at the Polish GPW, with application of a holistic approach to measuring board internationali-zation by taking into account multiple dimensions (e.g. nationality, international education, international work experience, foreign language skills).

The subsequent paper titled “The diversity of European manufacturing plant roles in international manufacturing networks” prepared by Krisztina Demeter and Levente Szász explores the assumption that Western European (WE) plants belonging to multinational companies are more developed and have higher com-petence levels than their Central and Eastern European (CEE) counterparts. The authors used a sample of 291 manufacturing subsidiaries from 14 European countries to test this general statement. They argue that the clear distinction be-tween the two regions is gradually changing with diverse plant roles coexisting in both European regions that reflect different development paths or strategies.

The fourth paper entitled “A born global’s radical, gradual and nonlinear inter-nationalization: A case from Belarus” developed by Tiia Vissak and Xiaotian Zhang contributes to the literature on internationalization processes by showing that a born global can experience nonlinear internationalization (de- and re-internationalize) after radical/fast initial growth, and use some subsidiaries as bases for further gradual expansion. In order to verify that the authors have used a case of Belarusian door producer that has invested to seven and exported to 11 more countries.

The final fifth paper “Growth and internationalization of fast growing firms” devised by Rafał Śliwinski and Magdalena Śliwinska identifies the factors posi-tively and negatively affecting the growth of companies in the foreign markets and internationalization. The authors have examined and constructed in this pa-per a complex set of those factors which help and impede the growth on foreign markets of fast growing enterprises and their internationalization. Moreover they contributed to the research of fast growing firms, adding more insight into the specificity of Polish enterprises.

We trust that the content of this JEEMS issue will provide you with an insight to the developments of international business and management in the CEE and let them discover a sample of diverse research carried out in the region.

Łukasz Puślecki and Piotr Trąpczyński Poznan University Guest Editors

137

References

Hoskisson, R.E./Wright, M./Filatotchev, I./Peng, M.W. (2013): Emerging Multinationals from Mid-Range Economies: The Influence of Institutions and Factor Markets, in: Journal of Management Studies, 50(7), 1295–1321.

IMF (2015): World Economic Outlook Database - WEO Groups and Aggregates Information. World Economic and Financial Surveys. International Monetary Fund, Washington, URL: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/groups.htm#cee (access: 23.03.2015).

MSCI (2015): Market Classification. Morgan Stanley Capital International, URL: http://www.msci.com/products/indices/market_classification.html (access: 23.06.2015).

OECD (2015): Members and Partners, URL: http:// www. oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/ (access on: 23.06.2015).

Schuh, A./Rossmann, A. (2010): Schwerpunkte und Trends in der betriebswirtschaftlichen Mittel- und Osteuropaforschung: Ein Literaturüberblick zum Zeitraum 1990-2005, in: Moser, R. (ed.): Internationale Unternehmensführung. Entscheidungsfelder und politische Aspekte, Wiesbaden: Gabler, 161-204.

138

Memorial

Raoul Üksvärav (1928 – 2016)

A member of the Honorary Board of the Journal of East European Management Studies, professor Raoul Űksvarav passed away the first of February. He served Tallinn Technical University in the chair of Management and Planning from 1958 till his retirement in in 1989. After it, he was a member of the first Parlia-ment of independent Estonia and a counsellor of the president of Estonia.

Professor Űksvarav was among the founding fathers of the academic coopera-tion between East and West during and after the long night of the Soviet rule. It was his endeavour and vision to see Estonia back in the Western Europe, aca-demically, managerially and other ways. He was happy to see his vision come true. JEEMS was an important actor to him in this development.

Raimo Nurmi

139

JEEMS, 21(2), 139-166 DOI 10.1688/JEEMS-2016-Puslecki ISSN (print) 0943-2779, ISSN (internet) 1862-0035 © Rainer Hampp Verlag, www.Hampp-Verlag.de

Emerging advanced topics in an advanced emerging market? International business research in Poland in the period 1990-2014*

Łukasz Puślecki, Piotr Trąpczyński, Michał Staszków**

The main objective of this paper is to present the findings of a structured review of contributions to international business research in Poland in the period 1990-2014. In order to address this objective, qualitative and quantitative methods were integrated to identify main research areas, their relative importance and changes thereof within the analysed timeframe, as well as specific research top-ics within each area. The results indicate that macro- and micro-level interna-tionalisation, followed by international firm competitiveness and international entrepreneurship have consistently remained dominant research areas, although their relative importance has evolved throughout the period under study. Quan-titative research methods, with a strong focus on descriptive statistics, have been the main tools in previous contributions. In addition to highlighting the need for more attention to performance- and competitiveness-related issues, the results of the review also prompt IB scholars to devoting more attention to inter-relationships between macro-, meso- and micro-level variables.

Key words: international business research, literature review, Central and Eastern Europe, emerging markets, business history (JEL: F21, F23, J24, L25, M16)

________________________________________________________________ * Manuscript received: 24.11.2014, accepted: 06.01.2015 (0 revision)

This paper includes findings from the research project financed by the research grant of the Polish Science Centre, awarded based on the decision no. DEC-2012/07/N/HS4/00283.

Piotr Trapczynski is supported by the Foundation for Polish Science (FNP).

** Łukasz Puślecki, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., Department of International Management, Faculty of Interna-tional Business and Economics, Poznan University of Economics and Business. E-mail: [email protected].

Piotr Trąpczyński (Corresponding author), Assistant Professor, Ph.D., Department of International Competi-tiveness, Faculty of International Business and Economics, Poznan University of Economics and Business, Al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875 Poznań, Poland. E-mail: [email protected].

Michał Staszków, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., Department of International Management, Faculty of Interna-tional Business and Economics, Poznan University of Economics and Business. E-mail: [email protected].

All authors have contributed equally.

140 Puślecki, Trąpczyński, Staszków: Emerging advanced topics in an advanced emerging market?

1. Introduction

Being the largest Central and Eastern European (CEE) economy, Poland has gradually increased its integration into the network of global economic ties by increasing its share of world trade and foreign direct investment (Gorynia/ Nowak/Wolniak 2006). The rising internationalisation of Poland's economy, in-dustries and firms has frequently been considered as one the key drivers of the country's transformation toward a market-based economy. In fact, the significant political and economic shift in the CEE region in 1989 opened both the econo-mies and firms of the region to the global economy. This process was simulta-neously facilitated by the implementation of a new economic policy, which inter alia included liberalised prices, privatisation of previously state-owned firms, a shift of the geographic profile of trade relations from the former Soviet bloc to-wards Western European economies, and not least opening several key indus-tries to foreign direct investment (Gorynia/Nowak/Wolniak 2003). Furthermore, similar to some other post-communist countries from the region, the transfor-mation also required the convertibility of the national currency, foreign trade de-monopolization, cancellation of non-tariff trade barriers, liberalised customs tar-iffs or the restoration of economic freedom for international business transac-tions (Gorynia 2002). These changes were further complemented by Poland's accession to international organisations such as the OECD and particularly the European Union. Indeed, the increasing internationalisation of Poland's econo-my can be reflected by its share of global exports and foreign direct investment (FDI) stocks. Poland moved from the position of 38th exporter in value terms to the 27th rank between 1990 and 2010 (Gorynia 2012).

In line with the internationalisation of economies and firms from the CEE re-gion, Poland being only one of numerous cases, the academic discipline of in-ternational business also embarked upon a brand new stage of development. Many economics and management scholars from the CEE started reflecting on the macro- and micro-economic level globalisation of the region, providing con-ceptual and empirical contributions to the academic debate on the specificity of internationalisation into and from emerging markets. As Obłój (2014) put it, emerging markets constitute a promising ground for refining and enriching ex-tant theoretical concepts of international business. However, after more than two decades of economic transformation in the region, the present economic posi-tioning of CEE economies is highly heterogeneous and, in some instances, high-ly ambiguous (Trąpczyński 2015). In the case of Poland, some international in-stitutions still classify the country as an emerging market (see e.g. MSCI 2013), while others regard it as an advanced economy (see e.g. UNCTAD 2013). FTSE (2013) assigns Poland to the "Advanced Emerging" category in terms of, inter alia, market institutions quality, consistency and predictability, stability and

JEEMS, 21(2), 139-166 DOI 10.1688/JEEMS-2016-Puslecki 141

market access.1 This indicates an intermediate position and inevitably raises a valid question as to how research in the context of a mid-income country can contribute to extant international business scholarship, which has strongly ac-centuated either the traditional developed country contexts, in which a bulk of the mainstream international business theory is rooted, or emerging countries, with BRIC countries occupying a prominent role. Thus, the main aim of this re-view article is to examine the evolution of international business research in Po-land in 1990-2014, with a particular focus on the relative relevance of different sub-disciplines, specific research themes addressed, research methods and publi-cation outlets.2 Thereby, it is to be examined whether and to what extent re-search on a specific context has contributed and can further contribute to the field international business. In order to fulfil this objective, the findings of a structured review of conceptual and empirical contributions to international business scholarship in Poland are presented and discussed in this paper.

The paper first outlines the literature review methods used. Subsequently, the results of the literature review are synthetically presented, with a specific focus on the identification of key research areas and the research themes tackled there-in. Quantitative summaries of the observed tendencies are enriched with a dis-cussion of main research topics addressed, as well as research gaps and areas for further conceptual and methodical development. In the final section of the paper some preliminary indications for future research are set out based on the find-ings of the present review, bearing implications for Poland in specific, and – to some extent – for the CEE in general.

2. Review scope and method

In order to define the scope of the literature review, the academic discipline un-der study should be clearly delimited. According to Daniels and Radebaugh (2001: 3-4), international business refers to "all commercial transactions – pri-vate or governmental – between two or more countries". This rather broad cate-gorisation can be refined by distinguishing possible conceptual approaches and levels of analysis. Gorynia (2012) proposes that international economic activity can be analysed from the perspective of both economics and management. Eco-nomic explanations are mostly focused on macro-level research questions, while micro-level analyses have predominantly adopted the view of management sci-ence. Hence, for the purpose of the present review it is broadly assumed that in-ternational business embraces research problems and variables embedded at the levels of the economy, region or industry sector, and firm. Thereby, they can be approached from both economics and management perspectives, a common de-nominator being the preoccupation of each contribution with issues related to

1 Some CEE countries such as Slovenia and Slovakia rank even lower - namely among "Frontier" markets. 2 The present literature study is a continuation of a previous analysis presented in Puślecki, Staszków, and

Trąpczyński (2014).


cross-border activities at the said levels of analysis. While no binding "cata-logue" of research topics can be identified, based on the authors' literature stud-ies, a selection of research areas was established for the purpose of the present review (see Table 1).

Table 1: Selected subdisciplines of international business

Level of analysis Research areas

Macro Globalisation of the Polish economy

Meso International regional competitiveness (clusters, technology parks)

Micro

Firm internationalisation (export, FDI, etc.)

International entrepreneurship

International firm competitiveness

International marketing

Organisation & strategic management

International HRM

International alliances

International firm cooperation

In order to narrow down the confines of international business research in Po-land, two classificatory assumptions were made by the authors:

1) the reviewed research should pertain to Polish economic activity abroad or foreign economic activity in Poland, at either macro-, meso- or micro-economic levels of analysis;

2) the authors of reviewed contributions should be affiliated with Polish re-search centres.

Although these criteria can be criticised for oversimplifying research reality and excluding certain valuable contributions, they nevertheless allow delimiting the research field along the dimensions of content and authorship, which has a two-fold rationale. Firstly, it implies that international business in Poland may con-tribute to the discipline in general by generating insights which are specifically related to an advanced emerging country. Secondly, such delimitation allows diagnosing the current level of advancement of this research field in Poland.3 In line with the aforementioned delimitation of the field, research contributions de-voted to the Polish economy, its meso-systems (regions and industry sectors) and firms were taken into account.

For the purpose of data collection, keyword-driven search was undertaken in leading international journal databases (including inter alia EBSCO, ScienceDi-

3 Hence, studies carried out at foreign research centres in which Poland was (one of) the empirical setting(s)

under examination, were not included in this review.


rect, Emerald, JSTOR, Proquest). The search process involved a dedicated set of keywords in English and Polish languages, specific to each of the pre-defined categories (see Figure 1), and their different combinations.4 In order to enhance the coverage of Polish contributions, which have traditionally recurred to na-tional publication outlets, BazEkon, the leading Polish database of printed jour-nals, books and book chapters, was also used. Moreover, the desk research also included non-indexed sources, such as books, monographs, conference proceed-ings, etc., aimed at complementing articles identified in the said databases. These were accessed by using the library database of the Poznan University of Economics and applying similar combinations of keywords as for online re-sources. In the last step, the research findings were verified for the fulfilment of the aforementioned criteria for geographic scope, authorship and original contri-bution. Finally, a sample of 342 journal articles, chapters or monographs was collected.5

Different methods of critical literature reviews in the field of international busi-ness and management have been used in order to take stock of extant research contributions, to identify the most salient features of previous works and to re-flect constructively on the most promising avenues for further investigation.6 Due to the fact that the field of international business is highly heterogeneous in terms of theoretical approaches, levels of analysis and research designs used, the first step in the present review was a preliminary qualitative analysis (Seuring/ Gold 2012) of papers from specific research areas.7 Thereby, more detailed re-search topics, methods and key findings and other bibliometric attributes were coded for each contribution. In order to enable a consistent system of codes within research areas, each research area was analysed by a dedicated research-er. Furthermore, in order to provide an account on the relative relevance of each research area and its changes within the analysed period, quantitative analysis followed (Schuh/Rossmann 2009). The integration of content analysis (qualita-tive) with frequencies of the attributes concerned (quantitative) aimed at provid-ing a possibly exhaustive and comprehensive perspective on extant scholarship and its major contributions, as well as highlighting the paths for future research.

4 Due to the significant number of research areas, a detailed list of keywords would exceed the scope of the

present paper. Thus, detailed keywords are available from the authors upon request. In general, they are closely related to the research topics, the most widespread of which have been presented in the present paper.

5 This paper provides current results of an ongoing literature review project, which is to be updated and ex-tended on a regular basis.

6 See e.g. Schmid and Kotulla (2009). 7 A meta-analysis cannot be used for heterogeneous operationalisations and research methods (Sousa, Mar-

tínez-López & Coelho 2008), which is the case of the present research sample.


3. Literature review results

3.1 Relative Relevance of Research Areas

Within the reviewed sample of 342 contributions of Polish authors in the years 1990-2014, the area of firm internationalisation (26%) has remained a pre-dominant field of inquiry (see Figure 1). The globalisation of the Polish economy, concerned with similar questions to the former area, but at a macroeconomic level, constitutes 15%, while international firm makes up 18%, international

Figure 1: Structure of specific research areas (N=342)


human resource management (HRM) 12%, whilst international entrepreneurship 7% of all research areas within the examined sample. The structure of research areas appears to coincide with the present standing of Poland as a post-transformation economy, whereby its rising internationalisation has consistently raised the interest of scholars looking into both international trade and FDI in-flows and outflows or the competitiveness of the newly internationalised econ-omy, as well as phenomena related to foreign firm activities in Poland as an emerging CEE market and the rising tide of foreign expansion undertaken by Polish firms, alone or by exploiting international inter-firm relationships.Among the publications within the analysed period (see Figure 2), it is to be noted that the largest number of articles was published in 2013 (45 articles). On the whole, a positive upward trend in the number of international business contributions could clearly be identified, which is coinciding with the aforementioned interna-tionalisation of the economy, sectors and firms. Especially starting in 2005, the annual output in different publication sources started to grow visibly. This trend coincides with the accession of Poland to the European Union, which facilitated internationalisation of firms from and into Poland, providing simultaneously a fertile empirical basis for investigation. At a more technical line of explanation, international business scholars obtained an ever increasing access to secondary data sources, which gave rise to new research ideas.

Figure 2. Changes in the number of scholarly contributions (N=342)

Taking a glance at different periods, namely 1990-1995, 1996-2000, 2001-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2014, the relative relevance of each research area has clearly


evolved (see Figure 3). On the one hand, firm internationalisation, globalisation of the economy and international entrepreneurship have prevailed, especially in the periods of 2001-2005, 2006-2010 and 2011-2014. For other research areas, there have been more abrupt changes. In the years 1990-1995, after the outset of the transformation period, there were merely 6 articles published in the areas of international alliances, globalisation of the Polish economy, international HRM, joint-ventures or other forms of international firm cooperation. This observation reflects the fact that these phenomena still remained at a nascent stage. Howev-er, it must be also mentioned that the low number of related contributions may also be due to the difficulties of identifying contributions from that early period, which are not necessarily available in indexed sources. Another relevant finding relates to change in the structure of research areas, whereby outward interna-tionalisation of the economy, sectors and firms is gradually replacing inward internationalisation into Poland, which can be identified across all specific re-search areas and detailed topics. Conversely, inter-firm cooperation was exten-sively covered in the 1990s, however it gradually lost on relevance in favour of issues related to international firm competitiveness, international alliances and management-related problems from such functional areas as marketing or hu-man resource management.

Figure 3: Changes in the relevance of specific research areas (N=342)


3.2 Publication sources and research methodology

While searching through paper databases, particularly Polish, such as BazEkon or catalogues of university libraries, the authors found many publications providing an overview of extant literature in the fields of interest (more than 800 sources). According to the previous assumptions, however, they were not quali-fied for further study since they presented a high level of generality, not refer-ring strictly to the Polish market, despite the fact that their conclusions or con-ceptual insights could be applied to the international market.

The results of the present review indicate that 83% of the contributions were ac-ademic papers in journals, while 17% books and book chapters or conference proceedings. As regards publication channels in which the publications appeared (Figure 4), the most popular journal recurred to Polish scholars was Gospodarka Narodowa, accounting for a total of 24 articles in the sample of 342 results in the entire period of 1990-2014. The second most important journal used was the Journal of Economics and Management with 18 articles published in the period under review (see Table 2). The relative relevance of particular outlets in the re-search sample can nonetheless be influenced by the existence of special issues devoted to international business, thus biasing the structure of publication outlets.

Figure 4: Distribution of publication forms (N=342)

As far as research designs of the reviewed contributions are concerned, almost 50% of all articles (46%) used quantitative methods, with a clear predominance of descriptive statistics, such as means, medians and frequencies. At the same time, primary data were collected mostly from postal (or electronic) surveys. More complex econometric methods, such as regression analyses (16 articles), cluster analyses (2 articles), or other modelling techniques (2 articles), have re-mained particularly scarce (for notable exceptions see e.g. Klimek 2011; or Wil-iński 2012). If they were used, they were mostly applied to secondary data.


Table 2: Top journals for Polish IB contributions in 1990-2014

Name of the journal No. of articles

Gospodarka Narodowa 24

Journal of Economics and Management 18

Zeszyty Naukowe UE Wrocław 15

Marketing i Rynek 12

Zeszyty Naukowe UEP 11

Ekonomika i Organizacja Przedsiębiorstwa 9

Przegląd Organizacji 8

Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi 7

Poznań University of Economics Review 6

Ekonomista 6

Organizacja i Kierowanie 6

Eastern European Economics 5

In regards to data collection methods, few research projects recurred to ad-vanced tools, such as CATI, with some exceptions (see e.g. Jarosiński 2011; Witek-Hajduk 2009, 2012). Qualitative methods were used in only 22% of con-tributions, with a visible predominance of descriptive case studies, relying on both primary and secondary data. However, within studies based on qualitative analyses, very few attempts at theory building by using grounded theory (such as Gorynia/Nowak/Trąpczyński/Wolniak 2013, 2015) or qualitative content analysis (such as Kowalik/Baranowska-Prokop 2013) were undertaken. In re-gards to the number of theoretical, review or purely conceptual contributions, these could be found in 24% of reviewed contributions. Mixed-method designs combining qualitative and quantitative methods (regardless of the role of either research method) were applied in merely 8% of contributions (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Structure of research methods used (N=342)


It should be mentioned that the present article is the first one to comprehensively describe the achievements of Polish scientists in the field of international busi-ness. The current database will be developed in the coming years. A similar ap-proach can be seen in the articles concerning history of British business. Articles on the above mentioned subject can be found in the Journal of Business History, beginning from 1988 (Ollerenshaw 1990), up to the year 2005 (Rollings 2007). Ollerenshaw (1990) analysed articles, which appeared in 1988 in scientific jour-nals concerning British business aspects, such as transport and trade, employers, labour and education, or multinational enterprises. Research based on the same assumptions was carried out in subsequent years (eg. Matthews 1991; Wilson 1994; Singleton 1996; French 1999). Over time new issues were added, such as economic development and performance, learning networks, trade and interna-tional business, government and regulations. A similar analysis on the history of Italian business was carried out by Carnevali (1998) and covered the period 1991-1997. Such comprehensive literature reviews are good examples to follow in other academic papers.

3.3 Research topics and research gaps

The supplementary qualitative analysis allowed identifying and coding detailed research themes belonging to each of the aforementioned research areas, thus reflecting the specific contents of the reviewed contributions. Within every re-search area, research questions can be identified which have remained relatively under-researched and those which are particularly strongly covered. The results of this coding process are outlined in Table 3. However, owing to space limita-tions, the discussion in subsequent sections does not embrace all examined re-search contributions and thus only provides an illustration for the trends identi-fied in the course of the analysis.8

With regard to studies positioned at the macroeconomic level of analysis, re-search concerned with the inward perspective has sought both to diagnose the current state of investments into Poland (e.g. Domański 2003), their impact on economic development (e.g. Weresa 2004; Zorska 2005) or regional spillovers (e.g. Dorożyńska/Dorożyński/Urbaniak 2011). At the same time, a significant number of contributions has dealt with the outward, active internationalisation of the economy via exports or foreign direct investment (e.g. Gorynia et al. 2003; Gorynia et al. 2006; Gorynia/Nowak/Wolniak 2008), including such as-pects as FDI location (e.g. Obłój/Wąsowska 2012), or FDI sectoral structure and outward to inward FDI ratio development as a sign of economic development (e.g. Gorynia et al. 2008). Thereby, initial efforts have been undertaken to de-velop a discussion around institutional determinants of both inward (e.g. Świer-kocki 2011) and outward (Gorynia 2006) internationalisation of the economy.

8 Only quoted contributions are included in the reference list. The entire list of reviewed contributions is avail-

able on demand from the authors.


However, more normative contributions assessing the effectiveness of economic policy facilitating both aspects of Poland's internationalisation still appear to be in shortage. This refers particularly to specific analyses of the system of support measures targeted at exports and FDI. In this respect, the state of advanced of Polish studies linking policies to the international expansion of the economy, as compared to analyses available for other emerging markets (Buck-ley/Clegg/Cross/Voss 2010; Luo/Xue/Han 2010; Xue/Han 2010),

Table 3. Detailed research topics in each research area9

Research area Research topic # of articles

Globalisation of the economy

FDI location structure 15

FDI sectoral structure 10

Export/import development 9

OFDI/IFDI ratio development 9

Export/FDI support measures 9

Economic policy 9

FDI externalities 5

Government support 5

Host-country determinants 4

Industry-level factors 3

Institutional perspective 2

Internationalisation performance 2

Competitiveness 1

Expansion motives 1

International regional com-petitiveness, clusters and

STPs

Institutional environment 7

Technology and knowledge transfer 4

Cluster cooperation 3

R&D market 2

Tenants analysis 1

Cluster financing 1

Firm internationalisation

Internationalisation paths 28

Entry modes 24

Expansion motives 22

Internationalisation degree 20

FDI location 12

Internationalisation performance 12

Firm competitiveness 12

FDI barriers 9

Resource determinants 9

Information sources 2

International entrepreneu-rship



Born globals 6

Entry modes 6

Internationalisation motives 5


Competitive potential 4

Competitive strategy 3

Performance 2

9 A particular research contribution can address several research topics.


Research area Research topic # of articles

International firm competiti-veness




Resources 8

Competitive position 6

Gap to foreign firms 6

EU accession 4

Effect of foreign entry 4

Economic policy 3


Expansion motives 1

International marketing




Entry modes 3



Location choice 2

Foreign sales 2

Market research methods 2

Organisation & strategic management (in international

context)


HQ subsidiary relations 3


Entry modes 2

Internationalisation 1

Business model 1

Firm performance 1

Market choice 1

Location choice 1

International HRM

HRM Overview 10

Career management 9

Trends in HRM 9

Work performance 5

Culture 4

Innovation in HRM 4

Downsizing 1

Women perspective 1

Leadership 1

International alliances

Inter-firm relations 18

Inter-organisational relationships 10

Alliance management 10

Alliance portfolio/Alliance network 9

Mergers & acquisitions 5

Marketing alliances 4

Alliance development 4

Coopetition 4

Technological creation 2

Comparative analysis 3

Supply chain management 2

Joint Ventures / International firm organisation

Joint Ventures motives 9


At the mesoeconomic level, as far as the international regional competitiveness area is concerned, within the research area of clusters and science and technolo-gy parks (STP) most articles were theoretical or conceptual. Researchers fo-cused mainly on the institutional environment (e.g. Dziura 2013; Krzak 2011; Marciniec/Guliński 2002; Piątyszek-Pych 2013), which enables technology and knowledge transfer (e.g. Capello/Olechnicka/Gorzelak 2013; Guliński/ Marciniec/Wolniewicz 2002; Jankowska/Pietrzykowski 2013). In this respect, an apparent gap related to cluster cooperation and STP’s tenant analysis oc-curred. In the databases used, the authors identified only one article that system-atically described the structure of tenants of technology parks in Poland and in the world (Marciniec 2007). The research carried out by Marciniec (2007) re-quires further development, for since 2007 numerous new institutions of this type were established. The authors of the present literature review found articles concerning services provided by STPs, but their results were based mainly on descriptive statistics, not empirical research (e.g. Staszków 2013). Those were provided by International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innova-tions, which comprises more than 350 STPs around the world. The authors also recognise the need to provide studies concerning STP performance measure-ment, since both public and private-owned STPs gained on importance in Poland after 2004. The monitoring of performance of technology parks is not simple due to the variety of the legal forms and financing schemes the parks feature. It is usual for a park that is public-funded that generating profit is not its principal aim. However, for private parks to achieve their statutory objectives, including enhancing entrepreneurship and knowledge transfer, it is a prerequisite for gen-erating profits. A good benchmark in this respect are the articles of foreign au-thors, like Fukugawa (2006), Colombo and Delmastro (2002), Wallsten (2004), Lindelöf and Löfsten (2002). When it comes to research concerning clusters, they were mostly conceptual, or as it was mentioned before, results from exist-ing literature (e.g. Piatyszek-Pych 2013; Jankowska 2011; Kowalski 2011). The said research focused on issues such as institutional environment, the role of clusters in global economy, internationalisation of clusters or clusters develop-ment paths. Few of them were not only literature reviews, but also indicated case studies as an illustration of theoretical concepts (e.g. Bojar/Bis 2006; Jan-kowska 2010).

At the microeconomic level, themes related to firm internationalisation have no-tably included foreign expansion motives (e.g. Gorynia/Nowak/Wolniak 2007; Karpińska-Mizielińska/Smuga 2007; Maleszyk 2007), FDI locations (Gorynia et al. 2013), foreign market entry modes (e.g. Gołębiowski/Witek-Hajduk 2007; Klimek 2011), FDI effectiveness evaluation (e.g. Jaworek/Szóstek 2008), or in-ternationalisation performance (e.g. Doryń 2011). There have been relatively few articles regarding FDI barriers and resource determinants (Jaworek 2008). It appears that with several exceptions (e.g. Gorynia/Nowak/ Trąpczyński/Wolniak 2014; Szałucka 2008; Szałucka/Szóstek 2013), the link between internationalisa-


tion and foreign market performance, as well as the performance of the entire multinational firm as a result of undertaking internationalisation (e.g. Doryń 2011), has not been strongly explored in extant scholarship related to emerging markets, particularly those in the CEE region. This remains in contrast with the relatively high number of similar studies in the context of advanced econo-mies.10

Furthermore, with several exceptions, there have been few attempts at using more advanced qualitative methods for formulating hypotheses for future re-search (e.g. Gorynia et al. 2014). At the same time, hypotheses have been pre-dominantly verified by the use of mere descriptive statistics rather than ad-vanced statistical modelling, which would have significantly enhanced the nor-mative value of the obtained results, as well as their comparability with findings from advanced economies. Similar conclusions can be drawn for the area of in-ternational entrepreneurship, which has applied similar research questions as the area of firm internationalisation to the phenomenon of entrepreneurial firms and small and medium enterprises (SMEs), especially in relation to early interna-tionalisation (e.g. Jarosiński 2013; Kowalik/Baranowska-Prokop 2013). One can also note a recent surge of studies devoted to born globals (e.g. Jarosiński 2013), however these still remain at a relatively early, descriptive stage. While this cat-egory of studies has also indicated an early stage of international entrepreneur-ship in Poland, expressed mostly by exports (e.g. Witek-Hajduk 2009; Jarosiński 2011; Wach 2012) and driven by the motive of gaining new markets (e.g. Jaro-siński 2013), there have been few relationship-testing attempts (such as e.g. Nowiński/Nowara 2011) at explaining the most salient drivers of the behaviour of young firms from an advanced emerging market, as well as their specific characteristics as compared to their counterparts from advanced economies, where the related researched has thrived for decades. Similar to the overall re-search stream on internationalisation, the most underrepresented topics also fea-ture firm performance, as well as the relationship between international entre-preneurship and firm competitiveness (see e.g. Musteen/Francis/Datta 2010; Zhou/Wu 2014).

Research devoted to international firm competitiveness has predominantly con-cerned such issues as internationalisation degree, internationalisation paths and different dimensions of firm competitiveness, by using predominantly descrip-tive statistics (e.g. Gorynia/Jankowska 2013). It may appear quite interesting that whilst political factors have been studied frequently in the context of Po-land's transformation, there is an apparent lack of articles exploring how eco-nomic policy shapes firm competitiveness (e.g. Gorynia 2006). As regards the area of international marketing, popular topics include marketing strategies in foreign markets (e.g. Jonas 2013) or the role of marketing resources as a constit- 10 Compare e.g. Brouthers, Brouthers and Werner (2008); Chan, Makino, and Isobe (2010); Fang, Wade, Deli-

os, and Beamish (2007) or Gao, Pan, Lu, and Tao (2008).


uent of competitive potential (e.g. Szymura-Tyc 2009). Thereby, somewhat ne-glected topics include the coordination of international marketing activities in foreign markets, which may be related to the aforementioned early stage of in-ternational expansion by foreign firms. In the area of organisation and strategic management in an international context, most notable contributions relate to business models in firm internationalisation (e.g. Gołębiowski/Dudzik/ Lewandowska/Witek-Hajduk 2008) or value chain configuration decision of Polish firms (e.g. Dzikowska 2012), whereby there has been no research into the coordination of organisational structure decisions or strategic manoeuvres of Polish firms across foreign markets, or on the evolving roles of foreign subsidi-aries in Poland. This field of research has been influential in international busi-ness research in the context of advanced economies11, thus its striking paucity in the Polish context cannot be any longer justified by the early stage of the related phenomena.

Researchers belonging to International HRM focused predominantly on career management and new trends in HRM. Many articles in this area were conceived with the use of qualitative studies based on case studies. As it was mentioned before, there are many articles concerning HRM written by Polish authors, but they often focus only on the Polish market without any connections to the inter-national level. Nevertheless, the authors identified papers indicating also inter-national examples to the subjects of innovations in HRM (e.g. Borkowska 2010; Świetlikowski 2014), influence of culture on HR management (e.g., Buchelt 2012; Zając 2012) or work performance (e.g. Oczki 2013; Gajdzik 2014; Grabus 2014). Extant research also focused on current trends in HRM, such as outsourc-ing in HR (Stuss 2012) or freelancing (Cewińska 2012). However, there appears to be a deficit of scientific papers concerning the leadership or women perspec-tive in HRM from Polish perspective.

Taking into account the research area related to joint ventures and international firm organisation, there were only 9 articles and all of them concerned joint ven-tures motives (Andruszkiewicz/Gronski/van de Ven 2001; Cygler 2009; Gołębiowska-Tataj/Klonowski 2009; Kostecki/Nowakowski/Walkowicz 1996; Łuczak 2001; Miciński 1992; Sroka 1996; Uchman 1991; Zembura 2002). The second research area – international alliances includes 63 articles. The most es-sential research topic pertains to inter-organisational relationships (28 articles). The authors of the reviewed papers focused mainly on the relationship be-tween firms (Gierczyński/Wójcik 2013; Galas 1998), as well as between firms and other organisations (Guzek 1992), taking into account different as-pects, inter alia cultural context (Golonka 2013), risk management (Szczepański/ Światowiec-Szczepańska 2012), sources of competitive advantage (Rudawska 2010), as well as marketing alliances (Grębosz 2009, 2010; Sznajder 2007,

11 See e.g. Birkinshaw (1997); Ghoshal (1987) or Rugman and Verbeke (2001).


2009). The underrepresented topics included notably supply chain management (Kisperska-Moron/Świerczek 2006; De Haan/Kisperska-Moron/Płaczek 2007), comparative studies (Duda 2003; Kirby/Jones-Evans/Futo/ Kwiatkowski/ Schwalbach 1996; Lascu/Manrai/Manrai/Kleczek 2006), strategic alliances in distribution channels (Mehta et al. 2006), or technological cooperation (Arog-yaswamya/Kozioł 2005; Puślecki 2009). Based on the conducted analysis, it can be observed that there is an urgent need for papers related to technological co-operation, such as strategic technology alliances (STA), different modes of alli-ances used by Polish firms, alliance portfolios in different sectors, as well as pa-pers focused on alliance management and alliance management tools (Puślecki 2010, 2009). What is also important in updated database after verification of 259 Polish articles in BazEkon related to international alliances and selection of 50 only few articles focused on primary studies (Baskiewicz 2012; Chroszczak/ Ujwary-Gil 2003; Chwistecka-Dudek/Sroka 2012; Cygler 2000, 2009; Drewniak 2003, 2004; Galas 1998; Gliszczyński/Wójcik 2013; Grębosz 2009; Kozłowski 2005; Kozyra 2002, 2005; Sroka 1996, 2004; Stachowicz-Kordel 2004; Strzyżewska 2008, 2011). Others are mainly focused on literature reviews or discussions of international alliances theories. Some articles include examples of alliances or more or less developed case studies. At this point it should be taken into account that it is difficult to collect data about alliances from Polish firms. The research topic was addressed by many authors and the effective response rates of selected sample in many research were low. It could be the result of a different mindset of Polish managers, who are not equally open towards sharing knowledge or data about firms as compared to research in the context of West-ern economies, or in fact not big involvement of Polish companies in domestic and international alliances. Another factor may be the very sensitive nature of this area of research, which in many studies includes success rate of alliances, alliance best practice, partner selection, alliance management or alliance failure. This sort of information is difficult to be collected from firms as its unwanted disclosure could have a negative effect on their entire international strategy. De-spite the difficult access to firm data, many Polish researchers tried to conduct different research projects, including for instance alliance management, alliance networks, co-opetition, transformation of firms, partner selection or inter-firm cooperation on different levels, including SMS or cross-border relations like Polish-German cooperation. In those cases both qualitative and quantitative re-search methods were used. It should be also highlighted that the results of these research efforts could be truly interesting for different comparative analyses, especially in emerging regions like CEE (Central and Eastern Europe) or MENA (Middle East and North Africa) as well as could provide some input to the de-velopment of both alliance theory and alliance management.


4. Conclusion and future research recommendations

The findings of the present review are one of the few exhaustive summaries of the scope, structure and advancement of international business research in Po-land (with the exception of e.g. Puślecki/Staszków/Trąpczyński 2014). One of the main intended contributions of the paper is related to the application of a systematic approach, which allows for analysing the structure of different re-search issues and their change in relevance throughout the analysed timeframe. Moreover, apart from identifying the main research problems raised so far, the relative paucity of empirical evidence in certain aspects was to be stated, thus indicating promising avenues for future conceptual development and empirical efforts. Following Uhlenbruck and De Castro's (2000) claim that economies un-der transition provide fascinating grounds for refining existing management the-ories, international business scholarship in the CEE region could potentially contribute to the development of the discipline and its particular topical areas.

The paper clearly suffers from several limitations. The sample size still requires further enhancement in order to be more representative and avoid the bias in the structure of publication outlets. Furthermore, the coding of specific research them is subject to subjective judgement of researchers, even if it is consistent within research themes. This could possibly potentially make code allocation arbitrary, despite attempts at objectivism. Also, going into breadth obviously sacrifices depth, which one could criticise in the present review.

Nevertheless, this review of the state of the art of international business research in Poland, despite its apparent weaknesses, provides suggestions for future re-search, in order for the advancement of research to catch up with the rising ad-vancement of the internationalisation process of this emerging market. In fact, the particular location of Poland in the proximity of both advanced economies on the one hand, and emerging markets in Eastern Europe on the other hand, both gaining on importance for Poland's economy and business for different un-derlying reasons, poses in itself a unique research context, which should be more consciously and purposefully exploited by researchers, especially those focusing on different forms of firm internationalisation, value chain configurations or – at a more macro-level An overarching conclusion is that in line with Poland's in-creasing internationalisation the related research should progress from a more exploratory and descriptive to a more explanatory and normative research, which bears implications for both the level of analysed contents, and the specific research designs used in present studies (Trąpczyński 2016). In terms of con-tents, more performance-related variables should be included not only in studies of firms' foreign expansion, but also those related to functional areas of interna-tional business operations. Further, performance determinants are crucial not only in regard to corporate choices (such as foreign market entry modes or inter-firm co-operations), but also to institutional arrangements and policy measures. Thereby, a contribution can be made to the understanding of ways in which per-


formance determinants in case of a CEE economy and its meso-systems and firms differ from those studies in advanced economies. Otherwise, if the present descriptive approach continues to prevail, the resulting conclusions will remain at a superficial level, not allowing to seize the specific character of international business in the conditions of a post-communist country, and thus to make a seri-ous contribution to international business research in general.

Moreover, more theory-building contributions should strive to a larger extent than before at highlighting the specific differences in the examined phenomena and their determinants as compared to advanced country contexts. The still nas-cent scope of certain aspects, such as technology parks and clusters, or the inter-national expansion of different types of businesses, pose potentially promising avenues for theoretical and empirical development, since they allow investigat-ing early-stage phenomena in their genuine contexts, which might not be possi-ble in mature settings anymore. This bears the promise of contributions which go beyond the mere specificity of emerging market settings, but are of more general character. Not least, given the limitations related to collecting data for large-scale studies in emerging markets, where the attitude of businesses to-wards information sensitivity in general and co-operation with academia in spe-cific is still divergent from those in advanced economies, the potential of ex-ploiting access to a smaller number of firms or institutions, yet at a more inti-mate level, can be an important research opportunity.

Yet, this theoretical development requires more in-depth focus on management and organisational issues behind the phenomena, rather than a mere description of their underlying motives and forms. Not least, more interdisciplinary contri-butions seem to be necessary, linking macro-, meso- and micro-level variables, such as the influence of economic policy on a national- or industry-level on firm strategies. This need is reflected by the fact that the boundaries between specific research areas are in fact fluent and do not underlie simplified categorisations, which becomes apparent when comparing the research areas of international en-trepreneurship, international marketing, firm internationalisation or international firm competitiveness. This postulate of holism could also be fulfilled by an ex-change of conceptual and methodological insights within international research projects. At a technical level, however, a significant issue for the future devel-opment of the discipline is that the results are predominantly published in the Polish language and in many cases they are still not available on-line, which makes it far more difficult to be cited by foreign authors. Thus, in order to foster also international research collaboration, it is essential that the number of publi-cations in English with on-line access is increased.

The present paper also bears implications for research support policies in terms of prioritising projects for foremost financing within international business re-search. In terms of general topics addressed, more attention should be paid to research questions devoted to understanding processes underlying managerial


and entrepreneurial decisions related to international operations, rather than merely describing the scale or types of the latter. This need also refers to under-standing the intersections between the macro- and micro-level variables, particu-larly the effects of policies on firm behaviour in the context of the country's transformation and internationalisation. Thus, holistic research projects integrat-ing approaches and methodologies from several disciplines should be facilitated to go beyond the obvious. This can also be attained by an increased financing of cross-border comparative research initiatives, aiming at analyses of different country samples, which allow contrasting the obtained findings and benefiting from the heterogeneity of the CEE region in economic and institutional dimen-sions. Currently, the research funding is predominantly focused on national re-search projects, while not excluding joint research initiatives, yet also not facili-tating them. Not least, the aforementioned internationalisation of research find-ings at the level of communication should further be encouraged by adjusted incentives at the level of scholar evaluation, e.g. by awarding more credits for publications in international journals with regional focus, which can become an important channel for the related research.

References

Andruszkiewicz, J./Gronski, M./van de Ven, J. (2001): Polish-Dutch Cooperation In The Szamotuły Joint Implementation Project, in: Energy & Environment, 12, 5/6, 531-536.

Arogyaswamya, B./Koziol, W. (2005): Technology strategy and sustained growth: Poland in the European Union, in: Technology in Society, 27, 4, 453-470.

Baskiewicz, N. (2012): Kooperacja w przedsiębiorstwach zorientowanych procesowo, in: Zarządzanie i Finanse, 10, 1, 3: 223-231.

Birkinshaw, J. (1997): Entrepreneurship in Multinational Corporations: The Characteristics of Subsidiary Initiatives, in: Strategic Management Journal, 18, 3, 207-229.

Bojar, E./Bis, J. (2006): Rola bezpośrednich inwestycji zagranicznych (BIZ) w klastrach, in: Przegląd Organizacji, 10, 32-36.

Borkowska, S. (2010): HRM a postawy pracowników wobec innowacyjności, in: Master of Business Administration, 2, 103, 54-71.

Brouthers, K.D./Brouthers, L.E./Werner, S. (2008): Resource-Based Advantages in an International Context?, in: Journal of Management, 34, 189-217.

Buchelt, B. (2012): Sukces czy porażka procesu repatriacji? Praktyki międzynarodowych organizacji działających w Polsce, in: Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 248, 1, 355-364.

Buckley, P.J./Clegg, J.L./Cross, A.R./Voss, H. (2010): What Can Emerging Markets Learn from the Outward Direct Investment Policies of Advanced Countries?, in: Sauvant, K.P./McAllister, G. (ed.): Foreign Direct Investments from Emerging Markets. The Challenges Ahead, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 243-276

Capello, R./Olechnicka, A./Gorzelak, G. (2013): Universities, Cities and Regions: Loci for Knowledge and Innovation Creation, Routledge.


Carnevali, F. (1998): A Review of Italian Business History from 1991 to 1997, in: Business History, 40, 2, 80-94.

Cewińska, J. (2012): Freelancing a zarządzanie kapitałem ludzkim, in: Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 248, 1, 149-157.

Chan, C./Makino, S./Isobe, T. (2010): Does Subnational Region Matter? Foreign Affiliate Performance in the United States and China, in: Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1226-1243.

Chroszczak, J./Ujwary-Gil, A. (2003): Analiza fazy tworzenia aliansu strategicznego firmy krajowej z zagranicznym kooperantem, in: Organizacja i Kierowanie, 3, 17-37.

Chwistecka-Dudek, H./Sroka, W. (2012): Strategiczna transformacja polskich firm: od restrukturyzacji do strategii rozwoju zewnętrznego, Dąbrowa Górnicza: Wyższa Szkoła Biznesu.

Colombo, M./Delmastro, M. (2002): How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy, in: Research Policy, 31, 7, 1103-1122.

Cygler, J. (2000): Zmiany w strategii rynkowej i systemie zarządzania przedsiębiorstw polskich pod wpływem aliansów z parterami zagranicznymi, in: Organizacja i Kierowanie, 1, 55-69.

Cygler, J. (2009): Kooperencja przedsiębiorstw. Czynniki sektorowe i korporacyjne, Warszawa: Oficyna Szkoły Głównej Handlowej.

Daniels, J.D./Radebaugh, L.H. (2001): International Business: Environments and Operations ,Ninth edition, London: Prentice Hall.

De Haan, J./Kisperska-Moron, D./Placzek, E. (2007): Logistics management and firm size: a survey among Polish small and medium enterprises, in: International Journal Production Economies, 108, 1-2, 119-126.

Domański, B. (2003): Industrial change and foreign direct investment in the postsocialist economy. The case of Poland, in: European Urban and Regional Studies, 10, 2, 99-118.

Dorożyńska, A./Dorożyński, T./Urbaniak, W. (2011): Ocena działalności inwestorów zagranicznych w województwie łódzkim, in: Świerkocki, J. (ed.): Rola bezpośrednich inwestycji zagranicznych w kształtowaniu aktualnego i przyszłego profilu gospodarczego województwa łódzkiego. Łódź: Uniwersytet Łódzki.

Doryń, W. (2011): Wpływ internacjonalizacji na wyniki ekonomiczne polskich przedsiębiorstw przemysłowych. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.

Drewniak, R. (2003): Kluczowe cele strategiczne polskich przedsiębiorstw uczestniczących w aliansie strategicznym. Wyniki badań, in: Przegląd Organizacji, 10, 27-30.

Drewniak, R. (2003): Perspektywy rozwojowe przedsiębiorstw uczestniczących w partnerstwie strategicznym w praktyce polskiej – powodzenie aliansów strategicznych w Polsce (wyniki badań), in: Organizacja i Kierowanie, 4, 107-122.

Drewniak, R. (2004): Rozwój przedsiębiorstwa poprzez alians strategiczny, Toruń: Dom Organizatora.

Duda, J. (2003): Alianse w praktyce funkcjonowania małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw w Polsce i w Niemczech – analiza porównawcza, in: Prace Naukowe Akademii Ekonomicznej we Wrocławiu, 974, I, 170-178.


Dzikowska M. (2012): Value chain module relocations and competitive position of an enterprise: perspective of Polish companies from clothing and automotive industries, in: 38th EIBA European International Business Academy Conference Proceedings, EIBA – Brighton.

Dziura, M. (2013): R&D Market in Poland, in: Journal of Business & Retail Management Research, 7, 2, 106-122.

Fang, Y./Wade, M./Delios, A./Beamish, P.W. (2007): International Diversification, Subsidiary Performance and the Mobility of Knowledge Resources, in: Strategic Management Journal.

French, M. (1999): British Business History: A Review of the Periodical Literature for 1997, in: Business History, 41, 2, 1-16.

FTSE (ed.) (2013): Country Classification in FTSE Global Benchmarks. London: FTSE Group.

Fukugawa, N. (2006): Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms, in: International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24, 381-400.

Gajdzik, B. (2014): Zarządzanie absencjami w przedsiębiorstwie produkcyjnym, in: Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi, 1, 96, 57-71.

Galas, K. (1998): Alianse strategiczne przedsiębiorstw polskich z przedsiębiorstwami europejskimi, in: Monografie i Opracowania, Warszawa: Szkoła Główna Handlowa, 450, 81-100.

Gao, G./Pan, Y./Lu, J./Tao, Z. (2008): Performance of Multinational Firms' Subsidiaries: Influences of Cumulative Experience, in: Management International Review, 48, 6, 749-768.

Ghoshal, S. (1987): Global Strategy: An Organizing Framework, in: Strategic Management Journal, 8, 425-440.

Gliszczyński, G./Wójcik, A. (2013): Alianse strategiczne polskich przedsiębiorstw, in: Ekonomika i Organizacja Przedsiębiorstwa, 11, 3-14.

Godlewska, M./Weiss, E. (2007): Cluster as a form of strategic alliance, in: Contemporary Economics, 1, 3, 109-118.

Golonka, M. (2013): Interfirm Collaboration in a Cultural Context: Insight from the Research on the ICT Industry in Poland, in: International Journal of Economic Policy in Emerging Economies, 6, 2, 122-140.

Gołębiowska-Tataj, D./Klonowski, D. (2009): When East meets West: corporate governance challenges in emerging markets of Central and Eastern Europe – the case of Polish Aggregate Processors, in: Post-Communist Economies, 21, 3, 361-371.

Gołębiowski, T./Dudzik, T.M./Lewandowska, M./Witek-Hajduk, M.K. (2008): Modele biznesu polskich przedsiębiorstw, Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.

Gołębiowski, T./Witek-Hajduk, M.K. (2007): Formy internacjonalizacji polskich przedsiębiorstw in: Marketing i Rynek, 2, 16-22.

Gorynia, M. (2002): Internationalization of a post-communist economy – opportunities and threats: the case of Poland, in: Marinov, M. (ed.): Internationalization in Central and Eastern Europe, Ashgate: Aldershot, 76-104,.


Gorynia, M. (2006): Polska polityka gospodarcza a internacjonalizacja i globalizacja, in: Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny, 2, 129-146.

Gorynia, M. (2012): Ewolucja pozycji gospodarki polskiej w gospodarce światowej, in: Ekonomista, 4, 403-25.

Gorynia, M. (2012): O klasyfikacji nauk zajmujących się międzynarodową działalnością gospodarczą, in: Skulska, B./Domiter, M. (ed.): Globalizacja i regionalizacja w gospodarce światowej: księga jubileuszowa z okazji 45-lecia pracy naukowej Profesora Jana Rymarczyka, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu.

Gorynia, M./Jankowska, B./Tarka, P. (2013): Basic Concepts of Company Competitiveness, in: Gorynia, M./Jankowska, B. (ed.): The Influence of Poland's Accession to the Euro Zone on the International Competitiveness and Internationalisation of Polish Companies, Warszawa: Difin, 17-39.

Gorynia, M./Nowak, J./Trąpczyński, P./Wolniak, R. (2013): The Determinants of Location Choice in the Internationalization Process of Polish Companies: A Qualitative Study, in: Journal of Economics and Management, 14, 13, 61-76.

Gorynia, M./Nowak, J./Trąpczyński, P./Wolniak, R. (2014): Internationalization of Polish Firms via Foreign Direct Investment: A Multiple-Case Study Approach, in: Marinov, M.A./Marinova, S.T. (ed.): Successes and Challenges of Emerging Economy Multinationals, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, 184-216.

Gorynia, M./Nowak, J./Trąpczyński, P./Wolniak, R. (2015): Outward FDI of Polish firms: The role of motives, entry modes and location factors, in: Journal for East European Management Studies, 20, 3, 328-359, DOI 10.1688/JEEMS-2015-03-Gorynia.

Gorynia, M./Nowak, J./Wolniak, R. (2003): Globalization of a transitional economy: the experience of Poland, in: Journal of East-West Business, 9, 2, 29-46.

Gorynia, M./Nowak, J./Wolniak, R. (2006): The Investment Development Path of Poland Re-visited: A Geographic Analysis, in: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual EIBA Confer-ence, Fribourg.

Gorynia, M./Nowak, J./Wolniak, R. (2007): Motives and Modes of FDI in Poland: An Exploratory Qualitative Study, in: Journal for East European Management Studies, 2, 132-151.

Gorynia, M./Nowak, J./Wolniak, R. (2008): Poland’s Investment Development Path and Industry Structure of FDI Inflows and Outflows, Journal of East-West Business, 14, 2, 189-212.

Grabus, M. (2014): Wzmacnianie funkcji personalnej w procesie rozwoju firmy, in: Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi, 1, 96, 9-26.

Grębosz, M. (2009): Co-branding – motywy, efekty oraz charakterystyka współpracy przedsiębiorstw w świetle badań empirycznych, in: Zeszyty Naukowe, Organizacja i Zarzadzanie, Politechnika Łódzka, 45, 1064, 5-17.

Grębosz, M. (2010): Co-branding jako przykład aliansu strategicznego w marketingu, in: Marketing i Rynek, 6, 16-21.

Guliński, J./Marciniec, B./Wolniewicz, A. (2002): Innovation Relay Centres (IRC) Network in Central and Eastern Europe, in: Molecular Crystals and Liquid Crystals Science & Technology, 374, 1, 23-28.


Guzek, E. (1992): Ways of Entering the Polish Market by Foreign Companies, in: Journal of Business Research, 24, 1, 37-50.

Jankowska, B. (2010): Internacjonalizacja klastrów, in: Gospodarka Narodowa, 5-6, 19-40.

Jankowska, B. (2011). Konsekwencje globalizacji dla klastrów, in: Studia Ekonomiczne, 2, LXIX, 149-170.

Jankowska, B./Pietrzykowski, M. (2013): Clusters as absorbers and diffusers of knowledge, in: Poznan University of Economics Review, 13, 1, 68-88.

Jarosiński, M. (2011): Stan zaawansowania internacjonalizacji polskich przedsiębiorstw, in: Organizacja i Kierowanie, 1, 41-50.

Jarosiński, M. (2013): Procesy i modele internacjonalizacji polskich przedsiębiorstw, Warszawa, Oficyna Wydawnicza Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie.

Jaworek, M. (2008): Stymulanty i destymulanty podejmowania inwestycji bezpośrednich za granicą przez polskie przedsiębiorstwa, in: Karaszewski, W. (ed.): Bezpośrednie inwestycje zagraniczne polskich przedsiębiorstw, Toruń: Dom Organizatora,.

Jaworek, M./Szóstek, A. (2008): Ocena efektywności bezpośrednich inwestycji zagranicznych, in: Karaszewski, W. (ed.): Bezpośrednie inwestycje zagraniczne polskich przedsiębiorstw, Toruń: Dom Organizatora, 111-146.

Jonas, A. (2013): Strategie obecności polskich przedsiębiorstw na rynkach zagranicznych, in: Marketing i Rynek, 2, 18-23.

Karpińska-Mizielińska, W./Smuga, T. (2007): Determinanty bezpośrednich inwestycji polskich przedsiębiorstw na rynkach zagranicznych, in: Gospodarka Narodowa, 9, 31-53.

Kirby, D./Jones-Evans, D./Futo, P./Kwiatkowski, S./Schwalbach, J. (1996): Technical Consultancy in Hungary, Poland, and the UK: A Comparative Study of an Emerging Form of Entrepreneurship, in: Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 20, 4, 9-24.

Kisperska-Moron, D./Świerczek, A. (2006): The agile capabilities of Polish companies in the supply chain: An empirical study, in: International Journal Production Economies, 118, 1, 217-224.

Klimek, A. (2011): Greenfield Foreign Direct Investment Versus Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions. The Evidence of Multinational Firms from Emerging Countries, in: Eastern European Economics, 49, 6, 60-73.

Kostecki, M./Nowakowski, K./Walkowicz, A. (1996): Export Concerns of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Poland, in: Journal of East-West Business, 1, 4, 95-115.

Kowalik, I./Baranowska-Prokop, E. (2013): Determinanty powstawania i motywy ekspansji polskich przedsiębiorstw wcześnie umiędzynarodowionych, in: Gospodarka Narodowa, 4, 41-64.

Kowalski, A. (2011): Europejskie inicjatywy na rzecz zwiększenia innowacyjności i konkurencyjności gospodarki przez internacjonalizację klastrów, in: Studia Europejskie, 1, 79-100.

Kozłowski, R. (2005): Alianse w polskich przedsiębiorstwach telefonii stacjonarnej, in: Przegląd Organizacji, 6, 29-32.


Kozyra, B. (2002): Fuzje, przejęcia i alianse strategiczne w gospodarce światowej i polskiej, in: Acta Scientiarum Polonorum, Oeconomia, R.2/1, 13-23.

Kozyra, B. (2005): Alians strategiczny jako wstęp do fuzji lub przejęcia, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Instytutu Lotnictwa.

Krzak, J. (2011): Parki i inkubatory technologiczne w Polsce. Studia Biura Analiz Sejmowych, 1, 25, 97-116.

Lascu, D./Manrai, L./Manrai, A./Kleczek, R. (2006): Interfunctional dynamics and business performance – a comparison between firms in Poland and the United States, in: International Business Review, 15, 6, 641-659.

Löfsten, H./Lindelöf, P. (2002): Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms - academic-industry links, innovation and markets, in: Research Policy, 31, 6, 859-876.

Łuczak, J. (2001): Know-how transfer on creating and developing QS-9000 Quality System in American-Polish joint venture company on the example of WIX Filtration Products, Division of Dana Corporation and WIX-Filtron, in: International Journal of Technology Management, 21, 440-452.

Luo, Y./Xue, Q./Han, B. (2010): How emerging market governments promote outward FDI: Experience from China, in: Journal of World Business, 45, 68-79.

Maleszyk, E. (2007): Internacjonalizacja polskich przedsiębiorstw handlowych, in: Gospodarka Narodowa, 9, 79-98.

Marciniec, B. (2007): The role of science and technology parks in increasing the competitiveness of small and medium sized companies, in: Poznan University of Economics Review, 11, 1, 56-80.

Marciniec, B./Guliński, J. (2002): Knowledge and Technology Transfer (KTT) from Academia to Industry in Central European Countries: the case of Poland, in: Molecular Crystals and Liquid Crystals, 374, 1, 13-22.

Matthews, D. (1991): British Business History: A Review of the Periodical Literature for 1989, in: Business History, 33, 2, 185-202.

Mehta, R./Polsa, P./Mazur, J./Xiucheng, F./Dubinsky, A. (2006): Strategic alliances in international distribution channels, in: Journal of Business Research, 59, 1094-1104.

Miciński, A. (1992): Conditions for Joint Ventures With Foreign Participation in Poland, in: Journal of Business Research, 24, 1, 67-72

MSCI (2013): Market Classification. Morgan Stanley Capital International, URL: http://www.msci.com/products/indices/market_classification.html. Accessed: 23 August 2013.

Musteen, M./Francis, J./Datta, D.K. (2010): The influence of international networks on internationalization speed and performance: A study of Czech SMEs, in: Journal of World Business, 45, 3, 197-205.

Nowiński, W./Nowara, W. (2011): Stopień i uwarunkowania internacjonalizacji polskich małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw, in: Gospodarka Narodowa, 3, 29-45.

Obłój, K. (2014): Firma międzynarodowa jako przedmiot badań, in: K. Obłój/A. Wąsowska (ed.): Zarządzanie międzynarodowe. Teoria i praktyka, Warszawa: Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.


Obłój, K./Wąsowska, A. (2012): Strategiczne wybory polskich firm – motywy i kierunki budowania powiązań zewnętrznych drogą kapitałowego umiędzynarodowienia działalności, in: Morawski, W. (ed.): Powiązania zewnętrzne. Modernizacja Polski, Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 102-120.

Oczki, J. (2013): Zatrudnienie na czas określony i w niepełnym wymiarze czasu pracy w małych i średnich przedsiębiorstwach w Polsce na tle krajów UE, in: Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi, 3-4, 89-99.

Ollerenshaw, P. (1990): British Business History: A Review of Recent Periodical Literature, in: Business History, 32, 1.

Piątyszek-Pych, A. (2013): Determinants of the emergence and the development of clusters, in: Management, 17, 1, 58-77.

Puślecki, Ł. (2009): Realizacja aliansów technologicznych w warunkach globalizacji gospodarki światowej na przykładzie krajów Triady i Polski, in: Schroeder, J./Stępień B. (ed.): Współczesne problemy międzynarodowej działalności przedsiębiorstw, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu, 47-70.

Puślecki, Ł. (2010): Wpływ współpracy technologicznej krajów rozwiniętych gospodarczo na ich konkurencyjność międzynarodową, Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe GRADO.

Puślecki, Ł./Staszków, M./Trąpczyński, P. (2014): International Business Research in Poland: Critical Review of Selected Publications, in: Studia UBB Negotia, LVIX, 2, 5-24.

Rollings, N. (2007): British Business History: A Review of the Periodical Literature for 2005, in: Business History, 49, 3, 271-272.

Rudawska, I. (2010): Interconnected firms' relationships as a source of a competitive advantage, in: Business and Economy Horizones, 2, 2, 7-16.

Rugman, A.M./Verbeke, A. (2001): Subsidiary-Specific Advantages in Multinational Enterprises, in: Strategic Management Journal, 22, 3, 237-250.

Schmid, S./Kotulla, T. (2009): Standardization and Adaptation in International Marketing and Management – From a Critical Literature Analysis to a Theoretical Framework, in: Larimo, J. (ed.): Strategies and Management of Internationalization and Foreign Operations, Vaasa: Vaasan Yliopiston Julkaisuja.

Schuh, A./Rossmann, A. (2009): Schwerpunkte und Trends in der betriebswirtschaftlichen Mittel- und Osteuropaforschung: Ein Literaturüberblick zum Zeitraum 1990-2005, in: Reinhard Moser (ed.) Internationale Unternehmensführung – Entscheidungsfelder und politische Aspekte, Wiesbaden, 161-204.

Seuring, S./Gold, S. (2012): Conducting Content-analysis Based Literature Reviews in Supply Chain Management, in: Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17, 5, 544-555.

Singleton, J. (1996): British Business History: A Review of the Periodical Literature for 1994, in: Business History, 38, 2, 1-14.

Sousa, C.M./Martínez-López, F.J./Coelho, F. (2010): The Determinants of Export Performance: A Review of the Research in the Literature Between 1998 and 2005, in: International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 4, 343-374.

Sroka, W. (1996): Wybór partnera w aliansach strategicznych przedsiębiorstw, in: Ekonomika i Organizacja Przedsiębiorstwa, 9, 5-8.


Sroka, W. (2004): Alianse strategiczne i fuzje jako główne strategie w warunkach globalizacji – aspekt praktyczny. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, in: Prace Instytut Ekonomiki i Organizacji Przedsiębiorstw, 43/I, 469-477.

Stachowicz, J./Kordel, P. (2004): Tożsamość społeczna aliansów strategicznych polskich przedsiębiorstw – wyniki badań empirycznych, in: Organizacja i Kierowanie, 3, 21-32.

Staszków, M. (2013): Parki naukowo-technologiczne – miejsce wsparcia innowacyjnego biznesu, in: Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 315, 2, 269-277.

Strzyżewska, M. (2008): Współpraca konkurentów w grupie polskich małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw, in: Problemy Zarządzania, 6/2, 20, 71-87.

Strzyżewska, M. (2011): Współpraca między przedsiębiorstwami – odniesienie do polskiej praktyki, Warszawa: Oficyna Szkoły Głównej Handlowej.

Stuss, M. (2012): Outsourcing personalny w sektorze usług, in: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, 722, 217-228.

Świerkocki, J. (2011): Metody wspierania napływu bezpośrednich inwestycji zagranicznych do Polski, in: Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach - Internacjonalizacja i konkurencyjność współczesnych podmiotów gospodarczych, 215-230.

Świetlikowski, Ł. (2014): Tendencje w zarządzaniu zasobami ludzkimi w służbach cywilnych państw OECD, in: Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi, 3-4.

Szałucka, M. (2008): Wpływ bezpośrednich inwestycji zagranicznych na konkurencyjność polskich inwestorów, in: Karaszewski, W. (ed.): Bezpośrednie inwestycje zagraniczne polskich przedsiębiorstw, Toruń: Dom Organizatora, 171-240.

Szałucka, M./Szóstek, A. (2008): Stopień realizacji oczekiwań inwestorów i perspektywy rozwoju polskich inwestycji bezpośrednich za granicą, in: Karaszewski, W. (ed.): Bezpośrednie inwestycje zagraniczne polskich przedsiębiorstw, Toruń: Dom Organizatora, 89-104.

Szczepański, R./Światowiec-Szczepańska, J. (2012): Risk management system in business relationships – Polish case studies, in: Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 5, 790-799.

Sznajder, A. (2007): Alianse marketingowe – nowa forma powiązań biznesu ze sportem?, in: Marketing i Rynek, 7, 2-7.

Sznajder, A. (2009): Alianse marketingowe szansą na zwiększenie konkurencyjności, in: Marketing i Rynek, 6, 2-8

Szymura-Tyc, M. (2009): The role of marketing intellectual capital in creating competitive advantage in the international market – theoretical assumptions and empirical evidence of Polish firms competing in the European markets, in: Journal of Economics & Management, 6, 161-186.

Trąpczyński, P. (2015): Foreign direct investment strategies and performance in the internationalisation of Polish companies, Warszawa: DIFIN.

Trąpczyński, P. (2016): Foundations of foreign direct investment performance, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu.


Uchman, T. (1991): Bank Joint Ventures, in: Soviet & Eastern European Foreign Trade, 27 2, 63-67.

Uhlenbruck, K./De Castro, J. (2000): Foreign acquisitions in Central and Eastern Europe: outcomes of privatization in transitional economies, in: The Academy of Management Journal, 43, 3, 381-402.

UNCTAD (ed.) (2013): World Investment Report. Global Value Chains: Investment and Trade for Development, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, New York and Geneva.

Wach, K. (2012): Europeizacja małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Wallsten, S. (2004): Do Science Parks Generate Regional Economic Growth? An Empirical Analysis of their Effects on Job Growth and Venture Capital, in: AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper: 04-04, 1-17.

Weresa, M. A. (2004): Can foreign direct investment help Poland catch up with the EU?, in: Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 37, 3, 413-427.

Wiliński, W. (2012): Beginning of the End of Cost Competitiveness in CEE Countries – Analysis of Dependence between Labor Costs and Internationalization of the Region, in: Comparative Economic Research, 15, 1, 43-59.

Wilson, J.F. (1994): British Business History: A Review of the Periodical Literature for 1992, in: Business History, 2, 1-19.

Witek-Hajduk, M.K. (2009): Motywy internacjonalizacji polskich średnich i dużych przedsiębiorstw, in: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu, 125, 256-271.

Witek-Hajduk, M.K. (2012): Formy umiędzynarodowienia polskich przedsiębiorstw na rynkach zaopatrzenia, in: Gospodarka Narodowa, 4, 61-83.

Xue, Q./Han, B. (2010): The Role of Government Policies in Promoting Outward Foreign Direct Investment from Emerging Markets: China's Experience, in: K.P. Sauvant/G. McAllister (ed.): Foreign Direct Investments from Emerging Markets. The Challenges Ahead, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 305-324.

Zając, C. (2012): Kulturowe problemy zarządzania zasobami ludzkimi w międzynarodowych grupach kapitałowych w świetle badań empirycznych, in: Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 248, 1, 438-448.

Zembura, R. (2002): Strategie wejścia przedsiębiorstw zagranicznych na polski rynek, in: Zeszyty Naukowe, Akademia Ekonomiczna w Krakowie, 581, 81-91.

Zhou, L./Wu, A. (2014): Earliness of internationalization and performance outcomes: exploring the moderating effects of venture age and international commitment, in: Journal of World Business, 49, 132-142.

Zorska, A. (2005): Foreign Direct Investment and Transformation, in: Eastern European Economics, 43, 4, 52-78.

167

JEEMS, 21(2), 167-183 DOI 10.1688/JEEMS-2016-Dauth ISSN (print) 0943-2779, ISSN (internet) 1862-0035 © Rainer Hampp Verlag, www.Hampp-Verlag.de

Internationalization of top management teams: A comprehensive analysis of Polish stock-listed firms*

Tobias Dauth, Agata Tomczak**

For most Polish firms, doing business across borders is very common. In order to identify whether the firms’ internationalization is reflected by the internation-alization of their upper echelons, we conduct a descriptive study on top manag-ers of firms listed at the Polish stock exchange. We apply a holistic approach to measuring board internationalization by taking into account multiple dimen-sions (e.g., nationality, international education, international work experience, foreign language skills). Our results show that the average level of top man-agement internationalization in Polish firms is relatively low and barely corre-sponds with the firms’ international business activities.

Key words: top management teams, top management demographics, interna-tional executives, top management internationalization, board internationaliza-tion, Poland (JEL: L20, M10, M12, M16)


** Corresponding author: Tobias Dauth, Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach Junior Professorship in Inter-national Management, HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management/Fraunhofer Center for International Management and Knowledge Economy, Jahnallee 59, 04109 Leipzig, Germany. E-mail: [email protected].

Agata Tomczak, Senior Consultant, DREBERIS GmbH, Heinrich-Zille-Straße 2, 01219 Dresden, Germany. E-mail: [email protected].

168 Tobias Dauth, Agata Tomczak: Internationalization of top management teams

Introduction

The globalization of markets, technological advancements and increased compe-tition have been important drivers for the rapid transformation process of Polish firms and the continuous internationalization of their business activities (Rad-lo/Sass 2012). Moreover, the enlargement of the European Union has led to fast development of economic relations with countries across the world (Schweiger 2014). In this regard, the internationalization of Polish firms is reflected by many criteria such as foreign sales, foreign employees and foreign assets. The transformation and internationalization processes of Polish firms are highly relevant topics that have generated a substantial stream of research. Many scholars investigate the internationalization motives, market entry modes, and competitive strategies of Polish firms (e.g., Cieślik/Nikk 2011; Śliwiński 2012; Trąpczyński/Wrona 2013). However, the question “How international are top management teams in Poland?” remains unanswered. To the best of our knowledge, there is only fragmented evidence on the demographics and the in-ternational composition of Polish upper echelons (e.g., Rakowska 2010). This research gap needs to be addressed because empirical analyses highlight the cru-cial role of top managers and their international experience in firms’ internation-alization processes (e.g., Finkelstein et al. 2009).

Several existing studies consider top management teams’ internationalization as an important variable in upper echelons research (e.g. Sambarya 1996; Elron 1997; Hambrick et al. 1998; Carpenter et al. 2001; Athanassiou/Nigh 2002; Schmid/Daniel 2006). In this regard, scholars argue that international activities constitute an important part of the daily business of many firms and the interna-tionalization of business activities shall be reflected at the top management lev-el. It is assumed that top managers need specific international knowledge, skills and experience in order to successfully manage cross-border activities (Heijltjes et al. 2003; Carpenter et al. 2004; Schmid/Dauth 2014). Consequently, interna-tional top managers’ human capital is considered as a valuable resource for mul-tinational corporations (MNCs), and corporate governance codes in many Euro-pean countries recommend the appointment of international top managers to corporate boards (e.g., Daily et al. 2000; Carpenter et al. 2001; AFG 2011; GCGC 2012; UKCGC 2012; Schmid/Dauth 2014; Schmid et al. 2015).

The objectives of our paper are twofold. First, we aim to measure top manage-ment internationalization in Poland in a comprehensive way. To do so, we ana-lyze the nationalities, international work experience, international education, international mandates, home-country international experience, international extracurricular activities and the language proficiency of top managers. This ap-proach enables us to contribute to existing literature because we address the call for fine-grained and comprehensive measures of top management internationali-zation (Greve et al. 2009; Nielsen/Nielsen 2013). Second, we complement exist-

JEEMS, 21(2), 167-183 DOI 10.1688/JEEMS-2016-Dauth 169

ing investigations that primarily focus on top management characteristics in the Anglo-American context. Our study provides empirical evidence on top man-agement internationalization in Poland and thus it sheds light on an important, yet neglected aspect of internationalization in a Polish context.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The second section provides details on our theoretical argumentation. The third section includes a description of the sample and outlines our research method. The results of our empirical in-vestigation are presented in the fourth section, followed by a discussion and concluding comments in section five.

Theoretical aspects of top management internationalization

Human capital theory posits that employees make rational choices regarding in-vestments in their own human capital (Becker 1975). In return, labor markets ought to reward top managers’ investments in themselves (Judge et al. 1995). Existing research has highlighted that top managers’ international experience can, for example, help to reduce a firm’s environmental constraints and uncer-tainty (Sambharya 1996; Athanassiou/Nigh 1999) and ensure access to a valua-ble network of (foreign) individuals and organizations (Geletkanycz et al. 2001; Schmid/Dauth 2014).

McCall and Hollenbeck (2002) stress the necessity of international experience and understanding for executives aspiring to work globally. In this regard, Beechler and Javidan (2007) argue that top managers need a “global mindset” in order to successfully operate on an international level. This “global mindset” can manifest itself in several dimensions:

(i) Intellectual capital (e.g., understanding of how to build and manage global alliances, partnerships, and value networks; the ability to manage the tension between corporate requirements and local challenge; the abil-ity to handle complex cross-cultural issues; familiarity with global busi-nesses and industries),

(ii) Psychological capital (e.g., respect for cultural differences; willingness to adapt, learn, and cope with other cultures; acknowledgement of the validity of different views but also: adaptability, self-confidence, resili-ence and optimism), and

(iii) Social capital (e.g., the ability to excite and motivate people from differ-ent cultures, the ability to connect and interact with foreigners).

To measure internationalization, we draw on arguments from upper echelons theory (Hambrick/Mason 1984). Accordingly, we assume that organizations rep-resent a reflection of their top managers. Top managers’ field of vision, their strategic choices and ultimately firm-level outcomes are influenced by their in-dividual psychological characteristics, such as their cognitions, their values and their perceptions (Knight et al. 1999). In accordance with Hambrick and Mason


(1984), we employ demographic characteristics as proxies for top managers’ psychological attributes.

Dimensions of top managers’ internationalization

While upper echelons literature highlights that top managers’ internationaliza-tion can take various forms, many existing studies employ only one or two de-mographic dimensions of internationalization (for a review see Schmid/Dauth 2012). In this regard, scholars mostly investigate top managers’ nationality (e.g., Gong 2006; Ruigrok et al. 2007; Staples 2007) or international assignment expe-rience (e.g., Sullivan 1994; Daily et al. 2000; Carpenter/Fredrickson 2001; Car-penter et al. 2001). By focusing on single dimensions of internationalization, these studies may neglect other important aspects of a top manager’s interna-tionalization (Schmid/Daniel 2006; Nielsen 2010; Schmid/Dauth 2014). In order to address the call for a more complex modelling of internationalization, our study focuses on multiple dimensions that shall be described in the following paragraphs.

First, we analyze top managers’ nationality. In line with existing research, we expect that an individual’s nationality can have an impact on his or her personal-ity (Hambrick et al. 1998; Triandis/Suh 2002; Nielsen 2011) and his or her un-derlying orientations and values (Hofstede 2001; House et al. 2004). In turn, these orientations and values affect a top manager’s behavior and have implica-tions for strategic decision-making within a firm (Elron 1997; Geletkanycz 1997; Hambrick et al. 1998). Therefore, scholars consider top managers’ foreign nationality to be a specific form of human capital (Schmid/Dauth 2014; Schmid et al. 2015). In this study, we determine an individual’s nationality by drawing on top managers’ CVs (where nationality is stated) or, if possible, by identifying the country in which the person has spent most of his/her formative years.

As a second dimension, we consider international work experience as an im-portant aspect of top managers’ internationalization. It is reasonable to assume that top managers who have completed international work assignments possess valuable knowledge of foreign markets and regulations. In contrast to individu-als who have lived and worked only in their home countries, international top managers face fewer uncertainties when entering foreign markets (Sambharya 1996; Lu/Beamish 2001; Schmid/Dauth 2014; Schmid et al. 2015). Again, we count the number of years of foreign work experience mentioned in top manag-ers’ CVs.

Third, we analyze top managers’ international education. The knowledge gained from international education can enhance individuals’ understanding of customs and habits in foreign markets (Yeung/Ready 1995; Carpenter et al. 2001). Moreover, the experience gathered during an educational process abroad may have an impact on the manager’s selective field of vision and thus his/her deci-


sion-making in a business context. We draw on top managers’ CVs and count the years of international education mentioned in their biographies.

Fourth, we consider top managers’ mandates in boards of foreign firms located outside Poland. The presence in boards of foreign firms can be regarded as an effective means for top managers to gain valuable insights into foreign business practices and decision-making processes, and to develop ties to international stakeholders (Maruca 1994; Athanassiou/Nigh 1999; Carpenter et al. 2001). The number of mandates is derived from an analysis of firms’ annual reports and top managers’ CVs.

Fifth, we account for home-country international experience by including do-mestic job assignments (i.e. jobs in Poland) where top managers either had in-ternational responsibilities (e.g., sales manager for the North-American region) or worked for Polish subsidiaries of foreign MNCs. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Polish top managers had only limited possibilities to gain interna-tional experience in a business context (Śliwiński 2012). Thus, a position in a subsidiary of a foreign MNC in Poland was one way to get in touch with foreign management practices. After 1990, FDI in Poland raised tremendously and for-eign MNCs increased their presence in Poland (Gorynia et al. 2007). Those in-dividuals who were assigned to the highest management levels of the Polish subsidiaries had intensive contact with foreign headquarters or other colleagues from abroad (Hetrick 2002). This was a basis for further internationalization of Polish top managers. The regular exchange with foreign colleagues helped them to improve their language skills and confronted them with different management styles, new ways of problem solving and decision-making processes (Sarmiento-Mirwaldt/Roman-Kamphaus 2013).

Sixth, we consider international extracurricular activities as a valuable source of internationalization. This dimension becomes highly relevant in a Polish context because it was almost impossible for Polish top managers to work and/or study in Western (European) countries before 1990 (see, for example, Leven 2008). In the late 1990s, study exchange programs, scholarships or expatriate assignments became more and more common, so Polish managers were able to experience different cultures. For a long time, courses and seminars (i.e., extracurricular activities) in foreign countries were one of the few ways to gain international experience. Interaction with international lecturers, the exposure to foreign lan-guages, and the interaction with foreign participants were factors that enabled Polish managers to broaden their international knowledge.

Seventh, we account for the foreign language skills of a top manager. Proficien-cy in foreign languages is one of the most important factors for the international-ization level of a person (Piekkari/Tietze 2011). Being able to communicate with foreign colleagues, potential partners and investors may serve as a key success factor for a top manager’s international business activities. Again, we draw on


the top managers’ CVs to obtain more information on this dimension of interna-tionalization.

Data and methodoloy

Sample

In our study we analyzed the 20 largest firms (based on sales) listed at the Polish GPW1 as of March 2014. We excluded subsidiaries of foreign firms (e.g., Eu-rocash Group) since our research shall concentrate on firms headquartered in Poland. We also excluded Polish firms that were acquired by foreign firms (the case of Orange, formerly Telekomunikacja Polska S.A.). The final list of firms represented in our sample is illustrated in table 1. In total, we analyzed the inter-nationalization of 238 individuals (95 management board members and 143 su-pervisory board members).2

Table 1: Sample overview

Firm Industry Total sales 2012 (in 1,000 PLN)

No. of management board members

No. of supervisory board members

PKN Orlen Petroleum 88,348,971 5 7

Lotos Petroleum 33,111,000 5 6

PGE Energy 30,556,814 4 9

PGNiG Energy 28,730,000 5 8

Tauron Energy 24,741,257 5 9

KGHM Mining 21,337,870 5 7

Energa Energy 11,176,799 3 7

Enea Energy 10,096,032 4 8

JSW SA Mining 8,820,956 5 12

Azoty Chemical 7,098,735 7 9

Pelion Pharma 6,685,516 5 5

Synthos Chemical 6,206,544 5 5

Budimex Construction 6,077,660 6 9

Neuca Pharma 5,687,431 3 5

Asseco IT/Telco 5,529,100 11 6

Boryszew Chemical 4,878,036 4 6

Farmacol Pharma 4,843,571 3 5

AB IT/Telco 4,821,476 4 6

Ciech Chemical 4,377,952 3 7

Polimex Mostostal Construction 4,110,417 3 7

1 Giełda Papierów Wartościowych w Warszawie (GPW), Polish stock exchange. 2 Our sample consists of 11 state-owned firms. This fact has also an influence on the composition of these

firms’ supervisory boards. Among the 89 supervisory board members of the state-owned firms in our sample, there are 41 individuals who are direct representatives of the Polish government. All analyzed individuals are Polish citizens, 19 of them are female and 22 are male.


Internationalization of top managers

Several studies have already analyzed the internationalization level of top man-agement teams (see, for example, Schmid/Dauth 2012). Not surprisingly, we can observe a variety of measures and variables to operationalize the internationali-zation construct. Our measure of internationalization contains seven dimensions that stem from a detailed CV analysis of all top managers in our sample. We in-vestigated publicly available CVs as well as online resources (e.g., social net-works for professionals or firm websites). For each individual in our sample, our objective was to identify all relevant elements of international experience, lan-guage skills and detailed information about the time spent on foreign education, seminars, projects or job assignments. It is important to note that detailed infor-mation about individual careers was not available for all top managers in our sample. We only considered individuals where complete CVs were available or where we could build on reasonable assumptions regarding an individual’s in-ternationalization (e.g. through an analysis of top managers’ profiles in internet-based social networks).

In order to measure top managers’ internationalization, we build on the interna-tionalization index established by Schmid and Daniel (2006). In a next step, we modify the original internationalization index according to the Polish context of our study. Based on interviews with Polish top managers and executive search firms in Poland we decided to add three additional dimensions of internationali-zation to the index of Schmid and Daniel (2006): home-country international experience, international extracurricular activities and foreign language profi-ciency. Furthermore, to account for the varying relevance and importance of the internationalization dimensions in a Polish context, we weight the elements of the index as follows:3 (a) Nationality is a dummy variable that takes the value 1 if a top manager is non-Polish and 0 otherwise. Nationality is weighted with the factor 1. (b) International extracurricular activities is another dummy variable indicating whether a person has gained such a type of international experience or not. Based on discussions with top managers and executive search firms we ar-gue that this dimension of internationalization is highly relevant in a Polish con-text and thus we weight it with the factor 1. (c) International work experience is the number of years an individual has spent on job assignments outside Poland. This dimension is weighted with the factor 0.8. (d) International education is the number of years a person has spent in foreign schools/universities. The dimen-sion is weighted with the factor 0.7. (e) For the element foreign language profi-ciency, we assess whether a person most likely speaks other languages than Polish. We do so by analyzing individuals’ CVs, where, in some cases, language

3 We acknowledge that the weighting involves a rather subjective assessment of the internationalization di-

mensions. In this context, it is important to note that we conducted interviews with Polish top managers and Polish executive search firms in order to obtain an adequate and realistic assessment of the importance of each internationalization dimension.


skills were explicitly mentioned. Moreover, we assume that individuals who have lived and/or worked outside Poland are able to communicate in a foreign language. Thus, the dummy variable foreign language proficiency has the value 1 if foreign language skills are highlighted on an individual’s CV and/or the in-dividual has lived or worked in a country outside Poland. We weight this dimen-sion with the factor 0.6. (f) Foreign mandates is the number of foreign board ap-pointments and/or the number of memberships in foreign organizations. We weight this dimension with the factor 0.5. (g) Home-country international expe-rience is the number of years the person worked in a position with international exposure but where he/she was based in Poland. The dimension is weighted with the factor 0.4.

We modify the index of Schmid and Daniel (2006) by adding three more dimen-sions in the formula and by weighting the dimensions. Thus, our index can be illustrated as follows:

where:

n = total number of top management team members Ni = Dummy: nationality of person i (0 for Polish, 1 for non-Polish) Ci = Dummy: International extracurricular activities of person i (0 for no activities, 1 for international extracurricular activities) Li = Dummy: Foreign language proficiency of person i

(0 for no foreign language skills, 1 for foreign language skills) Wi = Number of years of international work experience of person i Ei = Number of years of foreign education of person i Ai = Number of foreign mandates of person i Hi = Number of years of home-country international work experience of person i

Results

Internationalization of Polish top managers

Our analysis shows that the average internationalization index score of top man-agement teams of Polish firms in our sample is 0.102. Members of management boards have a higher average internationalization level (0.124) than members of supervisory boards (0.080). Table 2 illustrates the top management internation-alization for all firms and the respective corporate governance bodies.


Table 2: Top management internationalization across all firms in the sample

Ranking (firm sales)

Firm TMT internationa-lization

(entire TMT)

MB internationalization

SB internationalization

Ranking (TMT internatio-nalization)

1 PKN Orlen 0.140 0.184 0.097 5

2 Lotos 0.190 0.308 0.073 3

3 PGE 0.096 0.144 0.050 8

4 PGNiG 0.037 0.058 0.018 19

5 Tauron 0.074 0.056 0.093 15

6 KGHM 0.091 0.099 0.083 13

7 Energa 0.088 0.131 0.046 14

8 Enea 0.092 0.149 0.035 11

9 JSW SA 0.095 0.111 0.079 9

10 Azoty 0.092 0.116 0.068 12

11 Pelion 0.051 0.008 0.094 16

12 Synthos 0.046 0.077 0.016 17

13 Budimex 0.214 0.177 0.250 1

14 Neuca 0.094 0.099 0.089 10

15 Asseco 0.102 0.071 0.133 7

16 Boryszew 0.153 0.226 0.088 4

17 Farmacol 0.039 0.043 0.034 18

18 AB 0.021 0.041 0 20

19 Ciech 0.110 0.119 0.102 6

20 Polimex Mostostal 0.207 0.264 0.150 2

Average 0.102 0.124 0.080

As previously stated, the internationalization of Polish top managers is a rela-tively recent phenomenon and thus it is not surprising that only 2.5% of the top managers have foreign nationalities. Moreover, it needs to be considered that 11 out of 20 firms in our sample are state-owned firms. This fact may also serve as an explanation for the relatively low percentage of top managers with foreign nationalities. A more detailed investigation of the six individuals with foreign nationalities shows that they work for two firms in our sample. The top man-agement team of Budimex consists of five Spanish managers who are all associ-ated with Ferrovial, the firm’s strategic investor from Spain. At Polimex, only the CEO is an individual with a foreign nationality.

The total number of individuals with foreign work experience across manage-ment board members and supervisory board members is 64. The average length of professional experience gathered abroad is higher for members of the super-visory board: 7.8 years vs. 4.5 years for management board members. The aver-


age length of foreign work experience of all top managers in our sample is 6.2 years.

Both corporate governance bodies have similar average results concerning indi-viduals who possess international education experience. In the management boards (MB), we observe 26 managers (27%), in the supervisory boards (SB) there are 33 individuals (23%) with an average length of the international educa-tion of 2.4 years and 2.7 years respectively.

In most cases, our assessment of an individual’s foreign language proficiency was based on his/her track of record of previous activities. Thus, we expect pro-ficiency in a certain language if a person has studied or worked for several years in a specific foreign country. Based on this assumption, our analysis shows that among the management board members 80 individuals speak foreign languages (84%). Among the supervisory board members, it is 86 managers (60%).

For the dimension international mandates, we can observe that 27% of the man-agers in management boards have international professional connections, on av-erage two mandates per person. Among the supervisory board members only 11% have foreign mandates, on average 1.7 mandates per person.

With regard to home-country international experience we observe higher results for management board members compared to supervisory board members. Our investigation shows that 25% of the management board members (24 individu-als) and 15% of the supervisory board members (21 individuals) have such ex-perience. The average length of home-country international experience is 5.7 years.

The analysis of the dimension international extracurricular activities shows that 13% of all management board members and 10% of all supervisory board mem-bers attended seminars and courses abroad. Of all top managers in our sample, 26 individuals (11%) took on average three courses in a foreign country.

Table 3 summarizes the results for various internationalization dimensions.

Table 3: Detailed analysis of top management internationalization

Management Boards (MB) Supervisory Boards (SB)

International Work Experience

No of individuals

in % Average length (in years)

No of individuals


32 33.7% 4.5 32 22.4% 7.8

Total MB+SB:

No. of individuals with int. work experience

No. of individuals with int. work experience (in %)

Average length (in years)

64 26.9% 6.2


Table 3: Detailed analysis of top management internationalization (continued)

Management Boards (MB) Supervisory Boards (SB)

International education

No of individuals


No of individuals


26 27.4 2.4 33 23.1 2.7

Total MB+SB:

No. of individuals with int. education No. of individuals with int. education (in %)


59 24.8% 2.5

Foreign language proficiency

No of individuals

in % Average number of languages

No of individuals

in % Average number of languages

80 84.2 1.25 86 60.1 1.3

Total MB+SB:

No. of individuals with foreign language proficiency

No. of individuals with foreign language proficiency (in %)

Average number of languages

166 69.7% 1.28

Foreign mandates

No of individuals

in % Average number of activities

No of individuals

in % Average number of activities

26 27.4 2.1 15 10.5 1.7

Total MB+SB:

No. of individuals with foreign mandates

No. of individuals with foreign mandates (in %)

Average number of mandates

41 17.2 1.9

Home-country international experience

No of individuals


No of individuals


24 25.3 5 21 14.7 6.4

Total MB+SB:

No. of individuals with home-country int. experience

No. of individuals with home-country int. experience (in %)


45 18.9 5.7

Int. extra-curricular courses

No of individuals

in % Average number of courses

No of individuals

in % Average number of courses

12 12.6 3 14 9.8 3

Total MB+SB:

No. of individuals that took courses abroad

No. of individuals that took courses abroad (in %)

Average number of courses

26 10.9 3


Top management internationalization and firm internationalization

In a next step, we compare the results from our analysis of top managers’ inter-nationalization with firm internationalization measured by a firm’s foreign sales ratio. An incipient investigation shows heterogeneous results. For example, the firm KGHM generates 80% of its sales outside Poland while the firm’s top man-agement internationalization index is at 0.090. In contrast, the firm Lotos gener-ates 27% of its sales abroad with a top management internationalization index of 0.190. It must be noted that we cannot draw on a statistically significant rela-tionship between the two variables “international sales” and “top management internationalization”. However, it is striking that all firms in our sample with a top management internationalization index above average (INT > 0.102) show a relatively high foreign sales ratio between 27% and 71%. Firms with a below average top management internationalization index (INT < 0.102) have a foreign sales ratio between 0% and 5.8%.4

Discussion and conclusions

With our research, we aim to shed light on the internationalization of upper echelons in a Polish context. Our study illustrates that Polish top management teams have a relatively low level of internationalization. Moreover, the findings highlight a stark contrast between top management internationalization and in-ternationalization of firm activities. In addition, we find substantial differences in top management internationalization among the different corporate govern-ance bodies of Polish firms. Management board members tend to be more inter-national (across several dimensions of internationalization) than supervisory board members.

While we acknowledge that our sample of 20 firms does not allow any generali-zation, we observe a prevalent connection between the internationalization lev-els of TMTs and firms’ foreign sales. Many firms with an above average TMT internationalization also show relatively high levels of foreign sales. Another notable result concerning the dimensions of internationalization is related to for-eign language proficiency. Nearly 70% of all TMT members are assumed to be familiar with a language other than their mother tongue. Thus, it can be expected that Polish managers aim to increase their foreign language proficiency (Od-rakiewicz 2013). This fact can have positive consequences with regard to the further expansion of Polish firms abroad.

The analysis of the dimensions “international work experience” and “interna-tional education” showed that for both variables about one quarter of the exam-ined individuals have such experience. Polish TMT members can therefore be assumed to be rather mobile and flexible (see also Botterill 2014). A detailed investigation of the average length of these two dimensions shows that, on aver-

4 The only exception is KGHM, generating 80% of its sales abroad.


age, the duration of international work experience is 2.5 times longer than the period of international education.

An investigation of the countries in which individuals gained their international work experience or their international education illustrates the most popular des-tinations for Polish top managers: It is the USA (29% of all individuals have studied or worked in this country), Spain, (17%), Germany (14%), France (11%), UK (8%), Canada (5%). Other CEE countries (e.g., Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia) that have strong economic ties with Polish firms do not serve as prominent locations for international education and international work experience.

As with any research project, there are a number of limitations to this study. Be-sides the small sample size, our internationalization index is the basis for a rele-vant restriction. The selection of the internationalization dimensions as well as their weighting can be criticized as subjective to some extent. It is important to note that our decision to complement the internationalization index of Schmid and Daniel (2006) and to weight the internationalization dimensions is based on insights gathered during interviews with Polish top managers and executive search firms. We are aware of the fact that there are other elements that might influence a top manager’s international orientation or internationalization which were not considered in our analysis (see also Schmid/Dauth, 2014). The array of measures included in our study is partly related the chosen method, i.e. CV analysis, which does not allow for including additional indicators. However, drawing on Schmid and Daniel (2006) we can state that our selection of index dimensions is more holistic than in most previous works. Thus, we are able to portray a comprehensive picture of internationalization among Polish top man-agers.

References

AFG (2011): Recommendations on corporate governance. Paris: Association Française de la Gestion Financière.

Athanassiou, N. A./Nigh, D. (1999): The impact of U.S. company internationalization on top management team advice networks: A tacit knowledge perspective, in: Strategic Management Journal, 20,1, 83-92.

Becker, G. S. (1975): Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. New York: Columbia University Press.

Beechler, S./Javidan, M. (2007): Leading with a global mindset, in: Advances in International Management, 19, 131-169.

Botterill, K. (2014): Family and mobility in second modernity: Polish migrant narratives of individualization and family life, in: Sociology, 48, 2, 233-250.

Carpenter, M. A./Fredrickson, J. W. (2001): Top management teams, global strategic posture, and the moderating role of uncertainty, in: Academy of Management Journal, 44, 3, 533-545.


Carpenter, M. A./Geletkanycz, M. A./Sanders, G. W. M. (2004): Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition, in: Journal of Management, 30, 6, 749-778.

Carpenter, M. A./Sanders, G. W. M./Gregersen, H. B. (2001): Bundling human capital with organizational context: The impact of international assignment experience on multinational firm performance and CEO pay, in: Academy of Management Journal, 44, 3, 493-511.

Cieślik, J./Nikk, K. (2011): Wsparcie internacjonalizacji młodych innowacyjnych firm przez instytucje otoczenia biznesu. Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości.

Daily, C. M./Certo, T. S./Dalton, D. R. (2000): International experience in the executive suite: The path to prosperity? in: Strategic Management Journal, 21, 4, 515-523.

Elron, E. (1997): Top management teams within multinational corporations: Effects of cultural heterogeneity, in: Leadership Quarterly, 8, 4, 393-413.

Finkelstein, S./Hambrick, D. C./Cannella, A. A. (2009): Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. New York: Oxford University Press.

GCGC (2012): German corporate governance code, Government Commission German Corporate Governance Code, Frankfurt am Main.

Geletkanycz, M. A. (1997): The salience of 'culture's consequences': The effects of cultural values on top executive commitment to the status quo, in: Strategic Management Journal, 18,8, 615-634.

Geletkanycz, M. A./Boyd, B. K./Finkelstein, S. (2001): The strategic value of CEO external directorate networks: Implications for CEO compensation, in: Strategic Management Journal, 22, 9, 889-898.

Gong, Y. (2006): The impact of subsidiary top management team national diversity on subsidiary performance: Knowledge and legitimacy perspectives, in: Management International Review, 46, 6, 771-789.

Gorynia, M./Nowak, J./Howak, J./Wolniak, R. (2007): Motives and modes of FDI in Poland: An exploratory qualitative study, in: Journal for East European Management Studies, 12, 2, 132-151.

Greve, P./Nielsen, S./Ruigrok, W. (2009): Transcending borders with international top management teams. A study of European financial multinational corporations, in: European Management Journal, 27, 3, 213-224.

Hambrick, D. C./Davison, S. C./Snell, S. A./Snow, C. C. (1998): When groups consist of multiple nationalities – towards a new understanding of the implications, in: Organization Studies, 19, 2, 181-205.

Hambrick, D. C./Mason, P. (1984): Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers, in: Academy of Management Review, 9, 2, 193-206.

Heijltjes, M./Olie, R./Glunk, U. (2003): Internationalization of top management teams in Europe, in: European Management Journal, 21, 1, 89-97.

Hetrick, S. (2002): Transferring HR ideas and practices: Globalization and convergence in Poland, in: Human Resource Development International, 5, 3, 333-351.


Hitt, M. A./Bierman, L./Shimizu, K./Kochhar, R. (2001): Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A resource-based perspective, in: Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1, 13-28.

Hofstede, G. (2001): Culture's Consequences. Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks et al.: Sage.

House, R. J./Hanges, P. J./Javidan, M./Dorfman, P. W./Gupta, V. (2004): Culture, leadership and organizations. The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks et al.: Sage.

Judge, T.A./Cable, D.M./Boudreau, J.W./Bretz, D. (1995): An empirical investigation of the predictors of career success, in: Personnel Psychology, 48, 485-496.

Keck, S. L. (1997): Top management team structure: Differential effects by environmental context, in: Organization Science, 8, 2, 143-156.

Knight, D./Pearce, C. L./Smith, K. G./Olian, J. D./Sims, H. P./Smith, K. A./Flood, P. (1999): Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus, in: Strategic Management Journal, 20, 5, 445-465.

Leven, B. (2008): Poland's transition and new opportunities for women, in: Feminist Economics, 14, 1, 123-136.

Lu, J. W./Beamish, P. W. (2001): The internationalization and performance of SMEs, in: Strategic Management Journal, 22, 6‐7, 565-586.

Maruca, R. F. (1994): The right way to go global: An interview with Whirlpool CEO David Whitwam, in: Harvard Business Review, 72, 2, 134-145.

McCall, M. W./Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002): Developing global executives: The lessons of international experience. Harvard Business Press.

Mellahi, K./Guermat, C. (2004): Does age matter? An empirical examination of the effect of age on managerial values and practices in India, in: Journal of World Business, 39, 2, 199-215.

Nafukho, F. M./Hairston, N./Brooks, K. (2004): Human capital theory: Implications for human resource development, in: Human Resource Development International, 7, 4, 545-551.

Nielsen, S. (2010): Top management team diversity: A review of theories and methodologies, in: International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 3, 301-316.

Nielsen, B. B./Nielsen, S. (2011): The role of top management team international orientation in international strategic decision-making: The choice of foreign entry mode, in: Journal of World Business, 46, 2, 185-193.

Nielsen, B. B./Nielsen, S. (2013): Top management team nationality diversity and firm performance: A multilevel study, in: Strategic Management Journal, 34, 3, 373-382.

Odrakiewicz, P. (2013): Management of complexities and innovation prognosis in higher education – challenges, changes, and a new paradigmatic shift facing polish management education in a globalized education era, in: Global Management Journal, 5, 1, 69-81.

Palmer, T. M./Varner, I. I. (2007): A comparison of the international diversity on top management teams of multinational firms based in the United States, Europe, and Asia: Status and implications, in: Singapore Management Review, 29, 1, 1-30.


Piekkari, R./Tietze, S. (2011): A world of languages: Implications for international management research and practice, in: Journal of World Business, 46, 3, 267-269.

Reuber, A. R./Fischer, E. (1997): The influence of the management team's international experience on the internationalization behaviors of SMEs, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 28, 4, 807-825.

Radlo, M./Sass, M. (2012): Outward foreign direct investments and emerging multinational companies from Central and Eastern Europe. Eastern European Economics, 50, 2, 5-21.

Rakowska, A. (2010): Od transformacji do globalizacji. Rola menedżerów w rozwoju polskiej przedsiębiorczości. From transformation to globalization. The role of managers in the development of Polish entrepreneurship, in: A. Arent (ed). Zarządzanie przedsiębiorstwem i regionem wobec wyzwań europejskich. Politechnika Lubelska: 9-32.

Roth, K. (1995): Managing international interdependence: CEO characteristics in a resource-based framework, in: Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1, 200-231.

Ruigrok, W./Peck, S. I./Tacheva, S. (2007): Nationality and gender diversity on Swiss corporate boards in: Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 4, 546-557.

Sambharya, R. (1996): Foreign experience of top management teams and international diversification strategies of U.S. multinational corporations, in: Strategic Management Journal, 17, 9, 739-746.

Sarmiento-Mirwaldt, K./Roman-Kamphaus, U. (2013): Cross-border cooperation in Central Europe: A comparison of culture and policy effectiveness in the Polish–German and Polish–Slovak border regions, in: Europe-Asia Studies, 65, 8, 1621-1641.

Schmid, S./Daniel, A. (2006). Measuring board internationalization – Towards a more holistic approach. Berlin: ESCP-EAP Working Paper No. 21.

Schmid, S./Dauth, T. (2012): Internationale Diversität im Top-Management – Eine empiri-sche Analyse der DAX-30-Unternehmen, in: Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 64,7, 772-802.

Schmid, S./Dauth, T. (2014): Does internationalization make a difference? Stock market reaction to announcements of international top executive appointments, in: Journal of World Business, 49, 1, 63-77.

Schmid, S./Wurster, D. J./Dauth, T. (2015): Internationalisation of upper echelons in different institutional contexts: top managers in Germany and the UK, in: European Journal of International Management, 9, 4, 510-535.

Schweiger, C. (2014): Poland, variable geometry and the enlarged European Union, in: Europe-Asia Studies, 66, 3, 394-420.

Śliwiński, R. (2012): Internationalization strategies of Polish fast growing enterprises, in: Poznań University of Economics Review, 12, 1, 17.

Staples, C. L. (2007): Board globalisation in the world's largest TNCs 1993-2005, in: Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 2, 311-321.

Sullivan, D. P. (1994): Measuring the degree of internationalization of a firm, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 25, 2, 325-342.


Trąpczyński, P./Wrona, T. (2013): From going international to being international – strategies for international competitiveness, in: Poznan University of Economics Review, 13, 1, 89.

Triandis, H. C./Suh, E. M. (2002): Cultural influences on personality in: Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 1, 133-160.

Tihanyi, L./Ellstrand, A. E./Daily, C. M./Dalton, D. R. (2000): Composition of the top management team and firm international diversification, in: Journal of Management, 26, 6, 1157-1177.

UKCGC (2012): The UK corporate governance code. London: Financial Reporting Council.

Yeung, A. K./Ready, D. A. (1995): Developing leadership capabilities of global corporations: A comparative study in eight nations, in: Human Resource Management, 34, 4, 529-547.

184

JEEMS, 21(2), 184-208 DOI 10.1688/JEEMS-2016-Demeter ISSN (print) 0943-2779, ISSN (internet) 1862-0035 © Rainer Hampp Verlag, www.Hampp-Verlag.de

The diversity of European manufacturing plant roles in international manufacturing networks*

Krisztina Demeter, Levente Szász**

It is generally assumed that Western European (WE) plants belonging to multi-national companies are more developed and have higher competence levels than their Central and Eastern European (CEE) counterparts. Nevertheless, empiri-cal evidence on the plant level is very scarce. Thus, a sample of 291 manufactur-ing subsidiaries from 14 European countries is used to test this general state-ment. We argue that the clear distinction between the two regions is gradually changing with diverse plant roles coexisting in both European regions that re-flect different development paths or strategies. Our results show that while less competent plants based on low cost factors are still more prevalent in CEE, a considerable group of highly competent plants is also emerging in the region that use their access to local skills and knowledge to become knowledge hubs within their networks. Nevertheless, highly competent WE plants still preserve a unique position within the multinational’s network.

Key words: multinational company, manufacturing plant, plant role, competence, location advantage (JEL codes: F23, M11, M16)


Acknowledgment: This research was supported by the Domus Hungarica scholarship (3427/76/2014/HTMT) of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA 112745).

** Krisztina Demeter, PhD, Corvinus University of Budapest, Institute of Business Economics, Logistics and Supply Chain Management Department 1093 Budapest, Hungary. Fővám tér no. 8. E-mail: [email protected]. Research interests: global manufacturing, knowledge transfer, operations strat-egy, servitization

Levente Szász, PhD, Babes-Bolyai University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration. Research interests: global manufacturing, knowledge transfer, operations strategy, servitization.

JEEMS, 21(2), 284-208 DOI 10.1688/JEEMS-2016-Demeter 185

Introduction

There have been significant changes in the world economy due to the processes of globalization in the last few decades. More and more companies discover the advantages of establishing subsidiaries abroad, new countries are becoming tar-gets of FDI, and the division of labour between countries is in a continuous change. Meanwhile, subsidiaries themselves evolve over time, as they build knowledge and develop capabilities. As international manufacturing networks (IMNs), i.e. networks of plants belonging to the same company, become more fragmented along the value chain, it is getting increasingly difficult to find gen-eral recipes for success, and to give advice to plant managers and policy makers.

In this paper we first search for empirical evidence for the general statement that manufacturing plants in Western Europe (WE) have higher competence levels than those in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Second, we intend to go be-yond the general level and investigate whether there are subgroups in the two regions which are different from each other and, thus, mirror different develop-ment paths or strategies, which can provide useful information for decision makers to develop businesses and ensure a stimulating environment for these businesses. We approach the issue from the subsidiary point of view as opposed to the more prevalent IMN perspective.

First, we provide an overview of the literature on IMNs, including the unique characteristics of plants operating within a network. Next, we develop our hy-potheses, introduce research methodology, analyse and discuss the results, and finally present the conclusions of this study.

Literature review

The paper focuses on multinational manufacturing companies. These companies coordinate the operations carried out by a network of globally dispersed manu-facturing plants (IMN). Plants operating as members of IMNs have several unique features compared to single-plant companies. For example, they can play different roles within the network (Ferdows 1997), interact with other network members (Vereecke/Van Dierdonck/De Meyer 2006), benefit from being part of the network (Shi/Gregory 1998), and contribute with specific advantages to the whole company (Cheng/Farooq/Johansen 2011; Feldmannn/Olhager/Fleet/Shi 2013). Literature offers a substantial body of knowledge related to plant roles. It is generally acknowledged that location issues are important determinants of the decision on what roles various plants have to play within an IMN (Ferdows 1997). Several studies relate location with plant competences: the general as-sumption is that less developed countries serve as offshore sites from where they supply plants or markets located in more developed regions with parts, compo-nents and/or products (Mudambi 2008). But does location really imply the com-petences a plant possesses? Do plants in less developed countries always remain

186 Krisztina Demeter, Levente Szász: The diversity of European manufacturing plant roles

simple manufacturing sites, leaving their counterparts in more developed coun-tries to control all the high value adding activities? To what extent does location and site competence determine the role of the plant within the network? These are the questions that constitute the starting point of our paper. Consequently, aspects of site competence and location provide the basis of our literature re-view.

Site competences

When defining different plant roles the type and level of site competence is one of the most important factors used by authors to classify manufacturing plants within a network. Type refers to the scope of activities/areas plants are responsi-ble for, while level indicates the depth of knowledge in various activities/areas. These two dimensions (scope and depth) are usually considered simultaneously in the literature.

Koufteros, Vonderembse, and Doll (2002) define manufacturing competence as inwardly focused skills that are attained through the successful implementation of programs and plans. It is assumed that the more programs a plant implements the more competent it becomes. These programs can cover new areas (scope) but can also deepen previous knowledge (depth). In Ferdows’ (1997) seminal paper, site competence refers to the scope of current activities performed by the plant. Competence at the lower edge starts from assuming responsibility for pro-duction and technical processes. Then it can be extended by such steps as as-suming responsibility for procurement and logistics, making process or product related improvement recommendations, taking a role in the development of sup-pliers, assuming responsibility for process and/or product development, supply-ing global markets, and, at the highest competence level, becoming a global hub within the network for product and process knowledge. Vereecke and Van Dierdonck (2002) measure site competence similarly. According to their scale, at the lower edge of the spectrum plants have the main goal to “get the products produced”, while at the higher end the plant becomes a “center of excellence, serving as a partner of headquarters in building strategic capabilities” (Ve-reecke/Van Dierdonck 2002: 500) for the whole network. Meijboom and Vos (2004) add production scheduling and production planning to the competence building stages provided by Ferdows (1997). Adding these items clearly indi-cates the depth of production competence: some plants just receive materials, technologies and even production plans from outside, while others take the re-sponsibility for production planning and/or improving production processes, in-dicating a much higher level of the same production competence.

Besides Ferdows’ (1997) developmental stages, there are several similar ap-proaches in the literature that provide an evolutionary view on the level of plant competences. In a case based research on cross border activities between WE and CEE companies Reiner et al. (2008) found that subsidiaries in CEE build up


development competence only after they possess the required production and supply chain competence. Feldmannn and Olhager (2013) investigate the level of local responsibility of the plant for several activities. Using factor analysis they conclude that site competence factors can be grouped into three categories: 1) production competence (including production, technical maintenance, and process improvement), 2) supply chain competence (including logistics, pro-curement, and supplier development), and 3) development competence (includ-ing the introduction of new product technologies, product improvement, and in-troduction of new process technologies). In a complex description of evolving plant roles and networks Cheng et al. (2011) aggregate existing plant role cate-gorizations to define three levels of site competence based on the scope of activ-ities they are responsible for (i.e., plants with low, medium, and high compe-tence). Then, they investigate how manufacturing plants improve their compe-tences, striving towards higher roles within the network.

Researchers cited above argue that there is a natural scope enlargement process as plants develop in time, from production competences, through logistics and supply chain activities, to designing and developing products and processes. Feldmann and Olhager (2013) show empirically that this sequence of compe-tence building is valid for all manufacturing plants in their sample. Furthermore, it is also argued that the extension of scope (types of competences) and depth (gaining more experience and knowledge related to the same type of activities) happens simultaneously.

In conclusion, to differentiate between high and low competence levels, the fol-lowing definitions are used. Based on the literature review we define a low competence plant as a plant that is at a significantly lower stage of the produc-tion – supply chain – development competence sequence (e.g. high production, medium supply chain, and no development competence), while high competence is described by a more advanced position in this path (e.g. high production, high supply chain, and medium development competence).

Plant location

The other important aspect of plant roles in IMNs is the advantage provided by the location of the manufacturing plant. Ferdows (1997) identifies three poten-tial factors: low cost production, access to market, and access to skills and knowledge. The three location factors have been confirmed or used in several subsequent studies, including Vereecke and Van Dierdonck (2002), Maritan, Brush, and Karnani (2004), Jensen and Pedersen (2011), Feldmann and Olhager (2013). Reiner, Demeter, Poiger, and Jenei (2008) provide examples for low cost and access to market. They find that capacity problems or uncertain demand can represent further important reasons to locate subsidiaries in CEE countries. Moreover, they identify cases where the particularities of the existing supply network (e.g. the problem of material availability, breaking out from standard,


mature product portfolio) have pushed companies to establish new subsidiaries. Although Reiner et al. (2008) show complex combinations of potential location factors, researchers usually provide more simplistic approaches. For example, Mudambi (2008) argues that low value-added activities (such as assembly manufacturing) are performed in emerging countries, and high value-added activities in developed countries. Other authors (Demeter/Gelei/Jenei 2006; Lewin/Massini/Peeters 2009; Cheng et al. 2011; Jensen/Pedersen 2011), how-ever, find that in some cases offshoring to emerging countries can be motivated by other reasons than simply low costs, such as the availability of skilled labour or the size of the market (e.g. China).

Altogether, there seems to be an agreement in the literature on the main location factors identified by Ferdows (1997), but decision on plant locations is complex, so generalizations can sometimes be misleading. Our assumptions regarding the complexity of location decisions in case of WE and CEE are presented in detail in the hypothesis development section.

Other relevant plant characteristics in IMNs

Beside location, literature identifies several other characteristics which can be related to the competence level of plants. These factors provide relevant infor-mation in characterizing the role of plants within IMNs. Flow of knowledge, plant age, global orientation, plant autonomy, and physical embeddedness are among the most relevant of these factors.

In discussing plant roles within IMNs Vereecke et al. (2006) propose to take into consideration the flow of knowledge, namely flow of innovation, flow of people, and communication between plants. Clearly, more competent plants can become hubs of knowledge being able to share useful knowledge with less competent plants through these flows (Frost/Birkinshaw/Ensign 2002). However, as argued in the previous sections, competence building requires time. Thus, it is plausible to assume that plant age is associated with the knowledge accumulated by com-panies. Vereecke et al. (2006) offer some evidence for this relationship: in their research sample hosting network players, who play an important role in the ex-change of knowledge between plants are much older (30 years on average) than any other plant type (the next group had an average age under 20).

The extent of global orientation of a plant is another important feature. Enright and Subramanian (2007) argue that “geographic scope can affect both the devel-opment and use of capabilities” (p. 910). One plant can serve the local market with its product line, or grow through regional responsibilities to a global man-date (Birkinshaw/Morrison 1995), requiring entirely different competences.

Plant autonomy is also regarded as a competence related feature. Meijboom and Vos (2004) find that having the competence of production planning is already a kind of knowledge that not all plants possess, which then hinders them to make


autonomous planning decisions. Vereecke et al. (2006) explicitly examine stra-tegic and operational autonomy. They find no difference among their plant types in respect of operational autonomy, but find significant differences in strategic autonomy, which is higher as the level of knowledge of plants increases. Reiner et al. (2008) conclude that the level of control of headquarters over subsidiaries is one important aspect which urges WE companies to find target location clos-er, i.e., in CEE instead of the Far East.

Lastly, the physical embeddedness of the plant in the intra-network flow of goods is considered. The more embedded a plant in the IMN, the more decisions have to be made on the network level, which directly influence the individual plant (Rudberg/Olhager 2003). Thus, higher embeddedness leaves less room for autonomous decisions, and thereby for competence development.

Hypothesis development

In an attempt to connect geographic location with the type of activities per-formed by IMN plants, Mudambi (2008) argues that low value-added activities are mainly performed in emerging countries, while knowledge-intensive, high value-added activities are generally located in developed economies. The global pattern of distribution of manufacturing activities is applicable in the case of the two European regions as well. In an empirical investigation of offshoring activi-ties of 207 Danish firms, Jensen and Pedersen (2011) find that, in general, CEE attracts less-advanced manufacturing activities compared to WE, while research and development processes are more frequently offshored to developed regions. Focusing explicitly on European manufacturing industries, Dachs, Ebersberger, Kinkel, and Waser (2006) summarize the empirical results of the European Manufacturing Survey of 2249 companies located mainly in WE. Their study concludes that CEE countries represent one of the most attractive target regions for cost driven offshoring activities. On the other hand, offshoring to other WE countries is generally driven by the possibility to compensate for capacity bot-tlenecks in the home country, and to perform research and development activi-ties. From a historical perspective the CEE region became attractive for WE manufacturers from the beginning of the 1990s, right after the fall of the com-munist regimes. Outsourcing to this region witnessed an unprecedented growth in the first decade (Guerreri 1998; Geishecker 2005), which has quickly led to the formation of a new division of labour, where the low value-added, repetitive manufacturing activities were performed by CEE plants (Marin 2006). The en-largement of the European Union in 2004, followed by the accession of two new CEE countries in 2007 further strengthened this process (Garmel/Maliar/Maliar 2005; Filippov/Duysters 2011). Moreover, in a survey study of CEE manufac-turing subsidiaries, Filippov and Duysters (2011) find that during 2003-2008 manufacturing plants were able to increase their competences in activities relat-ed to production and sales, but achieved only little improvement in respect of


supply chain and, notably, research and development competences. In an earlier case study of four CEE plants Meijboom and Vos (2004) also report a slow rate of progression in terms of site competence.

Thus, based on the historical evolution of CEE manufacturing in the last more than two decades, we presume that, on a general level, the division of labour be-tween the two European regions still exists.

H1. Manufacturing plants in CEE, belonging to multinational companies, have lower competences than their WE counterparts.

However, as Mudambi (2008) argues, manufacturing plants “to which these lower value-added activities are outsourced view them as stepping stones in the course of moving into higher value-added activities” (p. 708). Literature sug-gests that low competence plants should strive to acquire competences in higher value-added activities, thereby “catching-up” with other, more developed plants. Vereecke et al. (2006), for example, find that plants with higher competences and, thus, a deeper embeddedness in the network can better stabilize and secure their future. Several other case studies imply that plants should aim to develop their competences in time (Birkinshaw 1996; Meijboom/Vos 2004; Feldmannn et al. 2013). Not only that site competence improvement is beneficial for the re-spective plant, but it also impacts the whole network (Cheng et al. 2011; Feld-mannn et al. 2013). As Ferdows (1997) puts it, the challenges, but also the re-wards of upgrading the competences of a plant are substantial: “these plants ul-timately provide their companies with a formidable strategic advantage” (p. 79). Indeed, in a survey of 263 WE manufacturers Linares-Navarro et al. (2014) find that offshoring involves a significant share of more advanced and knowledge-based activities (like product design or research and development) as well. Cheng et al. (2011) provide a description of the longitudinal evolution of three IMNs, in which some CEE plants (particularly those from Estonia, Poland, and Hungary) were able to upgrade their competences by accumulating experience with low value-added operations and making specific investments in technology and equipment. The improvement of plant capabilities was also supported by the headquarters of the respective companies. Thus, we expect that, beside low competence plants, a clearly definable group of CEE high competence plants also exists.

H2. A group of CEE plants has already developed higher competence lev-els relative to other plants in the same region.

Next, going into the details of WE manufacturing, we argue that the whole pic-ture is more nuanced than described on aggregate level (H1). Dachs et al. (2006), for example, find that several WE multinationals offshore their produc-tion activities to other WE countries simply because they need to expand pro-duction capacities. They argue that the geographical vicinity and controllable logistics expenses make these locations ideal targets for offshoring simple man-


ufacturing activities. Cheng et al. (2011) also provide a case study example of a Denmark based IMN in which German, Swiss, and Austrian subsidiaries take the role of Server and Outpost factories, i.e., plants with low site competences according to the Ferdows (1997) model. In conclusion, we hypothesize that, be-side the general pattern, there is a group of WE plants that (need to) have only lower competences.

H3. A group of WE plants have reached only a lower level of competences relative to other plants in the same region.

In summary, H1 refers to the general distinction between WE and CEE manu-facturing plants, while H2 and H3 fine-slices the relationship by going deeper into the competence levels of IMN member plants of the two regions. Besides testing the three hypotheses, we also propose to investigate the characteristics of different plant types in the two regions (in terms of location advantage, knowledge flows, plant age, global orientation, plant autonomy, physical em-beddedness) to gain a deeper insight into the role different groups of European plants play in manufacturing networks.

Research sample and methodology

Research design

For the empirical analysis we use the sixth edition of the International Manufac-turing Strategy Survey (IMSS VI). Launched in 1992 by the London Business School and the Chalmers University of Technology, the IMSS is carried out by an international network of researchers every 4-5 years focusing on plant-level manufacturing strategies, practices and performances of companies from all around the world (www.manufacturingstrategy.net). The IMSS VI was carried out in 2013-2014 using an e-mail/online survey sent to production/operations managers of manufacturing plants. The data collection process was administered in each country by local coordinators. Wherever needed, English language ques-tionnaires were translated into local language by manufacturing strategy aca-demics. Targeted plants belonging to the ISIC Divisions 25-30 (manufacture of fabricated metal products, machinery and equipment) were selected from official databases of manufacturing organizations in each country. Returned question-naires were centrally controlled for missing and incorrect data, which were gen-erally handled on a case-by-case basis by contacting the respondent again.

The final version of the IMSS VI database contains 931 responses from 21 countries, among which 114 responses from 3 CEE, and 384 responses from 11 WE countries. However, in concordance with the purpose of this study, we only use manufacturing plants that are members of an IMN. The IMSS questionnaire enquired about the configuration of the manufacturing network the respondent plant belongs to, more specifically whether the plant is: 1) stand-alone (single plant within the company), 2) member of a domestic network, 3) member of a


regional network, or 4) member of a global network. Consequently, only plants that selected option 3 or 4 were considered in this study. Ultimately, we ended up with 291 usable answers, among which 245 WE and 46 CEE manufacturing plants. The distribution of the sample is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: The composition of the research sample by countries

CEE WE

No. Country Total no. of plants

No. of IMN member plants

No. Country Total no. of plants

No. of IMN member plants

1. Hungary 57 25 1. Belgium 30 27

2. Romania 40 12 2. Denmark 39 24

3. Slovenia 17 9 3. Finland 34 12

4. Germany 24 11

5. Italy 53 29

6. Netherlands 49 28

7. Norway 29 21

8. Portugal 34 20

9. Spain 30 19

10. Sweden 32 29

11. Switzerland 30 25

TOTAL 114 46 TOTAL 384 245

SPSS 21.0 software is used to apply cluster analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc tests to investigate the hypotheses and offer a deeper insight into the role of European manufacturing plants in IMNs. Questionnaire items used in this study are described in detail in the next subsection.

Questionnaire items

To assess the competence levels of manufacturing plants a questionnaire item is used which enquires about the extent the manufacturing plant is responsible for different types of activities. The activities considered are the three major catego-ries put forward by Feldmannn and Olhager (2013), namely production, supply chain and product/process development. Each competence type is measured on a 1-5 Likert scale. The exact wording of the question is presented in Appendix 1.

To offer a better understanding of various plant types, additional plant character-istics are involved in the analysis. The exact wording of these items is presented in Appendix 2.

First, to assess the location advantage of the plant, three categories are consid-ered, based on Ferdows (1997):


- access to low cost resources (labour, materials, energy); - proximity to market (rapid/reliable delivery, customization, fast service

and support); - access to knowledge and skills (skilled workers and managers, technolog-

ical know-how).

Each advantage is assessed on a 1-5 Likert scale, from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” (5).

Second, respondents were asked to rate the extent to which their plant is respon-sible to serve as a hub of knowledge within the network (Frost et al. 2002; De-florin/Dietl/Lang/Scherrer-Rathje 2012). Responses were recorded on a 1-5 Lik-ert scale, ranging from “No responsibility” (1) to “Full responsibility” (5). Addi-tionally, since the accumulation and creation of knowledge takes time (Veerecke et al. 2006), the year of plant foundation, a proxy for plant age is also taken into consideration.

Third, the extent of global orientation of plants (e.g. Enright/Subramanian 2007) is measured using a 1-5 Likert-scale item ranging from “The plant serves a spe-cific geographic area/market” (1) to “The plant serves the whole world/global market” (5).

Fourth, in terms of plant autonomy both strategic and operational autonomy is assessed (Meijboom/Vos 2004; Veerecke et al. 2006). In terms of strategic au-tonomy the IMSS questionnaire measures on a 1-5 Likert scale whether “the plant can make its own strategic decisions” (1) or “The strategy is set by another plant in the network or an international division”. On an operational level, it en-quires about whether “The plant is autonomous in defining the production plan” (1) or “Production plans are coordinated by another plant or an international di-vision” (5).

Fifth, the embeddedness of the plant is also evaluated in terms of the extent to which the plant is involved in the physical flow of goods within the network. The physical embeddedness is assessed both on the supply and demand side. Respondents were asked to specify the percentage of input and output goods supplied by/to other plants in the network relative to the total amount of in-puts/outputs handled.

Response bias

Van de Vijver and Leung (1997) argue that three types of biases have to be tak-en into consideration when doing comparative research: construct bias, method bias and item bias.

Construct bias refers to the case when a construct measuring the same concept has a different structure (i.e. different items) across different groups (Van de Vijver/Leung 1997). Our study uses cluster analysis on the competence varia-


bles (instead of factor analysis) to arrive at different competence level groups without creating constructs. Thus, construct bias is not an issue in this paper.

Method bias “is a generic name for all sources of bias emanating from methodo-logical-procedural aspects of a study” (Van de Vijver 1998: 45). This type of bias can be further divided in three subtypes (Van de Vijver/Leung 1997). The first one is sample bias which arises due to differences in sampling approaches across different groups. The IMSS requires a standard sampling procedure from all participant countries, uniformly defining population characteristics and sam-pling methods for each country. Thus, we argue that sampling bias does not pre-sent a significant problem in our case. The second subtype is instrument bias which is due to the fact that respondents from different cultural groups might react to the same instrument in a consistently dissimilar way. For example, stud-ies in psychology have shown that some non-Western respondents tend to in-crease their answers more than Western groups (Kendall/Verster/Von Mollen-dorf 1988; Van de Vijver/Daal/Van Zonneveld 1986). Instrument bias could be a potential influencing factor in the present study as well. Therefore, it is taken into account when drawing conclusions from the analysis. The last subtype of method bias is administration bias which might arise due to differences in the procedural aspects of the data collection. Data collection procedure being cen-trally designed and controlled, we believe that administration bias does not sig-nificantly influence our results.

Item bias refers generally to poor translations. IMSS uses a reliable method for translating the questionnaires to local languages. Researchers use either double parallel translation carried out by manufacturing strategy scholars or back-translation (Hult/Ketchen/Griffith/Finnegan/Gonzalez-Padron/Harmancioglu/ Huang/Talay/Cavusgil 2008) to ensure consistency of items across different lan-guages. Additionally, Likert-scale items have anchors attached to the endpoints of the scales (e.g. 1 – “no responsibility”, 5 – “full responsibility”) which are easily understood in each country (Rungtusanatham/Forza/Koka/Salvador/Nie 2005).

Thus, instrument bias could be the only potential biasing factor in the present study. This case, however, applies only when directly comparing the two re-gions, i.e. WE and CEE, and has to be only taken into consideration in testing H1.

Data analysis

Hypothesis testing

To test the first hypothesis the three major competence categories are used, namely production, supply chain and development. ANOVA is applied to com-pare the average competence levels of CEE and WE plants. Results are summa-rized in Table 2.


Table 2. Comparison of competences of CEE and WE manufacturing plants

Region

Competence

CEE

Mean (St. Dev)

WE

Mean (St. Dev) F-value Sig.

Production 4.67 (.668) 4.74 (.597) F(1,287)=.526 .469

Supply chain*** 3.65 (1.178) 4.19 (.968) F(1,286)=11.266 .001

Development*** 3.04 (1.364) 3.86 (1.177) F(1,285)=17.101 .000

Difference between the two regions is significant at the *** p=.001, **p=.01, *p=.05 level

Results indicate that, on average, CEE plants have a significantly lower respon-sibility for carrying out supply chain or development related activities. On the other hand, production competence is at a similarly high level in both regions. This is, however, not surprising, given that the research was targeted at manu-facturing plants, which most probably have a primary responsibility for produc-tion. Thus, we conclude by accepting H1. Furthermore, it is also evident that in both regions production competence has the highest level, followed by supply chain, and lastly by development competence. This clear order of competences points toward the cumulative, successive nature of competence development (Feldmann/Olhager 2013).

Next, to test H2 and H3, and get a more refined picture on the role of CEE and WE manufacturing plants in IMNs, a two stage cluster analysis procedure is used. First, a hierarchical cluster analysis with Ward’s method is applied to de-termine the most suitable number of clusters based on both the agglomeration schedule and the dendogram. Then, this number is used as parameter in the non-hierarchical k-means clustering method involving the three competence varia-bles.

For the classification process of CEE plants (H2), hierarchical cluster analysis clearly indicates that a two-cluster solution should be used. Then, k-means clus-tering is used to classify each case into one of the clusters and compute average competence values. Results are illustrated in Figure 1.

As a result, a high competence (N=22) and a low competence (N=23) cluster emerges. Both clusters have a similarly high production competence (F(1, 43)=.544, p=.465). The difference between the two groups is clearly made in terms of supply chain (F(1, 43)=10.389, p=.002) and, notably, development competence (F(1, 43)=120.139, p=.000). To offer a deeper insight into how in-dividual cases form the two clusters a 3-dimensional coordinate system is creat-ed to illustrate the exact characteristics of the two clusters in terms of the three competence factors (i.e., production, supply chain and development).


Figure 1: Two clusters of CEE manufacturing plants based on competence levels

Figure 2: The distinguishing factors of the two CEE clusters of manufacturing plants


Figure 2 shows each individual case based on the three competence variables. The 3D shape marked with bold outlines contains all high competence plants: it shows that each individual manufacturing plant from this cluster has at least high production and supply chain competences (>=4), and at least medium de-velopment competences (>=3). There are only 2 exceptions with lower produc-tion and supply chain competence, respectively, but both score high on the de-velopment competence. Thus, in contrast with the general findings related to H1, in CEE there is a clearly definable cluster of manufacturing plants with (medi-um-to-)high competence levels. In conclusion, H2 can be accepted.

Next, to classify WE manufacturing plants (H3), an identical approach is used. Hierarchical cluster analysis suggests that the two-cluster solution is the most suitable. Results of the k-means clustering process are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Two clusters of WE manufacturing plants based on competence levels

Similarly to the CEE case, in WE two clusters of high competence (N=131) and low competence (N=109) manufacturing plants emerge. There is a small, but significant difference in terms of production competence between the two clus-ters (F(1, 239)=9.807, p=.002), while supply chain (F(1, 239)=257.704, p=.000) and development competences (F(1, 239)=348.906, p=.000) show substantial differences. To investigate individual cases in more detail, another 3-dimensional coordinate system is created (Figure 4).

While the 3D shape marked with outlines contains manufacturing plants that have at least medium scores on all three competence dimensions, there are sev-eral other cases which score quite low on one, two or even all three factors. Thus, these findings show that, besides high competence plants, there is a clear-ly definable group of relatively low competence plants in WE. Thus, H3 can be accepted.


Figure 4: The distinguishing factors of the two WE clusters of manufacturing plants

In conclusion, the generally accepted regional contrast – that the more compe-tent plants of manufacturing networks are located in WE, while the less compe-tent ones in CEE –is only true on an aggregate level (H1). The cluster analyses show that in CEE a clearly distinguishable group of highly competent plants (H2) also exists, similar to the high competence cluster in WE. In the same time plants with a limited set of competences (in several cases restricted only to pro-duction competence) are also present in WE (H3).

Description of clusters

In order to offer a deeper insight into the different roles of CEE and WE manu-facturing plants in IMNs, relevant descriptors of manufacturing plants within networks are involved in the analysis.

Using the items presented in the Research sample and methodology section (lo-cation advantage, hub of knowledge, plant age, global orientation, plant auton-omy, physical embeddedness), ANOVA with Scheffe and LSD post-hoc test is


applied to discover the differences between each pair of the four clusters of manufacturing plants developed in the previous section. The three competence measures are also involved in the comparisons to confirm the results of the clus-ter analysis. Fisher’s LSD (least significant difference) is one of the most com-monly used post-hoc test, being however the most permissive one in discovering significant pairwise differences, while the Scheffe test is the most conservative option (Hair/Black/Babin/Anderson 2010). We propose to use both approaches to shed light on any possible difference (LSD), while offering strong statistical support for the most obvious ones (Scheffe). The four clusters used in pairwise comparisons are: high competence plants in CEE (CE-HI), low competence plants in CEE (CE-LO), high competence plants in WE (W-HI), and low compe-tence plants in WE (W-LO). Additionally, to check whether regional effects play a significant role, CEE and WE is also compared on an aggregate level. Detailed results are presented in Appendix 3. Due to the complexity of pairwise compari-sons, a textual summary of the results is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Comparison of clusters on plant specific variables

CE-HI CE-LO W-HI W-LO

Competences

High production, relatively high

supply chain and development competence

High production, medium supply

chain, low devel-opment compe-

tence

High production, supply chain and

development competence

Relatively high production, me-

dium supply chain and devel-opment compe-

tence

Location advantage

Low cost is im-portant, but ac-cess to market

and to knowledge and skills even more

Mainly low cost advantage

Low cost is not important, only proximity to market, and,

notably, know-ledge and skills

Proximity to market is rela-tively more im-

portant

Hub of knowledge

High responsibil-ity for hub of knowledge

Low responsibil-ity for hub of knowledge

High responsibil-ity for hub of knowledge

Medium respon-sibility for hub of

knowledge

Plant age Younger plants Younger plants Mature plants Mature plants

Global orientation

Not significant: medium global

orientation

Not significant: medium global

orientation

Higher relative global orientation

Lower relative global orientation

Plant autonomy Medium strategic and operational

autonomy

Medium strategic and operational

autonomy

High strategic and operational

autonomy

Medium strategic and operational

autonomy

Physical embed-dedness

(ratio of flows within the net-

work)

High ratio of outputs. Not sig-nificant: medium

ratio of inputs.

High ratio of outputs. Not sig-nificant: medium

ratio of inputs.

Low ratio of out-puts. Lower rela-tive ratio of inputs

in the network.

High ratio of outputs. Higher relative ratio of

inputs in the net-work.

Descriptive summary of post-hoc test results

CE-HI = Central and Eastern Europe, high competence; CE-LO = Central and Eastern Europe, low competence; W-HI = Western Europe, high competence; W-LO = Western Europe, low competence.


Based on the significant differences, a detailed description of the four clusters of manufacturing plants is provided below.

CEE high competence plants: all three competence levels are high. While low cost is an important location factor, proximity to market and access to knowledge and skills play an even higher role which is an atypical result for the CEE region. Possessing high competence levels, these plants have an equally high responsibility for knowledge dissemination as WE high competence plants. Plants are relatively young. These plants show an average level of global orien-tation and autonomy. Embeddedness in the physical flows within the network is relatively high, especially on the output side. In other words, they produce in-puts for other IMN members.

CEE low competence plants: besides high production competence, supply chain has a medium, and development only a very low level. Low cost is the primary advantage of location, while proximity to market and access to knowledge and skills play significantly less important role compared to other clusters. As op-posed to the CEE high competence group, possessing low competences makes these plants significantly less responsible for knowledge sharing within the net-work. These plants are relatively young, and similarly to CEE high competence plants they also show an average level of global orientation and autonomy. Em-beddedness in the physical flows within the network is relatively high, especial-ly on the output side. In other words, they also produce inputs for other IMN members.

WE high competence plants: all three competence levels are very high. Access to knowledge and skills seems to be the most important location factor. These plants take high levels of responsibility in assuming the role of knowledge hub within the network. Plants are relatively older and are highly globally oriented. They are both strategically and operationally highly autonomous. In concord-ance, they are the least embedded in the flow of goods within the network, espe-cially on output side, selling their products mostly to external customers.

WE low competence plants: production competence is high, while supply chain and development competence has a medium level, but still significantly lower than any of the high competence clusters. Proximity to market seems to be an important location factor, while access to skills and knowledge has average im-portance. They rarely assume the role of knowledge hub within the network, which however is still somewhat higher compared to CEE low competence plants. Plants are relatively older. These plants show an average level of global orientation and autonomy, which are significantly lower than in the case of WE high competence plants. Embeddedness in the physical flows within the network is relatively high, both on the input and output side.


Discussion

On an aggregate level, subsidiaries in CEE have lower supply chain and devel-opment competences than their counterparts in WE (H1, Table 2). That alone can explain why these plants are also less frequently serving as a hub of knowledge in the IMN: they have to accumulate knowledge before they can start sharing it (Vereecke et al. 2006; Deflorin et al. 2012). This accumulation takes time (Veerecke/Van Dierdonck 2002). Looking at their age, plants in CEE are, on average, younger. Being younger might have a strong association with the level of competence of a plant due to the shorter timeframe to accumulate knowledge and experience. The association between the average competence levels of WE and CEE plants, on one hand, and hub of knowledge and plant age, on the other hand, is supported by our post-hoc analysis (Appendix 3): responsi-bility for hub of knowledge, and year of plant foundation are the only group of variables that clearly and significantly differ between the two regions.

The relatively high standard deviations of competence levels in both regions, notably in terms of supply chain and development competence, indicate that it was a meaningful approach to further dissect the two samples, and examine dif-ferent plant roles within each region. Furthermore, several plant-level character-istics show a strong association with the differentiation of clusters within each region. For example, hub of knowledge, while different on a regional level, it shows clear differences along high and low competence clusters in both regions as well. Thus, the possibility of becoming a centre of knowledge for the whole network is clearly in connection with the level of competences acquired by the plant. Another important implication of handling high and low competence plants separately is connected to location advantage: while low cost advantage is still determined on a regional level (i.e. higher in CEE), proximity to market and to knowledge and skills is a clear advantage of CEE high competence plants rel-ative to CEE low competence plants. Similarly, proximity to market seems to be a more important location factor for WE low competence plants than for WE high competence plants. Thus, location advantage is not only a given geograph-ical circumstance: it also depends on the mandate of the plant to choose which location factors to take advantage of.

On the other hand, there is a set of plant characteristics which seem to be a dis-tinctive feature of WE high competence plants. This cluster is uniquely de-scribed by relatively high global orientation, high degree of strategic and opera-tional autonomy, and low embeddedness in the intra-network flow of goods, es-pecially on the output side, meaning that these plants deliver their products mainly to external customers. All these features point toward the role of lead factories within networks (Ferdows 1997; Enright/Subramanian 2007), which – according to our findings – are most frequently taken by WE high competence plants. Whether CEE high competence plants can also develop to this role in the future remains a question for future research. Our findings show that they are


more integrated in the intra-network flow of goods: linking plant operations re-sults in more synchronized operations and control in the network, and thus in a lower operational autonomy (Reiner et al. 2008), which is also confirmed by our results. Thus, the operations of CEE high competence plants are still under the control of headquarters or lead plants, but due to the accumulated competences they have become important centres of knowledge for other plants in the net-work. Sass and Szalavetz (2009) also arrive to similar conclusions on the basis of case studies carried out in the Hungarian automotive and electronics sectors. They find that even if some companies managed to upgrade their competences considerably, “top quality levels (…) [the highest capabilities/decisions] are hardly attainable for peripheral, local subsidiaries” (p. 15). The performance of such CEE subsidiaries is still highly dependent on their linkages with other units (including the headquarter) within the network (Golebiowski/Lewandowska 2015).

Figure 5 offers a summary on the association between plant characteristics, on one hand, and region (CEE versus WE) and competence (high versus low), on the other hand.

Figure 5: The connection between plant characteristics and competence/region

From a managerial point of view it is an important question, whether the evolu-tion of plants throughout the years that ultimately leads to higher competences, also changes the location advantages perceived by these plants. This question is particularly important for CEE plants. As they become responsible for more functional areas due to increasing competences, the number of operational links with other network members might reduce, and they might start to search much more for skills and knowledge, and less for lower costs. This is a crucial point for less developed countries, which still try to attract foreign companies with the


comparative advantage of lower costs. But as more and more highly competent plants emerge in these countries, they will require highly educated labour in-stead, which will definitely cost more, reducing to some extent the comparative advantage of less developed countries. Since education takes a long time, policy makers have to be prepared for this change.

Conclusions

Summary and implications

Using an international survey, this paper examined the role CEE and WE plants play in their international manufacturing networks. The main contributions of our research are twofold: 1) it supports empirically at plant level the difference in competence levels between CEE and WE plants, and 2) it gives a deeper in-sight into both regions by characterizing more and less competent clusters, showing that there is a great diversity of plant roles in both regions.

On an aggregate level, our results demonstrate that WE plants have higher com-petence levels than CEE plants, which can be in close relation with their age, since WE plants in our sample are, on average, more than 20 years older. Throughout these years, WE plants have accumulated more knowledge on sup-ply chain management and product/process development, and therefore serve more frequently as a hub of knowledge.

In terms of location advantages, the uniqueness of CEE compared to WE is still the low cost production. However, there is a tendency that the increasing compe-tence level of plants in this region, as observed in the case of CEE high compe-tence plants, could eliminate this driver in the future, or at least reduce its role compared to access to knowledge and skills.

Besides investigating plant characteristics on a regional level, our study suggests that the picture within each region is more nuanced: in both WE and CEE plants exhibit a great diversity in terms of competence levels. There is a clearly defina-ble high competence cluster in CEE, and a low competence cluster in WE as well. Regardless of the region, competence clusters show a clear association with the responsibility of the plant to become a centre of knowledge, but also with location factors (except for low cost which is more regionally determined). Similarly, global orientation, autonomy and low network embeddedness seem to be exclusively associated with high competence plants in WE.

Limitations and further research

One important limitation of this study is that the research sample is neither on country nor on regional level statistically representative. However, we argue that the careful selection of targeted manufacturing plants, the centrally controlled, rigorous data collection and validation process, and the use of regions as the main grouping variable in this research (Disdier/Mayer 2004) allow us to formu-


late more general conclusions. Nevertheless, future studies should test our find-ings on a more encompassing European sample to investigate the diversity of development paths of manufacturing plants.

Although research and questionnaire design strived to minimize response bias, relativities in the usage of scales due to national or cultural differences can not be entirely eliminated.

Another limitation is the cross-sectional nature of this research. Longitudinal analysis could be applied to investigate the accumulation of capabilities, and to show whether this has an effect on perceived location advantages, leading ulti-mately to a complete change of plant roles and characteristics.

This study focuses on Europe. Nevertheless, it is highly probable that similar relationships exist on other parts of the world, where the level of development is different in two adjacent regions. Such regions represent another bountiful op-portunity for further research.

References

Birkinshaw, J.M./Morrison, A.J. (1995): Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational corporations, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 4, 729-753.

Birkinshaw, J.M. (1996): How multinational subsidiary mandates are gained and lost, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 27, 3, 467-495.

Cheng, Y./Farooq, S./Johansen, J. (2011): Manufacturing network evolution: A manufacturing plant perspective, in: International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31, 12, 1311-1331.

Dachs, B./Ebersberger, B./Kinkel, S./Waser, B.R. (2006): Offshoring of production – a European perspective, in: European Manufacturing Survey, Bulletin no. 2, May 2006.

Deflorin, P./Dietl, H./Lang, M./Scherrer-Rathje, M. (2012): The lead factory concept: benefiting from efficient knowledge transfer, in: Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 23, 4, 517-534.

Demeter, K./Gelei, A./Jenei, I. (2006): The effect of strategy on supply chain configuration and management practices on the basis of two supply chains in the Hungarian automotive industry, in: International Journal of Production Economics, 104, 2, 555-570.

Disdier, A.-C./Mayer, T. (2004): How different is Eastern Europe? Structure and determinants of location choices by French firms in Eastern and Western Europe, in: Journal of Comparative Economics, 32, 2, 280-296.

Enright, M.J./Subramanian, V. (2007): An organizing framework for MNC subsidiary typologies, in: Management International Review, 47, 6, 895-924.

Feldmannn, A./Olhager, J. (2013): Plant roles: Site competence bundles and their relationships with site location factors and performance, in: International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 33, 6, 722-744.


Feldmannn, A./Olhager, J./Fleet, D./Shi, Y. (2013): Linking networks and plant roles: The impact of changing a plant role, in: International Journal of Production Research, 51, 19, 5696-5710.

Ferdows, K. (1997): Making the most of foreign factories, in: Harvard Business Review, 75, 73-91.

Filippov, S./Duysters, G. (2011): Competence-building in foreign subsidiaries: The case of new EU member states, in: Journal for East European Management Studies, 16, 4, 286-314.

Frost, T.S./Birkinshaw, J.M./Ensign, P.C. (2002): Centers of excellence in multinational corporations, in: Strategic Management Journal, 23, 11, 997-1018.

Geishecker, I. (2006): Does outsourcing to Central and Eastern Europe really threaten manual workers’ jobs in Germany?, in: The World Economy, 29, 5, 559-583.

Garmel, K./Maliar, L./Maliar, S. (2008): EU eastern enlargement and foreign investment: Implications from a neoclassical growth model, in: Journal of Comparative Economics, 36, 2, 307-325.

Golebiowski, T./Lewandowska, M.S. (2015): Influence of internal and external relationships of foreign subsidiaries on innovation performance. Evidence from Germany, Czech Republic and Romania, in: Journal of East European Management Studies, 20, 3, 304-327.

Guerreri, P. (1998): Trade patterns, FDI, and industrial restructuring of Central and EE, in: BRIE working paper series, 124.

Hair, J.F./Black, W.C./Babin, B.J./Anderson, R.E. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th edition, Prentice Hall.

Hult, G.T.M./Ketchen, D./Griffith, D.A./Finnegan, C.A./Gonzalez-Padron, T./Harmancioglu, N./Huang, Y./Talay, M.B./Cavusgil, S. T. (2008): Data equivalence in cross-cultural international business research: assessment and guidelines, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 6, 1027-1044.

Jensen, P.D.O./Pedersen, T. (2011): The economic geography of offshoring: the fit between activities and local context, in: Journal of Management Studies, 48, 2, 352-372.

Kendall, I.M./Verster, M.A./Von Mollendorf, J.W. (1988): Test performance of blacks in South Africa. In: Irvine, S.H./Berry, J.W. (eds.), Human abilities in cultural context (pp. 299-339). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Koufteros, X.A./Vonderembse, M.A./Doll, W.J. (2002): Examining the competitive capabilities of manufacturing firms. Structural Equation Modelling, in: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 2, 256-282.

Lewin, A.Y./Massini, S./Peeters, C. (2009): Why are companies offshoring innovation? The emerging race for global talent, in: Journal of International Business and Economics, 40, 6, 901-925.

Linares-Navarro E./Pedersen, T./Pla-Barber, J. (2014): Fine slicing of the value chain and offshoring of essential activities: Empirical evidence from European multinationals, in: Journal of Business Economics and Management, 15, 1, 111-134.

Marin, D. (2006): A new international division of labor in Europe: Outsourcing and offshoring to EE, in: Journal of the European Economic Association, 4, 2-3, 612-622.


Maritan, C.A./Brush, T.H./Karnani, A.G. (2004): Plant roles and autonomy in multinational plant networks, in: Journal of Operations Management, 22, 5, 489-503.

Meijboom, B./Vos, B. (2004): Site competence dynamics in international manufacturing networks: instrument development and a test in EE factories, in: Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 10, 3, 127-136.

Mudambi, R. (2008): Location, control and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries, in: Journal of Economic Geography, 8, 5, 699-725.

Reiner, G./Demeter, K./Poiger, M./Jenei, K. (2008): The internationalization process in companies located at the borders of emerging and developed countries, in: International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 28, 10, 918-940.

Rudberg, M./Olhager, J. (2003): Manufacturing networks and supply chains: an operations strategy perspective, in: Omega, 31, 1, 29-39.

Rungtusanatham, M./Forza, C./Koka, B.R./Salvador, F./Nie, W. (2005): TQM across multiple countries: Convergence hypothesis versus national specificity arguments, in: Journal of Operations Management, 23,1, 43-63.

Sass, M./Szalavetz, A. (2009): Crisis and upgrading: The case of the Hungarian automotive and electronics sectors, in: Europe-Asia Studies, 65, 3, 489-507.

Shi, Y./Gregory, M. (1998): International manufacturing networks – to develop global competitive capabilities, in: Journal of Operations Management, 16, 2, 195-214.

Van de Vijver, F.J./Daal, M./Van Zonneveld, R. (1986): The trainability of formal thinking: a cross-cultural comparison, in: International Journal of Psychology, 21, 1-4, 589-615.

Van de Vijver, F.J./Leung, K. (1997) : Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In: Berry, J.W./Poortinga, Y.H./Pandey, J. (eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (2nd ed., vol. 1). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Van de Vijver, F. J. (1998): Towards a theory of bias and equivalence, in: Zuma Nachrichten, 3, 41-65.

Vereecke, A./Van Dierdonck, R. (2002): The strategic role of the plant: testing Ferdows’s model, in: International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22, 5, 492-514.

Vereecke, A./Van Dierdonck, R./De Meyer, A. (2006): A typology of plants in global manufacturing networks, in: Management Science, 52, 11, 1737-1750.

Appendix 1

To what extent is your plant responsible for the following activities?

No

responsi-

bility

Full

respon-

sibility

Production (e.g., production, process improvement, technical mainte-

nance) 1 2 3 4 5

Supply Chain (e.g., procurement, logistics, supplier development) 1 2 3 4 5

Development (e.g., Product improvement, Introduction of new product or

process technologies) 1 2 3 4 5


Appendix 2

To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the current advantages of your plant’s location?

Strongly

disagree

Strongly

agree

Your current advantage is to access low cost resources (labour, materi-

als, energy) 1 2 3 4 5

Your current advantage is the proximity to market (rapid/reliable delivery,

customization, fast service and support) 1 2 3 4 5

Your current advantage is to access to knowledge and skills (skilled

workers and managers, technological know-how) 1 2 3 4 5

To what extent is your plant responsible for the following activities?

No

responsi-

bility

Full

respon-

sibilityServing as a hub for product / process knowledge (e.g. showroom for

good practice, sending out experts to share knowledge) 1 2 3 4 5

In what year was the plant established _______________________________

What is the role of your plant according to the following dimensions?

Your plant serves just a specified sur-

rounding geographic area/market 1 2 3 4 5

Your plant serves the whole world /

global market

How do you coordinate with other plants in the network?

You can make your own strategic

decisions 1 2 3 4 5

The strategy is set by another plant in

the network or an international divi-

sion

This plant is autonomous in defining

the production plan 1 2 3 4 5

Production plans are coordinated by

another plant or an international divi-

sion

Please provide an estimate of the distribution of value of inputs (materials, components, sub-assemblies products) and outputs exchanged with other partners:

Inputs (materials, components, sub-

assemblies)

Outputs (components, sub-assemblies,

products)

From other plants/units in the

network _______ %

To other plants/units in the

network _______ %

From external suppliers _______ % To external customers _______ %

Total 100 % Total 100 %


Appendix 3 - comparison of regions and clusters on plant specific variables

CEE WE Sig. CE-HI CE-LO W-HI W-LO

Competences

Production competence 4.67 4.74 .469 4.60 4.75 4.84

(W-LO) 4.59

(W-HI)

Supply chain competence 3.65 4.19 .001 4.08

(CE-LO, W-HI, W-LO)

3.05 (CE-HI, W-HI)

4.72 (CE-HI,

CE-LO, W-LO)

3.27 (CE-HI, W-HI)

Development competence 3.04 3.86 .000 4.08

(CE-LO, W-HI, W-LO)

1.75 (CE-HI, W-HI,

W-LO)

4.54 (CE-HI,

CE-LO, W-LO)

2.66 (CE-HI,

CE-LO, W-HI)

Location advantage

Low cost resources 3.61 2.31 .000 3.40

(W-HI, W-LO) 3.90

(W-HI, W-LO) 2.17

(CE-HI, CE-LO, W-LO)

2.55 (CE-HI,

CE-LO, W-HI)

Proximity to market 3.82 3.71 .530 4.32

(CE-LO, W-HI) 3.21

(CE-HI, W-LO) 3.59

(CE-HI, W-LO) 3.91

(CE-LO, W-HI)

Access to knowledge and skills

3.96 4.09 .357 4.20

(CE-LO) 3.70

(CE-HI, W-HI) 4.14

(CE-LO) 3.99

Hub of knowledge

Hub for product/process knowledge 3.07 3.66 .002

3.72 (CE-LO,W-LO)

2.35 (CE-HI, W-HI,

W-LO)

3.98 (CE-LO,W-LO)

3.10 (CE-HI,

CE-LO, W-HI)

Plant age

Year of plant foundation 1988.3 1967.4 .000 1983.2 (W-HI)

1994.9 (W-HI, W-LO)

1964.6 (CE-HI, CE-LO)

1972.2 (CE-LO)

Global orientation

Plant serves specific region (1) / whole world (5)

3.82 3.92 .637 3.63 4.00 4.14

(W-LO) 3.53

(W-HI)

Plant autonomy

Own strategy (1) / set by another plant, division (5)

3.11 2.90 .316 3.00 3.39

(W-HI) 2.57

(CE-LO,W-LO) 3.45

(W-HI)

Own production plan (1) / another plant, division (5)

2.91 2.31 .012 2.80

(W-HI)

3.16 (W-HI)

2.08 (CE-HI,

CE-LO, W-LO)

2.68 (W-HI)

Physical embeddedness

Inputs from other plants in the network (% of total)

23.02 24.23 .785 23.13

22.50

20.77

(W-LO) 29.95 (W-HI)

Output sold to other plants in the network (% of total)

33.95 22.12 .018 32.79 (W-HI)

35.50 (W-HI)

17.34 (CE-HI,

CE-LO, W-LO)

29.79 (W-HI)

Bold values = significantly different from at least one other cluster Cluster name(s) in parentheses = significant difference between the cluster in column and the clus-ter(s) in parentheses Italic = LSD post-hoc test (p<.05), Underlined = Scheffe post-hoc test (p<.05), Italic and underlined = significant difference according to both post-hoc tests used

209

JEEMS, 21(2), 209-230 DOI 10.1688/JEEMS-2016-Vissak ISSN (print) 0943-2779, ISSN (internet) 1862-0035 © Rainer Hampp Verlag, www.Hampp-Verlag.de

A born global’s radical, gradual and nonlinear internationalization: A case from Belarus*

Tiia Vissak, Xiaotian Zhang**

This paper contributes to the literature on internationalization processes by showing that a born global can experience nonlinear internationalization (de- and re-internationalize) after radical/fast initial growth, and use some subsidi-aries as bases for further gradual expansion. After studying a case of a Belarus-ian door producer that has invested to seven and exported to 11 more countries, we conclude that a home country’s political/economic environment can be a crucial ‘push’ factor for a firm’s fast internationalization but, thereafter, it can internationalize gradually due to lacking knowledge or other resources, and de- and re-internationalize due to various internal and/or external reasons.

Key words: internationalization, born globals, de-internationalization, Belarus, case study (JEL: M16, F23, F20)

________________________________________________________________ * Manuscript received: 02.02.2015, accepted: 06.11.2015 (2 revisions)

This work was supported by the Institutional Research Funding IUT20-49 of the Estonian Ministry of Educa-tion and Research and by the Estonian Research Council’s grant PUT 1003.

** Tiia Vissak (corresponding author), School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu, Narva Rd. 4-A223, 51009 Tartu, Estonia. E-mail: [email protected]. Research interests: internationalization processes, nonlinear internationalization, emerging economies, business networks.

Xiaotian Zhang, Department of Marketing and Management, University of South Denmark, and Department of Management and International Business, University of Oulu. Research interests: internationalization pro-cesses, emerging economies, business networks, management.

210 Tiia Vissak, Xiaotian Zhang: A born global’s radical, gradual and nonlinear internationalization

Introduction

Internationalization processes have received considerable research attention since the 1970s. Most authors have focused on early internationalization stages and studied either 1) very fast/radical internationalizers – born globals1 and in-ternational new ventures (Oviatt/McDougall 1994; Bell 1995; Madsen/Servais 1997; Cavusgil/Knight 2009; Coviello 2015; Knight/Cavusgil 2015) – or 2) slow, gradual internationalizers (Johanson/Wiedersheim-Paul 1975; Johanson/ Vahlne 1977, 1990; Bilkey 1978).

There is still not enough evidence on firms’ later internationalization stages: for instance, on born globals’ longitudinal development (Trudgen/Freeman 2014; Welch/Paavilainen-Mäntymäki 2014; Zander/McDougall-Covin/Rose 2015). This topic needs more research attention as such firms cannot grow very fast/radically forever. Consequently, born globals that have slowed internation-alization down, exited or re-entered markets (Jones/Coviello/Tang 2011; Free-man/Deligonul/Cavusgil 2013; Nummela/Saarenketo/Loane 2016; Sleuwae-gen/Onkelinx 2014) or done this several times like serial nonlinear international-izers (Vissak/Francioni 2013; Vissak/Masso 2015) still need considerable re-search attention.

Due to differences in foreign countries’ economic/political environments, firms cannot use the same strategy on all markets (Dikova 2012; Drummond 2012; Xu/Meyer 2012). Also, the home context affects both internationalization mo-tives and processes (Dikova/Jaklič/Burger/Kunčič 2016; Zander et al. 2015). Thus, many authors (see Meyer/Peng 2005; Meyer/Gelbuda 2006; Svet-ličič/Jaklič/Burger 2007; Vissak/Ibeh/Paliwoda 2007; Gelbuda/Meyer/Delios 2008; Ninan/Puck 2010; Nowiński/Rialp 2013; Musteen/Datta/Francis 2014; Vissak 2014; Dikova et al. 2016) have emphasized the need of studying firms from CEE as due to the region’s complicated history, they could follow untradi-tional internationalization paths. Moreover, according to Nowiński and Rialp (2013: 192), there is a deficit of “studies concerning early internationalization of SMEs from transition economies and particularly from Central and Eastern Eu-ropean (CEE) countries”. Also, only a few authors have studied if the ability of internationalizers from emerging economies to operate successfully in their home country’s unfavourable business environment can help them to operate elsewhere (Anil/Tatoglu/Ozkasap 2014). Thus, it is especially interesting to study Belarusian born globals’ internationalization as, due to a complicated political/economic situation (Welter/Smallbone/Slonimski/Slonimska 2008;

1 In defining born globals, we follow Kuivalainen/Sundqvist/Servais (2007) that they achieve at least a 25%

export share and enter culturally distant foreign countries during the first three years since establishment, Madsen and Servais (1997: 579) that they “derive significant advantages from /…/ the sale of outputs to mul-tiple countries/continents right from their legal birth“ and Coviello (2015) and Knight and Cavusgil (2015) that they mainly prefer exporting. Thus, a born global should enter at least one other continent in three years or less since establishment and achieve a 25-percent or higher export share during this period.

JEEMS, 21(2), 209-230 DOI 10.1688/JEEMS-2016-Vissak 211

Liuhto/Heikkilä/ Laaksonen 2009; Zashev/Ehrstedt 2010; Weiss/Welsh 2013) they could experience unique internationalization paths both in early and later internationalization stages.

This paper aims to contribute to the literature on internationalization processes – especially the literature on born globals and nonlinear internationalizers – by showing that a born global can experience nonlinear internationalization (de- and re-internationalize) after radical/fast initial growth, and use some subsidiar-ies as bases for further gradual expansion. It is based on case study data of a Belarusian door producer. The paper starts from an overview of internationaliza-tion literature. After the method section, case study results are analysed and, thereafter, discussed. The paper ends with managerial and research implications.

Literature review

Different factors can simultaneously cause and affect internationalization (Beni-to 2015; van Tulder 2015). Below we will give a short overview of the literature on internationalization pathways and factors affecting its speed, but also exits and re-entries.

The internationalization literature focusing mainly on growth. In this literature, two internationalization paths have received the most attention2. According to studies on born globals and international new ventures (Oviatt/McDougall 1994; Bell 1995; Madsen/Servais 1997; Cavusgil/Knight 2009; Knight/Cavusgil 2015), some internationalizers enter distant countries soon after establishment and often, view the world market similarly to their home country. Moreover, they achieve a relatively high export share soon after foundation. Fast interna-tionalizers can compensate their initial lack of experience, knowledge and other resources with active networking, innovativeness, flexibility and adaptability (Knight/Cavusgil 2004, 2015; Svetličič et al. 2007; Freeman et al. 2013). They can also use internationalization for learning (Dikova et al. 2016) and capability-building (Benito 2015; Meyer 2015). Moreover, some firms tend to use effectua-tion logic: react flexibly to market changes and experiment in market entry in-stead of following a systematic plan (Andersson 2011; Nowiński/Rialp 2013). Sometimes, the host country’s economic/political environment also matters. For instance, Kahiya (2013: 3) stated that “rapid internationalization ensues from positive managerial orientation and lack of confidence in the host market”.

According to studies on slower internationalizers (Johanson/Wiedersheim-Paul 1975; Johanson/Vahlne 1977; Bilkey 1978; Johanson/Vahlne 1990; Morgan/ Katsikeas 1997; Ninan/Puck 2010), the first foreign market entry takes more time and firms start internationalizing from closest and/or more familiar markets because they lack contacts, knowledge and other resources to enter more distant

2 As our case firm did not resemble a born-again global/late starter (Johanson/Mattsson 1988; Bell et al. 2001;

Sheppard/McNaughton 2012), we will not give an overview of this literature here.


and/or less similar markets first. They will gradually enter such countries only after acquiring foreign market knowledge and other resources and creating nec-essary contacts. Moreover, firms tend to start internationalization from exporting and invest abroad later. Still, some authors have stated that market knowledge, but also other resources, can be acquired through acquisitions (Luo/Tung 2007; Elango/Pattnaik 2011) or network linkages (Musteen et al. 2014): this can speed up internationalization. Thus, for instance, emerging market multinationals “are often not path dependent nor evolutionary in selecting entry modes and project location” (Luo/Tung 2007: 482).

The internationalization literature focusing on fluctuations in international in-volvement. The above-mentioned growth-oriented approaches tend to overlook fluctuations in internationalization (Freeman et al. 2013; Vissak/Francioni 2013). Several authors have stated that internationalization does not always mean constant growth. For instance, Macharzina and Engelhard (1991) found that some internationalizers experience periods of “leaps” and also some stable international development periods, Kutschker, Bäurle and Schmid (1997) distin-guished between evolution (slow and minor changes), episodes (rapid and con-siderable changes) and epochs (consisting of both) while Bell, McNaughton, and Young (2001: 177) noted that “firms may experience ‘epochs’ of rapid interna-tionalisation, followed by periods of consolidation or retrenchment”. Finally, Olejnik and Swoboda (2012: 486) found that “committed internationalising firms may slow down their internationalisation and focus on their home market” and Trudgen and Freeman (2014: 557) stated that born globals “may also under-take non-linear internationalisation and move back and forth between stages as they de- and re-internationalise”.

During de-internationalization – reducing geographic scope and/or foreign mar-ket penetration (Turner 2012) – some firms withdraw from all foreign markets completely (Oviatt/McDougall 1995; Crick 2004; Welch/Welch 2009) but some continue with foreign operations in one or more countries (Calof/Beamish 1995; Benito/Welch 1997; Swoboda/Olejnik/Morschett 2011). Moreover, some firms retain activities in all countries but in partially reduced form (Vissak/Francioni 2013). During re-internationalization – advancing steps after de-internationa-lization (Luostarinen 1994) – some firms re-enter all markets completely (Welch/Welch 2009; Javalgi/Deligonul/Dixit/Cavusgil 2011) but some enter dif-ferent markets (Pauwels/Matthyssens 1999; Crick 2004; Matthyssens/Pauwels 2004; Javalgi et al. 2011; Freeman et al. 2013). Some firms – serial nonlinear internationalizers – de- and re-internationalize several times (Vissak/Francioni 2013; Vissak/Masso 2015) and use combinations of entry and exit strategies (Axinn/Matthyssens 2002).


Figure 1: The process perspective of international activities

Changes in a firm’s internationalization path can be caused by the need to adapt its strategy due “to changes in the firm and in the external environment” (Trudg-en/Freeman 2014: 557) including changed economic policies and conditions (Akhter/Choudry 1993; Turner 2012; Figueira-de-Lemos/Hadjikhani 2014; Gnizy/Shoham 2014; Vissak 2014): for instance, competition (Javalgi et al. 2011), demand or exchange rates (Welch/Wiedersheim-Paul 1980). Moreover, they can be affected by the firm’s resources – including its network relationships


(Hadjikhani 1997; Welch/Welch 2009; Turner 2012) and foreign market knowledge and/or experience (Gnizy/Shoham 2014) – and capabilities (Javalgi et al. 2011; Cuervo-Cazurra/Narula/Un 2015; Dikova et al. 2016). Managers’ attitudes (Benito/Welch 1997), perceptions regarding the market’s importance (Sleuwaegen/Onkelinx 2014) and the firm’s (dis)satisfaction with its interna-tionalization (Javalgi et al. 2011; Swoboda et al. 2011) and home market situa-tion (Cuervo-Cazurra et al. 2015) can also affect internationalization decisions. For some firms, de-internationalization or other changes in internationalization are strategic choices (Benito 2005; Freeman et al. 2013; Vissak/Francioni 2013), but some are forced by political pressure (Akhter/Choudry 1993) or, in some cases, cultural differences (Crick 2002).

From the above we conclude that internationalization processes can differ con-siderably: some firms experience fast international growth while some expand slowly, some de- and re-internationalize once, but some do it several times. Changes in internationalization can be voluntary or forced and they can be caused by several internal and external factors and actors (see also Figure 1).

After the method section, we will explain which factors influenced a Belarusian firm’s nonlinear internationalization. Thereafter, we will discuss the results.

Method

We selected the case study method as it enables to combine previously devel-oped theories with new empirical results and, resultantly, expand them; investi-gate complex phenomena and processes within their contexts and develop new and empirically valid theoretical and practical insights (Eisenhardt 1989, 1991; Yin 1994; Dubois/Gadde 2002; Ghauri 2004; Eisenhardt/Graebner 2007; Welch/Piekkari/Plakoyiannaki/Paavilainen-Mäntymäki 2011). Moreover, sever-al authors have suggested this method for studying internationalization due to the complexity of this phenomenon and the necessity to use a longitudinal per-spective (Eckert/Mayrhofer 2005; Welch/Welch 2009; Vissak/Francioni 2013).

This paper is based on a single case study. This increases observer bias and the risk of misjudging single events or even (accidentally) distorting important evi-dence (Leonard-Barton 1990; Eisenhardt 1991; Voss/Tsikriktsis/Frohlich 2002) and reduces the generalizability of the results – for instance, based on one firm, we cannot assume that all others internationalize similarly and are affected by the same factors – but it allows presenting the richness of the results and retain-ing the depth of the study (Dubois/Gadde 2002; Eisenhardt/Graebner 2007; Piekkari/Welch/Paavilainen 2009). The latter is necessary for understanding the complexity of the case firm’s internationalization and the factors affecting it. Moreover, even a single case can be used for theory-building (Dyer/Wilkins 1991).


To find an information-rich case, X. Zhang used purposeful sampling (Patton 2001). According to Banalieva and Dhanaraj (2013: 99), a “ten-year period is sufficiently long to capture the evolutionary nature of internationalization”. Ini-tially, he also explored some other firms, but the selected case firm’s owners were ready to provide more information about its internationalization activities by countries since its foundation in 2000.

In total, X. Zhang conducted 8 hours of interviews via Skype and phone in June 2014, 1 hour in October 2014, 0.5 hours in January 2015, 0.5 hours in May 2015 and 0.5 hours in January 2016. He selected several major informants – two founders and a sales manager – from the firm to investigate multiple viewpoints and to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation (Ghauri 2004). He conducted all semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions (see Appendix 1) in Russian. All the interviewees received questionnaires at least four days before interviews. In addition to interview materials, he used the case firm’s financial data from its annual reports for validating the conclusions made based on inter-views (Eckert/Mayrhofer 2005). Due to the sensitive nature of the case and the requirement of the case firm’s owners, he could not disclose the firm’s name.

The data analysis followed three phases proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994): data reduction (writing summaries and discarding irrelevant data); dis-play (creating figures and tables to draw conclusions) and the verification of the initial conclusions through further data collection. In the discussion section, we will also compare the results with other studies’ conclusions.

Case evidence

An overview of the case firm. Two Belarusian entrepreneurs established the firm in 2000. It produces doors and door-frames from metal, wood and PVC-U. In 2015, its turnover was 20.55 million USD. It exported to 18 countries and had 219 employees (see Table 1) in eight countries. Below we will explain how and why this firm internationalized.

The founders’ background. The owners studied economics and business admin-istration in Belarus and thereafter, worked in the public sector for four years. As in the end of the 1990s, a construction boom started in Minsk, they decided to start doing business. They used their savings and borrowed from their parents to acquire second-hand machines from Germany and Poland. Their first customers were local decoration companies.

Motives for initial internationalization. Although the owners did not aim to in-ternationalize since the beginning, already in 2001 they decided to do it as ac-cording to one of them, “there is no stability for private business in this country” and “as many foreign markets were growing, it was much more profitable for us to sell there.” Moreover, the other owner stated that in Belarus, “the government has very strict control on foreign currency exchange and sometimes a company


needs U.S. dollars to purchase materials, but it cannot buy currency from the bank”, so they needed to export to earn foreign currency. In addition, both own-ers wanted to grow their business without the risk that the government would take over their firm as “here, even a large privately owned firm can be suddenly taken over” and they had already started attracting ‘governmental attention’. Thus they felt that staying only in Belarus would become more risky as turnover growth would increase the possibility of governmental takeover. Still, they did not want to move the whole business abroad as “after all, we are Belarusians”.

Table 1: The firm’s turnover, export share, net profit growth/decline and number of employees by countries in 2000-2015, million USD

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Turnover 0.15 0.33 0.98 1.26 1.93 2.47 2.68 3.57 5.00 5.75 6.62 8.42 10.29 11.66 12.28 20.55

Belarus 0.15 0.12 0.15 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.23 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.15 0.11 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.23

USA

0.11 0.28 0.32 0.50 0.43 0.65 0.73 0.95 1.12 1.00 1.15 1.38 1.95 2.03 2.60

Austria

0.10 0.30 0.45 0.46 0.50 0.52 0.48 0.45 0.51 0.70 0.66 0.68 0.92 1.12 1.33

Iran

0.17 0.20 0.29 0.52 0.18 0.55 0.68 0.65 0.73 0.71 0.77 0.75 0.39 0.89

South Korea

0.08 0.09 0.08

0.12

0.15

0.09

Germany

0.23 0.35 0.42 0.55 0.52 0.52 0.79 1.00 1.25 1.32 1.56 3.03

Canada

0.19 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.18 0.38 0.52 0.69 0.80 1.01 0.99 1.91

Hungary

0.08 0.10 0.09 0.05 0.20 0.09 0.12 0.19 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.25

Azerbaijan

0.20 0.15 0.32 0.38 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.62 0.68 0.70 0.72

Mexico

0.13 0.19 0.22 0.21 0.52 0.68 0.93 0.53 0.62 0.66

Czech Rep.

0.09

0.15 0.11

0.19 0.23 0.52 0.35 0.44

Slovenia

0.10 0.16

0.36 0.56 0.53 0.58 0.61

Georgia

0.10 0.20 0.22 0.29 0.45 0.32 0.48 0.61 0.83

Venezuela

0.09 0.11 0.19 0.20

0.35 0.38 0.33 0.44

Turkey

0.30 0.50 0.38 0.56 0.82 0.88 1.12 1.78

France

0.21 0.30 0.48 0.68 0.55 0.82 0.89 1.52

Italy

0.11 0.11 0.19 0.39 0.50 0.48 0.60 1.28

Russia 1.55

Ukraine 0.39

Export share, %

0.0 63.6 84.7 84.1 94.8 93.9 91.4 95.0 96.4 96.2 97.7 98.7 98.4 99.0 99.2 98.9

Net profit growth/decline (-) com-pared to the previous year, %

n.a. 35.8 33.2 12.5 36.9 23.5 10.6 18.7 27.2 20.2 -10.1 10.3 20.4 19.8 18.3 17.8

Number of full-time employees

19 36 45 45 62 85 112 103 147 160 156 183 190 212 215 219


Initial fast internationalization. As one of the owners had contacts abroad, the firm started exporting to Austria and USA in 2001 and to Iran and South Korea in 2002. After direct exports, the owners decided to establish sales subsidiaries in Austria and USA in 2003 and in Iran in 2004 although they lacked knowledge. One of the explained: “We did not know that much about these mar-kets… and we only had a few contacts. We decided to establish sales subsidiar-ies in Austria and USA to understand their market situation. We also established a subsidiary in Iran in 2004 as their government promoted trading with Belarus and as we needed to learn due to huge cultural differences.”

The reasons for slowing internationalization down. After the initial fast interna-tionalization, the owners decided to slow the further process down so that they could focus on renewing their production technology and learning about foreign markets. They formed profitable partnerships with one customer in USA in 2002, two in Austria in 2003 and one in Iran in 2004. One of the owners stated: “We needed to stabilize these relationships, this way we could plan our produc-tion quite well and gain stable profit to support our firm’s development. This gave us time for deciding where to go next.” In 2004, they decided to use their sales subsidiaries in Austria, USA and Iran not only for learning how to operate there, but also for gradually entering their neighbouring countries (see Figure 2). The owners had three main reasons.

Figure 2: The firm’s internationalization process

1. They had difficulties in finding new customers in their initial markets. One of the owners explained: “We entered our first markets fast, but did not understand them well. We realized that finding new customers was much harder than we had initially thought. Still, as our sales were quite stable, we decided to find


more customers in their neighbouring countries.” Moreover, the sales manager of the firm’s American subsidiary stated: “Stability in the first three markets gave us opportunities to learn about nearby foreign markets. In USA, we found many potential customers from Canada and Mexico.”

2. They wanted to diversify risks. According to one of the owners, “Our gov-ernment is still able to cut off our export channels. Very often, it has conflicts with American and European governments. So, to be more secure, we needed to export to as many markets as possible. However, taking into account our re-sources and knowledge, we tried to expand slowly.”

3. They wished to achieve long term development. One of the owners stated: “Entering a new market is like reading a new book: you learn something. In the future, we plan to move most of our company abroad, but we have to do it slowly and we do not want our government to notice us: it is risky to grow large in Bel-arus because you will attract our government’s attention…. Thus, we are grad-ually entering new markets to understand where to relocate.”

Figure 3: Changes in the firm’s structure in 2000-2015

The reasons for relocating activities and establishing new subsidiaries. Reloca-tion of some subsidiaries (see Figure 3) was not only motivated by the country’s political environment but also by the owners’ wish to lower production and lo-gistics costs, improve product quality and quicken innovation. In selecting loca-tions for their subsidiaries, they followed the principle “let the country do the job it is good at”. Thus, in 2006 they established both a sales and a financial subsidiary in Germany.3 Relocating some financial functions to Germany was

3 In terms of sales, it focused only on a few most important customers, while the Austrian subsidiary continued

co-ordinating most of the firm’s exports to Germany.


reasonable as they found a partner there; moreover, they could keep capital in Euros (according to one of the owners, “we needed foreign currency both for our business and personal life and we needed freedom for using our funds”). Only some employees were retained in Belarus to handle some production oper-ations and serve local customers.

In 2010, the owners opened a new manufacturing subsidiary in Mexico. It serves customers from USA, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. One of the owners ex-plained: “We entered Venezuela, as our countries are on friendly terms”. In 2012, they also established a new manufacturing subsidiary in Turkey to serve European and Eurasian customers. One of the owners stated: “Moving manufac-turing abroad was risky, yet it was strategically important. We are glad with this decision as we reduced logistics and raw material costs; moreover, now we have much more freedom.” The other owner added: “We still kept a part of pro-duction in Belarus, as labour costs were still low and we were not totally certain how well our foreign manufacturing subsidiaries would start operating. Of course, we still also try to avoid our government’s radical attention. As long as the situation in Belarus stays fine, we will keep a part of production here, but if anything will go wrong, we will still survive.”

The owners also established a design subsidiary in Italy and hired five Italian designers. They did it because of the economic crisis in 2009-10 and due to the wish to serve premium customers, thus they needed to improve product quality and design. According to one of the owners, “If we tell our customers that our doors are produced in Belarus, this does not sound attractive to them, especially to premium customers. Thus, we hired Italian designers to add value to our products.” The other owner added: “We plan to hire more people to the design subsidiary in Milan, not only for designing doors, but also for developing new materials and components. This will enhance our future competitiveness.” In 2015, the firm also started exporting doors to Russia and Ukraine. Standard doors were produced and designed in Belarus while doors for premium custom-ers were designed in Italy.

The reasons for unstable sales in some countries. In South Korea, sales have been unstable. The firm started exporting there in 2002. While in 2003 and 2004, sales continued and the firm found another customer there, in 2005-8, 2010-11 and 2013-14 it did not export anything. One of the owners explained: “As our company was growing rapidly, we had no time to really explore this market. Also, Korea is culturally very different: they have a different taste re-garding door design and materials.”

The firm started exporting to the Czech Republic in 2006, but the customer did not order anything in 2007. At that time, the firm did not regard it an important market. However, the Austrian sales subsidiary started developing new contacts there, thus they exported to this country again in 2008 and 2009. In 2010, they


did not export again, as the customer had bought enough doors in 2009. In 2011, the Austrian subsidiary found new customers and sales continued.

Exports to Slovenia started in 2007 and continued in 2008 but then, the firm lost both customers due to a price war. Developing new networks and sales channels took two years. In 2011, sales continued.

In 2007, the firm also started exporting to Venezuela. It did not export anything there in 2011 due to problems with a partner that was responsible for logistics. In 2012, sales continued. As the Belarusian government promotes trade with Venezuela and as competition is low due to high entry barriers, orders have been relatively stable recently.

Future plans. In the future, the owners plan to establish a sales subsidiary in Brazil and, through that, expand activities in South America. Still, they are not certain yet when they will be ready for that as “We were there… It is attractive, but currently we are not sure that we can compete there as local competitors have considerable advantages in terms of access to raw materials, lower pro-duction costs and due to corruption.”

They also visited China in 2015 to explore expansion opportunities but found that demand and customer preferences differed considerably from region to re-gion and competition was high: local Chinese manufacturers had focused on mass market products while American and German firms had already started offering premium products. However, in Dalian, a Chinese firm proposed part-nership. Both founders are considering this offer.

In addition, they wish to achieve a leading position in Russia and Ukraine, and buy a production unit close to Moscow. They did not enter these countries earli-er due to “the Belarusian government’s direct and indirect control of firms’ ac-tivities in Russia and Ukraine”. As these countries’ current situation is unstable and their currencies are weak, they will buy the property through their German or Italian subsidiary as then they can hide their actions from the Belarusian gov-ernment and, also, in the future, gain from a higher brand value as the customers “prefer ‘real European’ brands”. They also plan to establish an independent fi-nancial company in USA to gain more freedom in using their capital. In the fu-ture, they will keep entering some new markets sporadically to learn from them and not necessarily export there every year (like in cases of Slovenia and South Korea): they will mainly focus on their main markets and wish to achieve stable growth there.

Discussion

From the above we can conclude that the case firm internationalized like a born global (Oviatt/McDougall 1994; Bell 1995; Madsen/Servais 1997; Kuiva-lainen/Sundqvist/Servais 2007; Cavusgil/Knight 2009; Coviello 2015; Knight/Cavusgil 2015) in the beginning as it entered countries outside Europe


soon after establishment but, thereafter, its internationalization slowed down and became more systematic. The firm started expanding further from its three for-eign subsidiaries to their neighbouring countries (using them as “springboards” (Luo/Tung 2007)). Thus, these subsidiaries followed behaviour that is more characteristic to the Uppsala model and innovation-related internationalization models (Johanson/Wiedersheim-Paul 1975; Johanson/Vahlne 1977; Bilkey 1978; Johanson/Vahlne 1990; Morgan/Katsikeas 1997; Ninan/Puck 2010). Moreover, lack of knowledge slowed down this firm’s internationalization and this is also characteristic to these two models. On the other hand, its entry mode choice did not completely fit these models as it invested abroad soon after start-ing exporting. Consequently, we can state that this firm represents an interna-tionalization path that has not yet acquired a specific name in the literature (see Table 2).

Table 2: Classification of internationalization processes

internationalization in the early years since foundation

slow or none fast

further internationalization

slow or none

slow, gradual: like described in the Uppsala model and innovation-related international-ization models (Johanson/ Wiedersheim-Paul 1975; Johanson/Vahlne 1977; Bilkey 1978; Johanson/Vahlne 1990; Morgan/Katsikeas 1997; Ninan/Puck 2010)

fast at first, then slow: has not attracted full focus from any litera-ture stream yet, except, to some extent, some studies on “epochs” and “episodes” (Eckert/Mayrhofer 2005; Kutschker et al. 1997) and also, shortly, in Olejnik and Swoboda (2012) and Freeman et al. (2013)

fast slow or none at first, fast after that: like described in the litera-ture on born-again globals (or born-again internationals) and late starters (Johanson/ Mattsson 1988; Bell et al. 2001; Sheppard/McNaughton 2012)

very fast: like described in the literature on born globals (or born internationals) and international new ventures (Oviatt/McDougall 1994; Bell 1995; Madsen/Servais 1997; Cavusgil/Knight 2009; Coviello 2015; Knight/Cavusgil 2015)

Taking into account the firm’s nonlinear internationalization path – not only slowing down its internationalization, but also not exporting to some countries in all years – we can support the findings of Bell et al. (2001: 177) that “firms may experience ‘epochs’ of rapid internationalisation, followed by periods of consolidation or retrenchment” and Macharzina and Engelhard (1991) and Kutschker et al. (1997) that periods of “leaps” can be followed by more stable international development periods. As the firm reduced exports to some markets and, in some years, did not export to South Korea, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Venezuela, we can state that it de-internationalized (Calof/Beamish 1995; Benito/Welch 1997; Swoboda/Olejnik/Morschett 2011; Turner 2012) and as it continued exporting there later, it also re-internationalized (Welch/Welch 2009;


Javalgi et al. 2011). As it did this several times, we can call it a serial nonlinear internationalizer (Vissak/Francioni 2013; Vissak/Masso 2015).

The firm’s internationalization was affected by its home country’s situa-tion/context (Cuervo-Cazurra et al. 2015; Dikova et al. 2016; Zander et al. 2015), including its political environment (Akhter/Choudry 1993; Welter et al. 2008; Turner 2012; Kahiya 2013; Figueira-de-Lemos/Hadjikhani 2014; Gnizy/ Shoham 2014; Vissak 2014). The owners were afraid that the government would take over the firm. Moreover, they had to consider other internal and external factors: for instance, lack of foreign market knowledge and experience (Gnizy/Shoham 2014) and cultural differences (Crick 2002).

Table 3: The firm’s internationalization process

2000-2003/4 2003/4-2015

Speed of internation-alization

Very fast Relatively fast

Factors leading to/affecting internationalization

Avoiding domestic market risks

Gaining high profits fast to survive

Good contacts in some foreign markets

Needing subsidiaries abroad for future development

Avoiding attention from the Bela-rusian government

Lack of knowledge about foreign markets

The economic crisis

Need to improve the firm’s image: reduce the “Made in Belarus” effect

Internationalization strategy

Entering first foreign markets – Austria, USA, Iran and South Korea – with exports fast (in 2001-2002)

Achieving a substantial export share – 84.7% – already by 2002

Achieving stable sales in the first three foreign markets through partnerships with a few key customers

Establishing sales subsidiaries in both Austria and USA in 2003 and in Iran in 2004

Using the first three foreign sub-sidiaries as “springboards” for gradually entering neighbouring countries – from Austria to Hun-gary, Germany (2004), Czech Republic (2006), Slovenia (2007), Italy and France (2008), from USA to Canada (2004), Mexico (2006) and Venezuela (2007) and from Iran to Azerbaijan (2005), Georgia (2007) and Turkey (2008) – with exports but also for learning

Moving some of the firm’s opera-tions – logistics (global 2003), sales (Austria, USA 2003, Iran 2004, Germany 2006), finance (Germany 2006), production (Mexico 2010, Turkey 2012) and design (Italy 2010) – partially or fully abroad

Having sporadic activities in less important countries (like Slovenia and South Korea), but using this experience for learning

Commitment to internationalization

High Very high


As the owners perceived some markets less important than others (Sleuwae-gen/Onkelinx 2014), they took this into account in developing the firm’s interna-tionalization strategy (Trudgen/Freeman 2014). The case firm’s internationaliza-tion was rapid in 2000-2003/4 (see Table 3) as the owners wished to reduce do-mestic market risks and earn profits to survive and develop further. Moreover, they used their contacts (Hadjikhani 1997; Welch/Welch 2009; Turner 2012; Musteen et al. 2014) in their first target markets. Finally, they partially used ef-fectuation logic in the initial internationalization (Andersson 2011; Nowiński/ Rialp 2013) as they did not always have a clear plan where to expand. Thus, we can agree with Benito (2015) and van Tulder (2015) that different factors can simultaneously cause and affect internationalization.

In 2003/4, the owners slowed down the firm’s internationalization and turned the process more gradual. Such a strategic decision allowed them to learn about their first markets, investigate these countries’ neighbouring markets and plan the firm’s future development. Thereafter, they increased their foreign market commitment and started using more complicated foreign operation modes. Thus, we can state that in further expansion, capabilities (Javalgi et al. 2011; Cuervo-Cazurra et al. 2015; Dikova et al. 2016) can be very important and that flexibil-ity, adaptability, innovativeness and active networking can help firms to over-come their initial resource constraints and internationalize successfully (Knight/Cavusgil 2004; Svetličič et al. 2007; Freeman et al. 2013; Musteen et al. 2014; Knight/Cavusgil 2015). Moreover, internationalization can be useful for learning (Dikova et al. 2016) and capability-building (Benito 2015; Meyer 2015). Finally, we can conclude that changes in internationalization can be caused by the owners’/managers’ attitudes (Benito/Welch 1997), they can be voluntary (Benito 2005; Freeman et al. 2013; Vissak/Francioni 2013) and, to some extent, also forced (Akhter/Choudry 1993) as the owners were afraid of governmental takeover.

Conclusions and implications

The paper showed that a born-global’s internationalization can slow down and that it can experience nonlinear internationalization. These aspects have still not received considerable attention in the literature on internationalization process-es. We also explained which factors caused or affected this firm’s international activities in different markets. As it was established in Belarus, its owners al-ways had to consider their home country’s political and economic environment. They could not grow too much in Belarus; otherwise, the government would have taken over the firm, so they had to internationalize as this enabled them to reduce this risk. In addition, the firm’s internationalization was affected by its owners’ contacts, foreign market knowledge and attitudes: they were flexible and able to adapt to local and foreign market changes fast, but, on the other


hand, they regarded some markets less important than others, so they did not try to export there every year.

Based on the above case, we developed several managerial implications. Despite of a slow-down of internationalization after the initial fast expansion and several fluctuations in its foreign activities, the firm’s international development has been successful and its net profits have increased in all years except in 2010. Thus, other companies’ managers should not always regard such internationali-zation a failure. A firm has to react to changes in its economic and business en-vironment but also take into account its resources and capabilities. Thus, making adjustments in the pace of internationalization – including not exporting to all markets in every year – can be reasonable. Still, such internationalization should not be also regarded as a goal in itself. Moreover, based on the firm’s experience we suggest that managers should have a global vision and they should pay con-siderable attention to improving their firm’s resources and capabilities. Also, actively acquiring foreign market knowledge and creating contacts can be im-portant. In this case, it is possible to continue growing even during economic recession and survive if the home country’s political/economic environment is extremely unfavourable. Finally, managers should understand that “many devel-opments inside and outside corporation cannot be anticipated and cannot be ful-ly controlled by top-management” (Kutschker et al. 1997: 110). Thus, following the above suggestions will not guarantee success as to some extent every firm’s situation is unique.

Future research could develop in several directions. For example, it could be studied how this firm will develop further on each market – if it will continue using its subsidiaries as “springboards” and its export markets as learning bases – and more data could be collected on its activities in each market. Similar firms from Belarus but also from some other (CEE) countries should be investigated as this would increase the generalizability of the results. In addition to collecting case study data, surveys should be conducted as this enables collecting more ev-idence about factors leading to or influencing such internationalization. This should also help to provide more detailed managerial advice. Finally, data from some countries’ statistical databases should be used to find out how frequently such internationalization processes occur and if these firms differ from others in terms of export market or entry mode selection, subsidiary size, ownership, ex-port or import structure, productivity or other indicators as this information would be also relevant for policy-makers.


References

Akhter, S.H./Choudry, Y.A. (1993): Forced withdrawal from a country market managing political risk, in: Business Horizons, 36, 3, 47-54.

Andersson, S. (2011): International entrepreneurship, born globals and the theory of effectuation, in: Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 18, 3, 627-643.

Anil, I./Tatoglu, E./Ozkasap, G. (2014): Ownership and market entry mode choices of emerging country multinationals in a transition country: Evidence from Turkish multinationals in Romania, in: Journal for East European Management Studies, 19, 4, 413-452.

Axinn, C.N./Matthyssens, P. (2002): Limits of internationalization theories in an unlimited world, in: International Marketing Review, 19, 5, 436-449.

Banalieva, E.R./Dhanaraj, C. (2013): Home-region orientation in international expansion strategies, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 44, 2, 89-116.

Bell, J. (1995): The internationalization of small computer software firms: A further challenge to “stage” theories, in: European Journal of Marketing, 29, 8, 60-75.

Bell, J./McNaughton, R./Young, S. (2001): ‘Born-again global’ firms. An extension to the ‘born global’ phenomenon, in: Journal of International Management, 7, 3, 173-189.

Benito, G.R.G. (2005): Divestment and international business strategy, in: Journal of Economic Geography, 5, 2, 235-251.

Benito, G.R.G. (2015): Why and how motives (still) matter, in: Multinational Business Review, 23, 1, 15-24.

Benito, G.R.G./Welch, L.S. (1997): De-internationalization, in: Management International Review, 37, Special Issue 2, 7-25.

Bilkey, W.J. (1978): An attempted integration of the literature on the export behavior of firms, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 9, 1, 33-46.

Calof, J.L./Beamish P.W. (1995): Adapting to foreign markets: Explaining internationalization, in: International Business Review, 4, 2, 115-131.

Cavusgil, S.T./Knight, G. (2009): Born global firms. New York: Business Expert Press.

Coviello, N. (2015): Re-thinking research on born globals, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 1, 17-26.

Crick, D. (2002): The decision to discontinue exporting: SMEs in two U.K. trade sectors, in: Journal of Small Business Management, 40, 1, 66-77.

Crick, D. (2004): UK SMEs’ decision to discontinue exporting: An exploratory investigation into practices within the clothing industry, in: Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 4, 561-587.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A./Narula, R./Un, C.A. (2015): Internationalization motives: Sell more, buy better, upgrade and escape, in: Multinational Business Review, 23, 1, 25-35.

Dikova, D. (2012): Entry mode choices in transition economies: The moderating effect of institutional distance on managers’ personal experiences, in: Journal of East-West Business, 18, 1, 1-27.


Dikova, D./Jaklič, A./Burger, A./Kunčič, A. (2016): What is beneficial for first-time SME-exporters from a transition economy: A diversified or a focused export-strategy? in: Journal of World Business, 51, 2, 185-199.

Drummond, A. (2012): Research on emerging economies: Challenges are always opportunities, in: Global Strategy Journal, 2, 1, 48-50.

Dubois, A./Gadde, L.-E. (2002): Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research, in: Journal of Business Research, 55, 7, 553-560.

Dyer, W.G., Jr./Wilkins, A.L. (1991): Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt, in: Academy of Management Review, 16, 3, 613-619.

Eckert, S./Mayrhofer, U. (2005): Identifying and explaining epochs of internationalization: A case study, in: European Management Review, 2, 3, 212-223.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989): Building theories from case study research, in: Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1991): Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic, in: Academy of Management Review, 16, 3, 620-627.

Eisenhardt, K.M./Graebner, M.E. (2007): Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges, in: Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1, 25-32.

Elango, B./Pattnaik, C. (2011): Learning before making the big leap. Acquisition strategies of emerging market firms, in: Management International Review, 51, 4, 461-481.

Figueira-de-Lemos, F./Hadjikhani, A. (2014): Internationalization processes in stable and unstable market conditions: Towards a model of commitment decisions in dynamic environments, in: Journal of World Business, 49, 3, 332-349.

Freeman, S./Deligonul, S./Cavusgil, T. (2013): Strategic re-structuring by born-globals using outward and inward-oriented activity, in: International Marketing Review, 30, 2, 156-182.

Gelbuda, M./Meyer, K.E./Delios, A. (2008): International business and institutional development in Central and Eastern Europe, in: Journal of International Management, 14, 1, 1-11.

Ghauri, P. (2004): Designing and conducting case studies in international business research, in: Marschan-Piekkari, R./Welch, C. (eds.): Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 109-124.

Gnizy, I./Shoham, A. (2014): Explicating the reverse internationalization processes of firms, in: Journal of Global Marketing, 27, 4, 262-283.

Hadjikhani, A. (1997): A note on the criticism against the internationalisation process model, in: Management International Review, 37, Special Issue 2, 43-66.

Javalgi, R.G./Deligonul, S./Dixit, A./Cavusgil, S.T. (2011): International market reentry: A review and research framework, in: International Business Review, 20, 4, 377-393.

Johanson. J./Mattsson, L-G. (1988): Internationalization in industrial systems – a network approach, in: Hood, N./Vahlne, J-E. (eds.), Strategies in global competition. London: Croom Helm, 287-314.

Johanson, J./Vahlne, J.-E. (1977): The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 8, 1, 23-32.


Johanson, J./Vahlne, J.-E. (1990): The mechanism of internationalization, in: International Marketing Review, 7, 4, 11-24.

Johanson, J./Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975): The internationalization of the firm: Four Swedish cases, in: Journal of Management Studies, 12, 3, 305-322.

Jones, M.V./Coviello, N./Tang, Y.K. (2011): International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009), a domain ontology and thematic analysis, in: Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 6, 632-659.

Kahiya, E.T. (2013): Export barriers and path to internationalization: A comparison of conventional enterprises and international new ventures, in: Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 11, 1, 3-29.

Knight, G.A./Cavusgil, S.T. (2004): Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 2, 124-141.

Knight, G.A./Cavusgil, S.T. (2015): The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 1, 3-16.

Kuivalainen, O./Sundqvist, S./Servais, P. (2007): Firms’ degree of born-globalness, international entrepreneurial orientation and export performance, in: Journal of World Business, 42, 3, 253-267.

Kutschker, M./Bäurle, I./Schmid, S. (1997): International evolution, international episodes, and International epochs – implications for managing internationalization, in: Management International Review, 37, 2, 101-124.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1990): A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites, in: Organization Science, 1, 3, 248-266.

Liuhto, K./Heikkilä, M./Laaksonen, E. (2009): Political risk for foreign firms in the Western CIS – An analysis on Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine, in: Journal for East European Management Studies, 14, 4, 395-407.

Luo, Y./Tung, R.L. (2007): International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 4, 481-498.

Luostarinen, R. (1994): Research for action: Internationalization of Finnish firms and their response to global challenges. Forssa: UNU Wider.

Macharzina, K./Engelhard, J. (1991): Paradigm shift in international business research: From partist and eclectic approaches to the GAINS paradigm, in: Management International Review, 31, Special Issue, 23-43.

Madsen, T.K./Servais, P. (1997): The internationalisation of born globals: An evolutionary process? in: International Business Review, 6, 6, 561-583.

Matthyssens, P./Pauwels, P. (2004): Strategic flexibility in export expansion: Growing through withdrawal, in: International Marketing Review, 21, 4/5, 496-510.

Meyer, K.E. (2015): What is “strategic asset seeking FDI”? in: Multinational Business Review, 23, 1, 57-66.

Meyer, K.E./Gelbuda, M. (2006): Process perspectives in international business research in CEE, in: Management International Review, 46, 2, 143-164.

Meyer, K.E./Peng, M. (2005): Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources, and institutions, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 6, 600-621.


Miles, M.B./Huberman, A.M. (1994): Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.

Morgan, R.E./Katsikeas, C.S. (1997): Theories of international trade, foreign direct investment and firm internationalization: A critique, in: Management Decision 35, 1/2, 68-78.

Musteen, M./Datta, D.K./Francis J. (2014): Early internationalization by firms in transition economies into developed markets: The role of international networks, in: Global Strategy Journal, 4, 3, 221-237.

Ninan, S./Puck, J.F. (2010): The internationalization of Austrian firms in Central and Eastern Europe, in: Journal for East European Management Studies, 15, 3, 237-259.

Nowiński, W./Rialp, A. (2013): Drivers and strategies of international new ventures from a Central European transition economy, in: Journal for East European Management Studies, 18, 2, 191-231.

Nummela, N./Saarenketo, S./Loane, S. (2016): The dynamics of failure in international new ventures: A case study of Finnish and Irish software companies, in: International Small Business Journal, 34, 1, 16-33.

Olejnik, E./Swoboda, B. (2012): SMEs’ internationalisation patterns: Descriptives, dynamics and determinants, in: International Marketing Review, 29, 5, 466-495.

Oviatt, B.M./McDougall, P.P. (1994): Toward a theory of international new ventures, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 25, 1, 45-64.

Oviatt, B.M./McDougall, P.P. (1995): Global start-ups: Entrepreneurs on a worldwide stage, in: Academy of Management Executive, 9, 2, 30-43.

Patton, M.Q. (2001): Qualitative research & evaluation methods. London: Sage.

Pauwels, P./Matthyssens, P. (1999): A strategy process perspective on export withdrawal, in: Journal of International Marketing, 7, 3, 10-37.

Piekkari, R./Welch, C./Paavilainen, E. (2009): The case study as disciplinary convention: Evidence from international business journals, in: Organizational Research Methods, 12, 3, 567-589.

Sheppard, M./McNaughton, R. (2012): Born global and born-again global firms: A comparison of internationalization patterns, in: Gabrielsson, M./Kirpalani, V.H.M. (eds.): Handbook of research on born globals. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 44-56.

Sleuwaegen, L./Onkelinx, J. (2014): International commitment, post-entry growth and survival of international new ventures, in: Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 1, 106-120.

Svetličič, M./Jaklič, A./Burger, A. (2007): Internationalization of small and medium-size enterprises from selected Central European economies, in: Eastern European Economics, 45, 4, 36-65.

Swoboda, B./Olejnik, E./Morschett, D. (2011): Changes in foreign operation modes: Stimuli for increases versus reductions, in: International Business Review, 20, 5, 578-590.

Trudgen, R./Freeman, S. (2014): Measuring the Performance of born-global firms throughout their development process: The roles of initial market selection and internationalisation speed, in: Management International Review, 54, 4, 551-579.

Turner, C. (2012): Deinternationalisation: Towards a coevolutionary framework, in: European Business Review, 24, 2, 92-105.


van Tulder, R. (2015): Getting all motives right: A holistic approach to internationalization motives of companies, in: Multinational Business Review, 23, 1, 36-56.

Vissak, T. (2014): Nonlinear internationalization in the context of nonlinear economic development: The case of Krenholm Group, in: Transformations in Business & Economics, 13, 2A, 431-447.

Vissak, T./Francioni, B. (2013): Serial nonlinear internationalization in practice: A case study, in: International Business Review, 22, 6, 951-962.

Vissak, T./Ibeh, K./Paliwoda, S. (2007): Internationalising from the European periphery: Triggers, processes, and trajectories, in: Journal of Euromarketing, 17, 1, 35-48.

Vissak, T./Masso, J. (2015): Export patterns: Typology development and application to Estonian data, in: International Business Review, 24, 4, 652-664.

Voss, C./Tsikriktsis, N./Frohlich, M. (2002): Case research in operations management, in: International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22, 2, 195-219.

Weiss, B./Welsh, D.H.B. (2013): Entrepreneurship and small business in Eastern Europe: Overcoming challenges, sustaining growth, in: International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, 5, 3, 148-169.

Welch, C./Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2014): Putting process (back) in: Research on the internationalization process of the firm, in: International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 1, 2-23.

Welch, C./Piekkari, R./Plakoyiannaki, E./Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011): Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 5, 740–762.

Welch, C.L./Welch, L.S. (2009): Re-internationalisation: Exploration and conceptualization, in: International Business Review, 18, 6, 567-577.

Welch, L.S./Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1980): Initial exports – a marketing failure? in: Journal of Management Studies, 17, 3, 333-344.

Welter, F./Smallbone, D./Slonimski, A./Slonimska, M. (2008): Internationalization of SMEs in Belarus, in: Dana, L-P./Welpe, I.M./Han, M./Ratten, V. (eds.): Handbook of research on European business and entrepreneurship: Towards a theory to internationalization. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 57-76.

Xu, D./Meyer, K.E. (2012): Linking theory and context: Strategy research in emerging economies since Wright et al. (2005), in: Journal of Management Studies, 50, 7, 1322-1346.

Yin, R.K. (1994): Case study research design and methods. London: Sage.

Zander, I./McDougall-Covin, P./Rose, E.L. (2015): Born globals and international business: Evolution of a field of research, in: Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 1, 27-35.

Zashev, P./Ehrstedt, S. (2010): The first mover in new emerging markets: Balancing risks versus opportunities in the case of Belarus, in: Journal of East-West Business, 16, 3, 201-230.


Appendix 1: The main interview questions

How did your business start and why? Which obstacles did you face? How did you overcome them?

How does starting and doing business in Belarus differ compared to other coun-tries? How has the Belarusian political/economic environment affected your lo-cal or foreign activities? How have you overcome the obstacles?

What were/currently are your main strengths and weaknesses compared to your foreign competitors?

When, how and why did your firm enter its first, second, third… foreign mar-ket?

When, how and why did your firm establish foreign subsidiaries? How do you manage these subsidiaries? Which obstacles have you faced? How have you overcome them?

Have you exited or re-entered any markets temporarily or permanently? Why?

How satisfied are you with your firm’s internationalization so far? Why?

How do you plan to develop in the future (in terms of internationalization (in-cluding exits and re-entries), production, brand, organizational management…)? Why?

231

JEEMS, 21(2), 231-253 DOI 10.1688/JEEMS-2016-Sliwinski ISSN (print) 0943-2779, ISSN (internet) 1862-0035 © Rainer Hampp Verlag, www.Hampp-Verlag.de

Growth and internationalization of fast growing firms*

Rafal Sliwinski, Magdalena Sliwinska**

The purpose of this article is to identify the factors positively and negatively af-fecting the growth of companies in the foreign markets and internationalization. We examined and constructed in this paper a complex set of those factors which help and impede the growth on foreign markets of fast growing enterprises and their internationalization. Moreover, we contributed to the research of fast growing firms, adding more insight into the specificity of Polish enterprises. Due to the aim of the research, a qualitative multiple case study approach was applied based on the sample of 19 companies which were examined with semi-structured direct interviews. The findings should prove useful for academics, firms and governments.

Key words: international growth, internationalization, international enterprise (JEL: F20)


** Rafal Sliwinski, Associate Professor, University of Economics in Poznan, Faculty of International Business, Chair of International Management, al. Niepodleglosci 10, 61-875 Poznan, Poland. E-mail: [email protected]. Magdalena Sliwinska, Ph.D. University of Economics in Poznan, Faculty of International Business, Chair of European Integration, al. Niepodleglosci 10, 61-875 Poznan, Poland. E-mail: [email protected].

232 Rafal Sliwinski, Magdalena Sliwinska: Growth and internationalization of fast growing firms

1. Introduction

The internationalisation of enterprises and the importance of this process for the economic development and growth of such enterprises in the local and interna-tional perspective is a widely discussed subject, both in economic and manage-ment theory and in business practice. The globalization of the world economy and the opening of the Polish economy to foreign markets have made this topic very important also for Polish enterprises. Intensification of this phenomenon is accompanied by many studies and many of its aspects have been thoroughly ex-amined, mainly by the theories of strategic management, internationalization theories, theories of enterprise and theories of growth. Moreover, issues of com-panies’ growth both nationally and internationally are explored on the one hand by researchers attempting to identify the determinants of the growth of enter-prises providing above-average performance and increase rates, often referred to as fast growing companies, and on the other hand by the research about born globals. There are still missing unambiguous guidelines from the side of theory, which would allow to answer the question which factors have a particular im-pact on the market success of companies in foreign markets, particularly refer-ring to fast growing companies. The literature, however, concentrates on par-ticular factors of firms’ growth in the local and international perspective or eventually on a group of factors (Keen/Etemad 2012; Davidsson et al. 2009; Shepherd/Wiklund, 2009). There is missing a complex view on the problem of the factors influencing enterprises’ growth, especially in the international per-spective and with regard to internationalization, which we will try to fill and in doing so contribute to the array of knowledge in this field. Therefore, the re-search question of this paper is: what factors have a particular positive impact on the growth of fast growing Polish enterprises on the foreign markets and their internationalization and which factors constitute a particular barrier to this pro-cess. The purpose of this article is therefore to identify the factors positively and negatively affecting the rapid growth and internationalization of fast growing Polish companies in the foreign markets and to compare these groups of factors with each other. Internationalization is understood here as commencing foreign sales in any form on international markets. In the case of fast growing firms we see that internationalization is a consequence of rapid growth and the increase of the competitiveness of the firm. Growth is understood as an increase of sales, the increase of market share, increase of a firm’s assets or the increase of a firm’s own capital or a combination of the above mentioned elements. For the analysis, we have chosen the group of internationalized fast growing firms be-cause the research of the most successful companies gives the chance to identify the most important factors responsible for their success, especially as it is known that the internationalization can be the driving force of a firm’s success.

The first part of the paper provides an overview of contemporary theory and re-search on the factors that are essential for the growth of companies and their

JEEMS, 21(2), 231-253 DOI 10.1688/JEEMS-2016-Sliwinski 233

limitations. The attention is also drawn to the European competition rules, which constitute a possible factor contributing to, or impeding, the growth and devel-opment of enterprises. In the following sections the research methodology is presented, together with a description of the study and the obtained research re-sults. The last part of the work is devoted to the conclusions, discussion, and de-sired further directions of research.

2. Theoretical background

Because there are missing in the literature studies which directly identify the critical factors influencing or impeding the growth of fast growing enterprises on foreign markets, the theoretical background of the considerations in this pa-per will be based on the literature on firms’ international growth factors and fac-tors of the market success of born globals. Although born globals are different from the fast growing companies, they exhibit many similarities to them, and part of the born globals companies belong also to the group of fast growing firms. Storey (1994) identified three categories of factors that affect the likeli-hood that a company will enter on the path of rapid growth, namely: human re-source capabilities, strategic factors and the firm's characteristics. The first group, considered by many researchers as key (Andersson/Wictor 2003) refers to the capacity of human resources, in particular the skills and characteristics of the founder and leader of the company. The higher the human resource capabili-ties, the greater the likelihood that the company will enter on the path of accel-erated growth (Bates 1990; Bruederl et al. 1992). Human resources can affect the growth of enterprises through the adoption of an entrepreneurial orientation. This is defined in three dimensions: innovative and proactive behaviour and the willingness to take risk (Mateev/Anastasov 2010). The impact of the entrepre-neurial orientation on the performance of companies, and their growth also on international markets has been confirmed by many researchers (Lumpkin/Dess 1996, 2001; Wiklund/Shepherd 2005; Wiklund/Pätzel/Shepherd 2009). More-no/Casillas (2008) confirmed in addition that the entrepreneurial orientation af-fects not only the growth of the company but also its internationalization strate-gies. They indicate that one of the dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation, namely the tendency for innovation, has the greatest impact on the expansion strategy of the company also on international markets. It supports the develop-ment of product-technology through strategic behaviour that is reflected in the increase of the company’s growth.

The second group identified by Storey (1994) refers to strategic factors. It en-compasses setting relevant strategic objectives, choosing an appropriate market definition and business model, defining strategy (Sliwinski 2011), and in addi-tion unique skills, competences and knowledge (Obłój 2007; Sliwinski 2012), innovative strategies (Obłój 2003, 2007; Eisenhardt/Sull 2001), and the adequa-


cy of the strategy to the environment and its internal cohesion (Urbanowska - Sojkin 2013).

The third group identified by Storey (1994) consists of the characteristics of companies, including, among others, technological factors, the legal form of the company, its size, location or its relationships with other companies. Many stud-ies have shown that advanced technology, as well as a focus on knowledge in enterprises (Eisenhardt/Santos 2002; Gupta/Govindarajan 2000), lead in the scale of economies to the increase of employment, increase of companies’ sales, as well as the creation of new and innovative products and services (Licht/Nerlinger 1998) and as a result the rapid growth of such enterprises. This was confirmed by Audretsch (1995) or Almus, Engel and Nerlinger (1999) prov-ing that companies operating in technology-intensive industries show increased growth potential. Agarwal (1998) found also evidence that these types of busi-nesses have a higher chance for survival.

The researchers showed also that the legal form of a company affects its growth. For example, the choice of a form of a limited liability company contributes to a higher growth rate than the choice of a form which imposes the liability with private capital on the founder (Stiglitz/Weiss 1981), because entrepreneurs who chose the form of a limited liability company engaged in more risky projects, giving, however, higher rates of return – which result in the greater growth (Harhoff et al. 1998; Storey 1994).

Another subgroup of features characteristic for companies and influencing growth is the close links with external companies. Those external companies can provide additional expertise, capital or relationships with customers or suppliers (Variyam/Kraybill 1992; Aldrich et al. 1990) and therefore can expedite the firm’s growth in foreign markets (Oliveira/Fortunato 2006). Regarding another factor, the location of businesses, research indicates that companies located in rural areas are experiencing higher growth than companies located in urban are-as, despite the fact that the companies in agglomerations have access to better infrastructure than in rural areas and access to higher educated human resources (Storey 1994; North/Smallbone 1995; Simon 2009). Many researchers also be-lieve that the size of the company constitutes one of the most important growth factors (Storey 1994; Davidsson et al. 2002; Delmar et al. 2003). Bigsten and Gebreeyesus (2007) confirmed, however, that the volume of production compa-nies is inversely related to their growth. With regard to the issue of international-ization, Knight, Madsen, and Servais (2008) showed that age and size, as well as limited resources are no longer an obstacle in making early internationalization.

Some studies point to a directly proportional relationship between innovation and companies’ growth (Almus et al. 1999; Almus/Nerlinger 1999; Coad/Rao 2008; Autio et al. 2007). On this basis, many scholars recognize that innovation is the key factor for the growth of companies. Coad and Rao (2008) have further


observed that innovation is particularly important for companies with fast growth. Coad and Rao (2010) also found evidence that companies are willing to increase spending on research and development (R&D) after overcoming a posi-tive shock of accelerated growth. Other researchers indicate as well that the growth rates of firms are positively correlated with the intensity of research (Del Monte and Papagni (2003) and Adamou and Sasidharan (2007) argue that R&D is a key determinant of accelerated growth, regardless of the industry). However, the significant impact of innovation on the firms’ growth was not confirmed by every group of researchers (Brouwer/Kleinknecht/Reijnen 1993; Corsino/Gabriele 2011).

Various studies have identified the success factors of born globals on the inter-national markets. Because born globals sometimes belong to the fast growing firms, they constitute also a useful background and theoretical reference point. Identified factors that support the success of born globals on international mar-kets are:

a) global vision (Duliniec 2011; Karra/Phillips 2004) or global awareness (Jarosiński 2013),

b) the marketing competences (Moen 2000; Knight/Madsen/Servais 2008; Jarosiński 2013; Knight et al. 2004),

c) the networks of cooperation with foreign partners (Duliniec 2011; Kar-ra/Phillips 2004; Kudina/Yip/Barkema 2008; Jarosiński 2003),

d) high quality and product differentiation (Moen 2000; Knight/Madsen/Servais 2008; Jarosiński 2013),

e) knowledge and education (Daszkiewicz 2004; Jarosiński 2013),

f) lack of fear of internationalization (Kudina/Yip/Barkema 2008; Jarosiński 2013),

g) intercultural competences (Duliniec 2011; Karra/Phillips 2004),

h) hiring local managers (Kudina/Yip/Barkema 2008; Jarosiński 2013)

i) international entrepreneurship, understood as the special ability of notic-ing and using international opportunities (Duliniec 2011; Karra/Phillips 2004)

j) access to capital (Moen 2000)

k) maintaining the control over the company while using external financing (Moen 2000).

It should be noted that the last two factors Moen (2000) considered as particular-ly important in early internationalized companies. Duliniec (2011) in turn draws the attention to companies in high-tech industries, especially operating in niche markets, quoting after Fan and Phan (2007) that the growth of such businesses in


foreign markets depends to a high degree on industry-specific knowledge, which allows successful dealing with foreigners to avoid problems arising from the cultural distance. In traditional industries more important is the knowledge of foreign markets, such as the socio-cultural factors in these markets.

3. Antitrust law – a factor contributing to internationalization or a barrier

Analysing the factors influencing the growth of Polish enterprises on foreign markets and the barriers of internationalization, it is worth paying attention to the problem of protecting the competition and related antitrust laws arising out of the Competition policy of the European Union. The activities of the European Union, as well as individual member states, resulting from caring for the protec-tion of competition in the common market, may, in fact, in some situations, con-stitute a factor that is conducive to the enterprises’ growth in foreign markets, and sometimes, on the contrary, may restrict the possibilities of internationaliza-tion.

The rules of competition are addressed both to the member states and to compa-nies. Article 107 TFEU prohibits, in whatever form, any aid granted by a mem-ber state or from public resources to a company which by favouring certain un-dertakings or certain branches of production would interfere with competition or threaten to distort competition. Provisions for enterprises include a general pro-hibition of cartels contained in Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and the prohibition of the abuse of a dominant po-sition on the market contained in Art. 102 TFEU and Council Regulation No 139/ 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings. These provi-sions refer to situations threatening the competition, for example to businesses large or strong enough to be able to restrict competition through collusion with other companies, or through various strategies used by them.

In some cases, competition policy can be a factor contributing to the growth of businesses in foreign markets. When a company holds a dominant position on the domestic market, some of its competitive strategies can be regarded as in-compatible with competition law (Fornalczyk 2007). Internationalization can, from this point of view, then become a safe growth strategy. For example, when the merger of a Polish competitor or partner will not be possible because of the resulting increase of the dominant position of the merging parties on the Polish market, a merger with a foreign company may be allowed, because e.g. of the extension of the relevant market (adding a territory of another state), so that the merging companies would not have a dominant position on it. The situation could look similarly with alliances (cartels, collusion) or with any marketing and distribution strategies that on the domestic market can be regarded as an abuse of a dominant position and after expanding to a new foreign market and exten-sion of the relevant market, can be regarded as a typical strategy of raising the competitiveness of a company.


Competition policy may, however, in some situations also be seen as a barrier or impediment to internationalization. For example, the prohibition of state subsi-dies prevents certain types of state aid, which could prove to be beneficial for overcoming identified barriers to the internationalization of the companies. While there is a de minimis rule and programmes to support small and medium-sized enterprises, it seems that in the case of the internationalization of enter-prises from less developed economies, such exceptions may not be sufficient in terms of the support (needed) to start and grow their business in foreign markets.

It should be taken into account that the international nature of the competition policy and the fact of the bilateral and multilateral cooperation of the EU with other countries in the field of the protection of competition, causes that some internationalization strategies may prove to be incompatible with the rules of competition, even though from the point of view of companies they may seem to be necessary in order to enhance their international competitiveness. Companies must therefore adjust their actions to internationalization or growth in foreign markets to existing antitrust laws, which can be regarded in certain situations as a strong barrier to the internationalization.

4. Research methods

The purpose of the research was understanding which factors have the real in-fluence on a firms’s growth on international markets and the internationalization itself. We try to investigate what is the reason that two seemingly similar firms do not achieve comparable market performance in the international dimension. Acquiring answers to this question should allow to identify the factors contrib-uting to the internationalization and growth in international markets and barriers that hinder them. For this reason the qualitative research method, which pro-vides useful in-depth findings, giving a good understanding of the behavior of firms (Reiner et al. 2008) was chosen. We have selected a multiple case study approach from an array of qualitative methods, which according to Yin (2003), is the most suitable research method for theory testing, as well as for potential theory development (Eisenhardt 1989; Merriam 1998). This method allows to explore and draw conclusions referring to a larger group of companies, which took place in this case, and allowed a complex coverage of the subject and an identification of those factors that have the greatest impact on the researched phenomenon. Thanks to conducted semi-structured direct interviews it was pos-sible to interact directly with the respondent and obtain from the respondent ac-curate information about the factors which had the greatest impact on the studied phenomenon. Direct interview allowed to identify by asking the more in depth questions the factors that the respondent would not determine alone. Moreover, it was also possible to eliminate the situations where some questions would be unclear to the respondent, which would result in a lack of cognitive responses received. This study is a part of a larger research project about the international


competitiveness of Polish fast growing, highly innovative and internationalized companies, having their headquarters in Poland (Sliwinski 2011).

The fast growing Polish companies chosen for the study were selected with a purposeful sampling technique (Merriam 1998; Patton 1990; LeCompte/Preissle 1993; Maxwell 2005) from two rankings of the fast growing Polish companies – "Gazelle of Business" performed by “Puls Biznesu” (a business newspaper), and "Cheetahs of Business" performed by SKOK, a (financial institution group) both of which constitute a reliable preselection source of the Polish fast growing firms. Moreover, the companies were selected from the group of firms which received an award in the "Polish Product of the Future" or in a prestigious for-eign contest for innovative high technology products like e.g. the EEP AWARD Environmental Innovation for Europe. The chosen companies had to meet at least three of the following four criteria:

a. significant growth of turnover in excess of a minimum of 500% within 10 years,

b. already conducting foreign sales,

c. continued growth in turnover for the period of at least 10 years,

d. being a Polish enterprise i.e. having their headquarters based in Poland.

Some of the selected companies exceeded the threshold turnover already within 3 years. The minimum, fivefold increase of turnover within 10 years referred to the net sales values, taking into account inflation and therefore excluding the inflation from the growth value. Choosing the above presented criteria allowed to realize the idea of the research, which was to gather highly innovative enter-prises with above average growth, looking at them from a particular branch per-spective, which have already started in any form to sell their own products or services abroad – and to analyse their internationalization. The presumption was that this kind of enterprises are supposed to reveal more advanced international-ization strategies than the average Polish company. The research was carried out in the year 2009.

A pool of 104 companies was selected, out of which, finally, 32 participated in the research. After the interview stage, two companies were excluded because they had not fulfilled the requirements to fit in with the definition of (being a purely) Polish enterprise. The next 11 companies were excluded because they had not reported exports in the last 3 years, which only turned out during the interviews. The companies were taken from different branches and different re-gions of Poland.

Research was conducted using the direct interview method (Maxwell 2005) and a semi-structured interview (Nikodemska-Wołowik 2008) based on a prepared questionnaire. The interviews were conducted with CEOs or members of the company’s Board of Directors. The adoption of this form of research had a sig-


nificant impact on the quality of their responses and also allowed to get full an-swers to the questions that were given.

In this paper we analyse the responses of the surveyed companies on the follow-ing three questions:

a.1.1 Which factors were the most conducive to the internationalization of the company?

a.1.2 Which factors have to the greatest extent determined the growth in for-eign markets?

a.1.3 What was the most difficult in the process of internationalization?

The first question identified the factors which facilitate the most the internation-alization of enterprises’ business activity. The second question identified the factors which have the greatest impact on the growth of sales and companies in the international markets. The third question identified the main barriers in the process of the internationalization of the surveyed enterprises. The respondents, who were the managers of the investigated companies, in answering the ques-tions indicated one or more factors, and some respondents abstained from re-sponses indicating that e.g. it was too early yet to indicate the most significant barriers or factors supporting growth in foreign markets. Two questions were aimed at obtaining the subjective opinions of the aforementioned individuals in the individual companies, illustrating their adopted attitudes, and priorities used in reality in the surveyed companies. Both questions were completely open, giv-ing the respondent an opportunity to present a response from his/her point of view. During the interview the laddering technique was used (Reynolds/Gutman 1979, 1984, 1988), which helped to deepen the answers. All questions were formulated in a way which did not suggest certain answers should be given, nor were they presented in a positive or negative context.

5. Characteristics of the researched companies

The research project referred only to Polish companies, which meant that these companies had to have their headquarters on the Polish territory. All of the sur-veyed companies were in the form of a partnership, either a stock partnership or a limited liability company. Only three of them are listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange. Only five of the surveyed companies were family businesses, others were not. The interviewed managers were mostly the co-owners or the sole owners of the company.

The studied companies operate in the following industries: chemical – 1 compa-ny, business&technology consulting – 1, IT – 2, medical equipment – 3, phar-maceutical distribution – 1, debt recovery – 1, production of machinery and equipment (including appliances) – 2, production of steel products – 3, produc-tion of ships – 1, production of transport vehicles – 1, production of computer servers – 1, production of leather articles – 1, production of real time systems –


1. Within the researched companies there are 16 manufacturing firms, 2 service firms, and 1 company of wholesale trade. The studied companies varied in size: 63% were SMEs (5% micro, 32% small, 26% middle) according to the Europe-an Union’s definition of SMEs and 37% belonged to large enterprises.

Table 1: International sales markets of studied companies. Source: Author’s own research

Continent Countries – foreign markets Number of firms

European Union

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Dania, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia,

Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, U.K.,

19

Rest of Europe Belarus, Croatia, Island, Malta, Moldova, Serbia, Ukraine, Turkey 9

Asia Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Israel,

Kazakhstan, Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Russia, Vietnam, United Arab Emirates

10

North America U.S.A. 2

Latin America Mexico, Argentina 1

Africa Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Ghana, Togo, Ivory Coast 3

6. Findings

The purpose of this article was to identify those factors that positively and nega-tively affect the growth of Polish fast growing companies in the foreign markets and their internationalization and to compare these groups of factors with each other. To the question: "Which factors were the most conducive to the interna-tionalization of the company?" the responses were as follows. The most im-portant factor from the point of view of being conducive to the (parameters of) internationalization recognized by the surveyed companies was their product, in terms of its utility, quality and innovation (63 % of the surveyed enterprises). Under the term "product" the companies understood not only the final product offered to the customers, but also the technology that the product was made with and owes its quality and innovativeness. The term “product” also encompasses high competencies of employees directly involved in the production due to which this product was made. However, a number of the companies studied (21%) indicated having a high level of competence and knowledge as a factor conducive to internationalization. The same percentage of indications (21%) ap-plied to having a clear strategy that optimized the operations of the company, ensuring the best possible result in the process of the internationalization. Rela-tions with foreign partners was another factor with an equal percentage of indi-cations (21%). Under this concept the company understood that it was important to build a network of partners, providing them with knowledge of the product, sales training, selection and the service range. Firms indicated that in some mar-


kets such as Russia only a replacement of a Polish expatriate manager with a local counterpart resulted in the expected positive effects. In 16% of the re-searched companies important factors were references, branch know-how, the will of the board to expand on foreign markets and a solid technical and labour background in the firm.

Figure 1: Factors conducive to the internationalization of enterprises. Source: author’s elaboration based on own survey

In relation to references, it should be noted that these referred to formal creden-tials in the form of e.g. clinical trials, whether as reference letters or comments on firms products. In some cases, references referred also to globally recognized customers as in the case of Solaris (studied bus producer), which obtained very good references from an urban transport company in Berlin, which opened the company doors to other important and difficult markets. Branch know-how al-lows for faster, more effective and efficient organization of work in a foreign market, leading to the success of the internationalization process. It often consti-tuted the basis for experimenting with internationalization (PGF, Info Vide Ma-trix). A solid technical and labour backyard in the firm constituted undoubtedly an important factor influencing positively internationalization, thanks to which the company could take orders which constituted a technical or organizational challenge. The next group of factors (11% of responses) include flexibility in the individualization of orders, the possession of international certificates and marks


of quality, possession of a well-perceived brand and an efficient distribution sys-tem. In terms of flexibility, it should be noted that in the case of Solaris, for ex-ample, the family character of the company and the possibility of individualized contracts were important and prompted the customer to cooperate with the com-pany or place an order. Openness and respect for other cultures, internationaliza-tion of customers of surveyed companies on foreign markets as well as moderate and competitive prices accounted for the last group of factors (5 % of respons-es).

To the question: "Which factors have to the greatest extent determined the growth in foreign markets?" the responses were as follows. As the most im-portant factor the surveyed companies have recognized high quality and innova-tive products (74 % of the surveyed companies). A consecutive factor in the number of indications was to build and maintain the relations with foreign part-ners (21%). Under this concept, the company understood building a network of partners, providing them with knowledge of the product, sales training, selection and service range. Attention was also drawn to the partners’ care of their prod-ucts’ image, regular fulfilment of the payment duties, and the creation of an ef-fective distribution network.

Figure 2: Factors influencing firms’ growth on international markets. Source: author’s elaboration based on own survey


The next most important factors were (16%): the demand for a certain product in foreign markets, favourable price-value ratio of the product, the board’s will to expand to foreign markets and the reputation of the product and the company. Referring to the demand, it was the specific demand for a particular product type the company has offered within a chosen time, which clearly contributed to the increase of sales of the surveyed companies in foreign markets. The notion of a favourable price-value ratio meant to the respondents a favourable combination of product attributes such as quality and innovativeness in relation to the prices of competing products on the foreign market. Mentioning the reputation of the product and the company it should be stressed that the company initiating for-eign sales had already built a reputation for its products and the company in the domestic market or on other foreign markets. But it was of importance to devel-op and strengthen the reputation further on the new market.

Subsequently, the studied firms pointed to building an efficient distribution net-work (11%), competition between customers as a factor which increased de-mand on their products as a result of their superior quality and functionality (5%), an international service discovered by one customer and needed by the competitor to be able to compete further on the market (5%), customer expan-sion into new markets (5%) , understanding the customer and their needs (5%), timely fulfilment of obligations relating to both orders and to discharging of the duties (5%), the use of market opportunities which emerged on the foreign mar-ket (5%), possessing ISO certification by the company (5 %) and a good interna-tional hotline / helpdesk (5 %). The question could be raised about which of the above revealed and described factors support general growth and which are spe-cifically relevant for growth on the international market. According to this crite-ria the above mentioned factors can be divided into three groups: factors sup-porting the growth generally, factors supporting specifically the international growth of companies, and factors supporting both international and general growth. There are the following factors in the first group (support of growth generally): high quality and innovative products, favourable price-value ratio of the product, the board's will to expand, understanding the customer and their needs, the use of market opportunities which have emerged on the foreign mar-ket, an international hotline / helpdesk. The following factors can be found in the second group (support of international growth specifically): relations with foreign partners, demand for a certain product in foreign markets, efficient dis-tribution network, competition between customers, customer expansion into new markets. The third group is represented by the following factors (support of both international and general factors): reputation of the product and the company, international service, timely fulfilment of obligations relating to both orders and to discharging of the duties, the use of market opportunities which emerged on the foreign market (branch dependent – in some branches this contributes to general growth in some to specifically international growth). It is worth consid-ering that some of the factors are difficult to assign strictly to support of general


or international growth. The above presented division reflects that a particular factor contributes in a higher degree to one or another group, like e.g. customer expansion into new markets, which on the one hand is strictly related to foreign markets, but on the other case may lead to increased orders on internationalizing client. It brings growth until the firm as supplier will not be replaced by local counterpart. Therefore, it is necessary to notice that the division is not so acute as somebody would like to have it.

Figure 3: Internationalization barriers. Source: author’s elaboration based on own survey

Answering the question "What was the most difficult in the process of interna-tionalization?" most companies (26%) indicated: to find good partners and em-ployees who are reliable, conscientious, fulfilling the company's promise, pursu-ing mutually agreed plans and trustworthy. An important barrier to international-ization was also the complex issue of a company's country of origin’s (21%). The complex referred here refers to a sense of inferiority, undervaluing of a firms’ products and performance only because these firms originate from a less developed country, and suffer from a lack of confidence whether the company and the product is ready to expand into foreign markets, often more developed than the local market. An equally important barrier was the local preferences for products determined culturally and traditionally. Another significant barrier to the internationalization of the surveyed enterprises was the negative image (poor


reputation) of Polish products (16%). In particular, the poor reputation was re-lated to EU markets, but not related to Russia, Asian markets and South Ameri-ca (Mexico, Argentina) and the North (USA), where Polish products exhibited a relatively good reputation. The certification of products (16%) accounted for an equally significant barrier to growth in foreign markets . For example, one of the investigated companies had to fulfil the requirement to have a civil liability in-surance policy for the amount of 5 million EURO, which no Polish insurance company had in its offer. Other barriers mentioned by the companies were: the adaptation of products to the administrative requirements of foreign markets (11 %), difficulty in defining the geographic market (5%), the need to write complex documentation and description of the offered technical products in English (5%) and the creation of adequate service support to the foreign distributors. In the latter case, it was pointed out that internationalization can be a barrier because of its organizational side, both on the part of the internationalizing firm and its partners. For example, one firm mentioned the maintenance of the distribution network, the coordination of requests from different countries or differentiation by the foreign distributors of the specificity of goods or parts, differing in minor details, and the execution of erroneous orders.

It is also interesting how the studied companies overcame the above mentioned barriers. Referring to the problem of finding good partners and employees, firms claimed that they focus more on personal contacts with potential partners i.e. they derive partners from fair shows, conferences, or events. Firms have created a mechanism to filter out good distributors. On the one hand, firms are open to new distributors, and on the other they verify their credibility by checking their performance (difference between declarations and performance), checking the fulfilment of financial obligations (payment on time), keeping some strategic declarations e.g. network development after reaching certain level of sales, or also checking if the partner somehow cooperates with direct or indirect competi-tors.

The barrier of the country of origin complex was overcome by the studied com-panies in different manners and with different outcomes. Firstly, every success on the foreign markets raised belief in the company's own value, the value of firms' products and in time if there were enough “successes” the firm could overcome these barriers. Secondly, frequent foreign trips of management al-lowed to verify the mind-set and the undervaluing position of the firm, and un-dervaluing views on product values are dispelled after confrontation with the products of the competition. Thirdly, some firms bought foreign brands known already on particular market or established a new brand with a name which diso-rientated buyer as to where the acquired products or producer came from. The names of brands either sounded Italian, English or German depending on what the company wanted to achieve. However, also some firms have difficulties to overcome this barrier and it reflects on their expansion performance and results.


Referring to the barrier of poor reputation, firms try to overcome this problem by exposing the high value of their own products; secondly by providing pro-found research results which backup the quality of the products, it effects e.g. health; thirdly by introducing the disorientating name of the brand to induce bet-ter customer perception. The problem of products’ certification is solved mostly financially. Behind this there is always the worry if the investment in certifica-tion pays off. Therefore, not every company overcomes this barrier. The other barriers also have very often a financial background (complex documentation, adequate service support, adaptation of products to the administrative require-ments) and a firm very often doesn’t take measures to address this because of the mentioned worry of whether this investment will pay off.

7. Conclusions and discussion

The analysis of the research results shows a large variety of factors mentioned by the companies as both conducive to the internationalization and growth in foreign markets, as well as forming their barrier. The answers of almost every company to three questions put to them contain a different set of factors. Only one factor, resulting from the answer to the first and second question, drew the attention of a significantly higher number of companies (63% and 74 %) and a number of the factors have been indicated only by single companies. The indica-tions of the factors most mentioned by the researched companies varied between 5 to 21 %.

Twofold conclusions can be drawn from this fact. The first conclusion is that the set of factors influencing positively internationalization and the growth in for-eign markets can be an individual matter to particular companies, even depend-ent on their current stage of development, or the foreign market in which they operate. This does not mean that it is impossible to create for the fast growing enterprises a "list" of fundamental factors in terms of internationalization and growth in foreign markets, whether or not they constitute a barrier to both. This proves rather the fact that in this list of most important factors, each company selects those of them that are at a given time and a given situation crucial for the internationalization and growth of the company or its limitation in a given for-eign market. Secondly, it is also highly possible that the companies did not point to some factors as crucial, considering them obvious and fundamental conditions in the context of the foreign markets, and focused on current challenges.

Because of the clear indications of the researched companies, both in terms of factors contributing to their internationalization and in terms of the factors sup-porting growth in foreign markets, their product and technology must be con-cluded as the most important factors. The products should be innovative, and characterized by a high quality and superior attractiveness in comparison to competing products. As important as the product is the technology behind the product, and together they are a key factor in the success of the internationaliza-


tion of enterprises. In consequence, this means that companies should very con-sciously compare their products to international competitors and emphasize those factors most affecting the attractiveness of the product, and thus their in-novation, quality, and ergonomics, but also technological solutions. Govern-ments should take this result into consideration while it means that the level of education is the prerequisite for better products and technologies. Moreover, in-ternational research projects are very important for the development of innova-tion, which is often associated with modern technology. Public institutions and programmes which promote the innovations of enterprises are of high im-portance because they clearly indicate that support for innovation and technolo-gy development can have a direct impact on export growth and the foreign ex-pansion of Polish companies.

Comparison of the responses to the first two questions allows to draw further conclusions. Despite many similarities in the scope and importance of individual factors contributing to the internationalization and affecting growth in foreign markets there can be observed also some fundamental differences. The first fact that draws attention is that the equivalent of one of the most important factors of growth in foreign markets – the favourable price-value ratio – namely, a moder-ate and competitive price, was important only to 5 % of the surveyed companies while considering key factors contributing to internationalization. Secondly, an-other important factor for growth in foreign markets – the demand for the prod-uct in the foreign markets – is not mentioned at all among the factors favouring the internationalization of enterprises. The same situation concerns the next fac-tors affecting growth in foreign markets, namely the competition between cus-tomers, international service, understanding customers’ needs and having an in-ternational helpdesk. The appearance of these factors among responses to the second question, provides the argument that certain issues become important only at subsequent stages of the internationalization. These observations demon-strate the validity of the detachable treatment of both questions and the necessity to identify both the key factors contributing to internationalization, so actually to initiate this process, and the key factors of growth in the foreign markets of an already internationalized company even to the low degree. Moreover, despite many similarities there can be observed also differences in the set and weight of factors conducive to the internationalization and the factors affecting the growth of enterprises in foreign markets.

A comparison of the responses to the first and third questions allows to note that most of the companies that recognized foreign partners as a factor conducive to internationalization, pointed to finding a good partner and employees abroad as an important barrier to effective internationalization. Similarly, companies that have recognized international quality marks and certificates as a factor contrib-uting to internationalization, indicated their product's certification and the meet-ing of formal requirements by the product as a barrier to internationalization. In


turn, most of the companies that showed branch know-how to be a key factor contributing to internationalization, indicated local culturally and traditionally based preferences for products as a barrier to internationalization. This demon-strates the consistency and reliability of the responses and the awareness of the respondents about which factors are important in their international expansion and which activities or factors are particularly difficult. An interesting observa-tion is the fact that most of the companies which have recognized “clear strate-gy” as a factor supporting internationalization, acknowledged also factor “find-ing good partners and employees” as a barrier to such internationalization. There was a relationship observed that companies that recognize the flexibility for cus-tomization of orders as factor conducive to internationalization, drew attention to the complex of a company's originating from a less developed country, as its barrier. Especially the last observation induces to consider to what degree the complex of a company's origin being from a less developed country can moti-vate companies to be more flexible in terms of the customization of their orders and can contribute to their expansion. On the other hand, all the companies that have highlighted the complex of their origin from a less developed country as a barrier to internationalization, stressed the importance of the high quality and innovativeness of their product as a factor conducive to internationalization.

Referring to the second and third question in the survey the attention is drawn to the fact that all the companies that indicated the board’s will to expand to for-eign markets, a favourable price - value relation of the product, the demand for the product, building of the reputation of the company and product in foreign markets, or building an efficient distribution network as factors contributing to the growth of foreign markets, also recognized the product and technology as key in this field. In turn, 75 % of companies that recognized the complex of their origin being from the less developed country as a barrier to internationalization, indicated product and technology as important factor for growth in foreign mar-kets. At the same time, the same factor was cited only by 30 % of companies who have recognized that the poor reputation of Polish products is a barrier to internationalization. The result of this may be that the complex of the company's origin being from a less developed country motivates companies to improve the quality of their product and applied technology more than the conviction of the poor reputation of Polish products on foreign markets. Companies that recognize the complex due to their origin from a less developed country and the lack of conviction about the value of their products as a barrier to internationalization also indicated that an important factor in the growth of internationalization is building the reputation of the company and product in a foreign market and building an effective distribution network.

The results of the research on such barriers to internationalization as the com-plex of the company's originating from a less developed country or the poor rep-utation of Polish products and the growth factor on foreign markets in a form of


a favourable relationship between price and value of the product, in the context of the additional expression of the surveyed companies, leads to further conclu-sions. Firstly, the advantageous price – value ratio of the product, a conscious pricing policy relying on proper positioning of prices compared to the prices of competing products on the foreign market – can be an effective way to break the barriers indicated by the surveyed companies resulting from an unfavourable image (poor reputation) of the Polish products on foreign markets, particularly in the EU markets. Secondly, the good reputation emphasized by the studied companies of Polish products on the Asian markets and in Russia, elucidated with good trade relations with Poland during the socialist period, suggests that the involvement of the government in trade agreements and economic coopera-tion is of great importance and can produce good results even after many years. In addition, a good reputation of Polish products in South America, where they are highly appreciated and perceived as similar to the German quality but having lower prices, can mean that among others the poor reputation of Polish compa-nies and products in the markets of the European Union is not always apparent from real reasons, but also from the fact that they are in direct competition with broadly understood neighbouring markets. As generally known, the image of the country and products derived from it are important elements of long-term sales strategy and the competitive struggle, to which individual countries try to exert influence through various methods. Thirdly, an important research result for the state administration is that the second largest indicated barrier of internationali-zation was the complex of a company's originating from a less developed coun-try. It is definitely a reason to intensify the promotion of Poland and Polish products not only in foreign markets but also among domestic producers, whose faith and belief in the success of Polish values indicate and stimulate the success in foreign markets. Therefore it appears necessary not only to support the enter-prises by the state in areas such as participation in trade fairs abroad, help in overcoming language barriers, such as in the creation of all kinds of products’ documentation, or the promotion of Polish products and the Polish image in the EU, but also through the promotion of patriotism and national pride, in order to get rid of the often unjustified complexes blocking successful foreign expansion.

An interesting observation is the fact that the studied fast growing Polish com-panies did not consider any aspect of the European antitrust rules as a factor af-fecting their growth in foreign markets. This may be due to the fact that most of the surveyed enterprises belonged to small or medium-sized companies, which in some areas are an exception to the rules of competition law. In addition, fast growing companies may be unaware of the limitations which may arise from the antitrust laws because they are often young companies, focusing on growth and development, and not on any limitations which may arise from gaining market power. The lack of expectations of support from the state, which could be in any way inconsistent with competition policy, can attest to the fact that Polish com-


panies are not accustomed to assistance from the state and therefore do not ex-pect it – and that their success is independent of any state help.

As it is clear from the foregoing, the present study has allowed to gather answers to the earlier questions referring to those factors stimulating internationalization and growth on foreign markets and those on the other hand impeding interna-tionalization. The provided findings shed additional light on these factors but there remain many unresolved issues that require further research. These should include an analysis of the long term perspective which does examine what are the factors positively influencing growth on foreign markets and what are the barriers to the internationalization to the fast growing firms coming from the developed and undeveloped countries. Moreover, it would be also interesting to examine how those factors which help and on the other hand impede interna-tionalization of fast growing firms look in the neighbouring and more distant countries (other continents), and what are the barriers to the expansion of more and less technologically advanced products. An important direction of research could be also to investigate the relationship between the need to protect competi-tion on the market and the striving of enterprises to enhance their international competitiveness and also on the desired range of state aid in the area of over-coming barriers to internationalization; however, not harming the competitive process. At the end, a very important and desired research direction is to com-pare all the above mentioned aspects of factors influencing the internationalisa-tion of fast growing firms with factors influencing the internationalisation of the rest of the Polish companies doing business on foreign markets, because this could provide important conclusions and indications about those factors causing that some companies perform better on foreign markets than others.

References

Adamou, A./Sasidharan, S. (2007): The impact of R&D and FDI on a firm's growth in emerging-developing countries: Evidence from Indian manufacturing industries, working paper 37/2008. India: Madras school of economics.

Agarwal, R. (1998): Small firm survival and technological activity, in: Small Business Economics, 11, 215-224.

Aldrich, H.Staber, U./Zimmer, C. (1990): Minimalism and organizational mortality: patterns of disbanding among US trade associations, 1900-1983, in: J.V. Singh (ed): Organizational Evolution. Sage, Newbury Park.

Almus, M./Nerlinger, E.A. (1999): Growth of new technology-based firms: Which factors matter? In: Small business economics, 13, 2, 141-154.

Almus, M./Engel, D./Nerlinger, E.A. (1999): Wachstumsdeterminanten junger Unternehmen in den alten und neuen Bundesländern: Ein Vergleich zwischen innovativen und nicht-innovativen Unternehmen, in: Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, 119: 561-592.

Andersson S./Wictor I. (2003): Innovative internationalisation in new firms: born globals – the Swedish case, in: Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1, 3.

Audretsch, D.B. (1995): Innovation and Industry Evolution. Cambridge: MITPress.


Autio, E./Kronlund, M./Kovalainen, A. (2007): High-Growth SME Support Initiatives in Nine Countries: Analysis, Categorization, and Recommendations, Report prepared for the Finish Ministry of Trade and Industry. Edita Publishing Ltd., Edita, Finland.

Aveni, R.A. (1994): Hypercompetition. Free Press, New York.

Bates, T. (1990): Entrepreneur human capital inputs and small business longevity, in: Review of Economics and Statistics,72, 551-559.

Bigsten, A./Gebreeyesus, M. (2007): The Small, the Young, and the Productive: Determinants of Manufacturing Firms Growth in Ethiopia, in: Economic Development & Cultural Change, 55, 4, 813-840.

Brouwer E./Kleinknecht A./Reijnen J. (1993): Employment growth and innovation at the firm level, in: Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 3, 153-159.

Bruederl, J./Preisendoerfer, P. (2000): Fast growing businesses. Empirical evidence from a German study, in: International Journal of Sociology, 30, 45-70.

Bruederl, J./Preisendoerfer, P./Ziegler, R. (1992): Survival chances of newly founded business organizations, in: American Sociological Review, 57, 227-242.

Coad, A. (2007): Testing the principles of 'growth of the fitter': the relationship between profits and firm growth, in: Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 18, 370-386.

Coad, A./Rao, R. (2008): Innovation and firm growth in high-tech sectors: A quantile regression approach, in: Research Policy, 37, 4, 633-648.

Coad, A./Rao, R. (2010): Firm growth and R&D expenditure, in: Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 19, 2, 127-145.

Corsino, M./Gabriele, R. (2011): Product innovation and firm growth: evidence from the integrated circuit industry, in: Industrial & Corporate Change, 20, 1, 29-56.

Daszkiewicz N. (2004): Internacjonalizacja małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw we współczesnej gospodarce. Gdańsk: Scientific Publishing Group.

Davidsson, P./Kirchhoff, B./Hatemi-J, A./Gustavsson, H. (2002): Empirical Analysis of Business Growth Factors Using Swedish Data, in: Journal of Small Business Management, 40, 4, 332-349.

Davidsson, P./Steffens, P./Fitzsimmons, J. (2009): Growing profitable or growing from profits: putting the cart before the horse, in: Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 4, 388-406.

Del Monte, A./Papagni, E. (2003): R&D and growth of firms: Empirical analysis of a panel of Italian firms, in: Research Policy, 32, 6, 1003-1014.

Delmar, F./Davidsson, P./Gartner, W.B. (2003): Arriving at the high-growth firm, in: Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 189-216.

Eisenhardt K./Sull, D. (2001): Strategy as Simple Rules, in: Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 106-116.

Eisenhardt, K./Schoonhoven, C. (1990): Organizational growth: linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988, in: Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 504-529.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989): Building theories from case study research, in: Academy of Man-agement Review, 14, 4, 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K. M./Santos. F. M. (2002): Knowledge-based view: A new theory of strategy? In: A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, R. Whittington (eds.): Handbook of strategy and management, 139-64. London: Sage Publications Ltd.


Fornalczyk, A. (2007): Biznes a ochrona konkurencji, Kraków: Oficyna Wolters Kluwer business.

Gallagher, C./Miller, P. (1991): New Fast growing Companies Create Jobs, in: Long Range Planning, 24, 1, 96-101.

Gupta, A. K./Govindarajan, V. (2000): Knowledge flow within multinational corporations, in: Strategic Management Journal 21, 473-96.

Harhoff, D./Stahl, K./Woywode, M. (1998): Legal form, growth and exit of West German firms – empirical results for manufacturing construction, trade and serviceindustries, in: The Journal of Industrial Economics 96: 453-89.

Jarosiński, M. (2013): Procesy i modele internacjonalizacji polskich przedsiębiorstw, Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza Szkoła Główna Handlowa.

Karra, N./Phillips, N. (2004). Entrepreneurship goes Global, in: Ivey Business Journal, 69, 1-6,

Keen, C./Etemad, H. (2012): Rapid growth and rapid internationalization: the case of smaller enterprises from Canada, in: Management Decision, 50, 4, 569-590.

Knight, G./Madsen, T.K./ Servais, P. (2004): An inquiry into born-global firms in Europe and the USA, in: International Marketing Review, 21, 6.

LeCompte, M./Preissle, J. (1993): Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research, 2nd ed. San Diego, Cal.: Academic Press.

Licht, G./Nerlinger, E. (1998): New technology based firms in Germany: a survey of the recent evidence, in: Research Policy, 26, 1005-1022.

Liu, W./Hsu, C. (2006): Financial Structure, Corporate Finance and Growth of Taiwan’s Manufacturing Firms, in: Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets & Policies 9, 1, 67-95.

Lumpkin, G. T./Dess, G. G. (1996): Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance, in: Academy of Management Review, 21, 1, 135-172.

Lumpkin, G. T./Dess, G. G. (2001): Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle, in: Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 5, 429-451.

Mateev, M./Anastasov, Y. (2010): Determinants of small and medium sized fast growing enterprises in central and eastern Europe, in: a panel data analysis Financial Theory and Practice 34, 3, 269-295.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005): Qualitative research design: An interactive approach’ (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Merriam, S.B. (1998): Qualitative Research and Case Studies Applications in Education’. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications.

Moen, O. (2000): SMEs and international marketing: investigating the difference in export strategy between firms of different size, in: Journal of Global Marketing, 13, 4, 7-28.

Moreno, A. M./Casillas, J. C. (2008): Entrepreneurial orientation and growth of SMEs: a causal model, in: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 3, 507-528.

Nikodemska-Wołowik, A.M. (2008): Klucz do zrozumienia nabywcy, Jakościowe badania marketingowe, Warszawa: Grupa Verde.

North, D./Smallbone, D. (1995): Employment generation and small business growth in different geographical environments, in: F. Chittenden, M. Robertson, I. Marshall (eds.): Small Firms: Partnership for Growth.London: PaulChapman.


Obłoj, K. (2007): Strategia organizacji. Warszawa: PWE.

Obłój, K. (2003): Strategie sukcesu: jak proste reguły pozwalają wygrywać, Harvard Business Review Polska 1 marzec.

Oliveira, B./Fortunato, A. (2006): Testing Gibrat’s Law: Empirical Evidence from Panel of Portuguese Manufacturing Firms, International Journal of Economics of Business, 13(1): 65-81.

Patton, M. Q. (1990): Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed., Newbury Park: Sage.

Pfaffermayr, M. (2004): Export orientation, foreign affiliates, and the growth of Austrian manufacturing firm, in: Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 54, 3, 411-423.

Schimke, A./Brenner, T. (2011): Long-run factors of firm growth – a study of German firms, working paper 21/2011, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, Germany.

Shepherd, D./Wiklund, J. (2009): Are we comparing apples with apples or apples with oranges? Appropriateness of knowledge accumulation of growth studies, in: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 1, 105-23.

Simon, H. (2009): Hidden Champions of the Twenty-First Century: The Success Strategies of Unknown World Market Leaders. London: Springer.

Sliwinski, R. (2011): Kluczowe czynniki międzynarodowej konkurencyjności przedsiębiorstw, Poznan: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu.

Sliwinski, R. (2012): Zasoby kształtujące konkurencyjność polskich przedsiębiorstw, in: Gospodarka Narodowa, 4, 248, 31-60.

Stiglitz, J. E./Weiss, A. (1981): Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information, in: The American Economic Review 71, 393-410.

Storey, D.J. (1994): Understanding the Small Business Sector. Thomson Business Press.

Urbanowska-Sojkin, E. (2013): Ryzyko w wyborach strategicznych w przedsiębiorstwach, Warszawa: PWE.

Variyam, J. N./Kraybill, D. S. (1992): Empirical evidence on determinants of firm growth, in: Economics Letters, 38, 31-6.

Wiklund, J./Shepherd, D.A. (2005): Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach, in: Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 1, 71-91.

Wiklund, J./Patzel, H./Shepherd, D. A., (2009): Building an integrative model of small business growth, in: Small Business Economics, 32, 4, 351-374.

Yin, R. K. (2003): Case study research, design and methods, 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

254 News/Information

Call for Papers

Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade

Euro-Asia Forum in Politics, Economics and Business

July 21-22, 2016

Belgrade, Serbia On behalf of the organizing committee, we would like to invite you to participate in our annual forum which will host well-known academics, journalists, consultants, and practitioners. We aim to become one of the hubs in the Euro-Asia region where participants present research in all major fields and subfields of economics, business, social and political sciences focusing specifically on the Euro-Asia region.

Euro-Asia Forum in Politics, Economics and Business - 2016 will take place on July 21 and 22, 2016 at the Faculty of Economics - University of Belgrade (FoE) in Belgrade, Serbia with the support of Eurasia Business and Economics Society and the Institute of Economics, Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences.

All the accepted abstracts will be published in the Forum Program and the Abstract Book (with an ISBN number). In addition, forum participants will have the opportunity to publish their papers in one of the following journals without publication fee: Eurasian Journal of Economics and Finance (EJEF), Eurasian Journal of Business and Management (EJBM), and Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences (EJSS). The papers will go through a fast blind peer-review process after the forum. All submitted full papers should follow the journals' guidelines. Also, selected papers will be published in Economic Annals Journal.

Abstract submission is open until April 30, 2016 and the registration deadline is June 8, 2016. Acceptance/rejection notifications will be sent to all submitters by May 8, 2016. Please send your abstracts or full papers via email.

JEEMS, 21(2) JEEMS-2016-02-News/Information 255

Call for Abstracts

International Association for Management Development in Dynamic Societies

My Solution to Educational Challenges in the Digital World

September 28-30, 2016

Tallinn, Estonia CEEMAN invites faculty members and researchers to participate in a pre-conference poster session to showcase their work related to the overall theme of the 24th CEEMAN Annual Conference: “Management Education for a Digital World”.

The aims of this new conference outlet are: (a) to raise the visibility of new, emerging or proven, successful pedagogical

innovations of faculty members at CEEMAN member and partner institutions

(b) to promote the exchange of new research findings and tools (c) to foster networking among faculty members and researchers (d) to create a new platform for publishing and disseminating research

findings, teaching materials and solutions

Sub-tracks: We encourage you to submit your proposal for a poster presentation in one or several of the following areas (sub-tracks):

1. Your teaching case study, which you have developed yourself and already use in your teaching practice;

2. Your research work, which may be a fundamental or an applied research project, or maybe your concrete, new research findings and but also has a clear reference to its application in management/business teaching;

3. Your teaching tool & technique, which you have developed or adopted with success on your course/program

4. Your other experience, which you would like to present, and has – like all the above - a relevance to the conference theme.

The potential contributors need to: 1. Submit their poster presentation description abstract by May 31, 2016 to

Prof. Zoltan Buzady, [email protected]. Your submission should indicate the sub-track of your poster, what is your poster presentation topic, what aspects you plan to present and how it relates to the conference theme. All submissions will be reviewed by a selection board for possible inclusion in the conference poster session. Notification of decision will be by June 30, 2016.


2. Prepare one paper poster or any other brief visual presentation (sized A1) about their pedagogical/research work, which will remain posted throughout the conference (Sept 28-30).

3. Present their ideas and proposal in an open session to other participants of the conference in about 20 mins on 28 September, 2016 (exact schedule to be provided closer to the conference).

4. Submit for publication a high-quality photo of their poster work and a final write up of their presentation (max two A4 pages; by October 14, 2016).

We recommend that each poster should include the following element: A clear statement informing by-walkers on ‘What is this poster about?’ An outline of the related topics or elements A recommendation where and how the proposal object can be used in

teaching/management education Your name, affiliation and contact

Please note that many tips and tricks on preparing a poster presentation are on the internet.

Conditions of participation: The cost of participation in the poster session only (without attending the 24th CEEMAN Annual Conference) is free of charge. All poster presenters are entitled to a 10% discount for attending the 24th CEEMAN Annual Conference (the fee covers attendance of all conference events, conference materials, coffee breaks, lunches and dinners, transportation between the venues as specified in the conference program. The fee does NOT cover travel, airport shuttle, accommodation, participation of accompanying persons, or sightseeing tour). For more information about the conference program, logistics and conditions, please visit: www.ceeman.org/conference.


Call for Papers

2nd Paper Development Workshop for PhD Students and Early Career Scholars in Central and Eastern Europe

(CEE)

Challenges in Managing and Organizing Processes of Change

October 27-28, 2016

Vilnius, Lithuania Mentors:

- Mike Geppert, Vice-Chair of EGOS, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Germany

- Frank den Hond, Editor-in-Chief, Organization Studies (OS), Hanken, Finland

- Davide Ravasi, OMT Division Program Chair-Elect and Consulting editor, Journal of Management Studies (JMS), Cass Business School, UK

- Thomas Steger, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of East European Management Studies (JEEMS), University of Regensburg, Germany

- Silviya Svejenova, Chair of EGOS, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

- Loreta Tauginiene, Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania

This joint paper development workshop (PDW) of EGOS, OS, and OMT, seeks to provide developmental opportunities for late stage PhD students and early career scholars who are based in the Central and Eastern Europe and do research in the field of organizational and management studies. The PDW aims to help participants develop their academic writing. It also seeks to increase participants’ awareness of the requirements, expectations, and procedures involved in the review processes at peer-reviewed academic journals through presentations and firsthand discussion with the editors of OS, JEEMS, and JMS.

In particular, we aim to support participants to develop their papers into conference papers to be submitted to the EGOS Colloquium in Copenhagen, July 6-8, 2017 or to the OMT Division of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management in Atlanta (Georgia), August 4-8, 2017. In addition, the best papers developed out of the workshop will have the opportunity to be considered for publication in the JEEMS, which "aims to promote the development, advancement and dissemination of knowledge about management issues in Central and East European countries”.

The workshop is free of charge. Food and accommodation will be provided to all selected participants. A limited number of travel grants will be offered


depending on needs and funds’ availability. Please indicate in your application if you would like to be considered for travel funding.

To be considered for the PDW, please submit a brief motivation letter explaining why you think you are a good candidate for the workshop, how you fit into overall aim and format of the planned PDW, in terms of stage of career and research. In your submission, please also include an extended abstract (of about 2.000 words) of a paper, which you would like to develop during the workshop. The abstract should include an explanation as to the purpose of the paper, the theoretical background and, for empirical papers, the methodological approach.

Applications should be sent by July 15th, 2016 to Loreta Tauginiene ([email protected]).

Submitters will be informed whether they have been accepted for participation in the PDW by August 15th, 2016.

All papers related to the broad conference theme are welcome. In addition, this year’s conference particularly solicits papers with a focus on regional clusters and international linkages of outward investment from emerging economies. There are significant opportunities for improving our understanding of the processes that drive, for instance, EMNCs location decisions or how EMNCs engage with local environments, and thus to advance theories of the multinational enterprise. Consequently, we invite empirical and theoretical work addressing these complex relationships between various firm, industry and country level drivers and EMNCs behavior.

♦♦♦ Call for Papers

Copenhagen Business School - Department of International Economics and Management

Emerging Multinationals: Outward Investment from Emerging Economies

October 27-28, 2016

Copenhagen, Denmark Overview This year’s conference welcomes all papers related to the broad conference theme of outward investment from emerging economies. In addition, the conference particularly invites papers related to regional clusters and international linkages.


Multinational companies from emerging economies (EMNCs) have become major players in the globalized world economy and wield growing influence on economic dynamics in developed, emerging, and developing countries alike. Firms and governments in developed countries increasingly need to engage with the array of challenges and opportunities presented by emerging-economy multinationals seeking access to their markets and assets. Important impacts of outward direct investment from emerging economies (OFDI) will also be felt in developing host countries, where investments from emerging economies are becoming more and more significant. No less important will be the effects in the home countries of the outward investing firms themselves. The rise of outward investment from emerging and developing countries requires further scrutiny theoretically, empirically and methodologically.

All papers related to the broad conference theme are welcome. In addition, this year’s conference particularly solicits papers with a focus on regional clusters and international linkages of outward investment from emerging economies. There are significant opportunities for improving our understanding of the processes that drive, for instance, EMNCs location decisions or how EMNCs engage with local environments, and thus to advance theories of the multinational enterprise. Consequently, we invite empirical and theoretical work addressing these complex relationships between various firm, industry and country level drivers and EMNCs behavior.

Topics The emergence of MNCs from emerging economies raises a wide range of challenges for theorists, business strategists, and policymakers alike. This year’s conference promotes ‘regional clusters and international linkages’ as a special but not exclusive theme.

How do upper-regional, national and subnational differences determine the concentration and diffusion of investment from emerging market multinationals within and across localities?

What are the dynamics of motives with which EMNCs invest abroad, which strategies do they pursue and which challenges do they face?

Can other factors beyond conventional distance provide explanatory power regarding the location of emerging market multinationals and geographic diversification?

Are location patterns and strategies of EMNCs qualitatively different from what we know from extant theories?

How do EMNCs interact with local environments and how do these engagements differ from those of developed country MNCs?

- Which HRM strategies do EMNCs deploy to engage with local labor forces?


How do industrial relations systems interact with EMNC strategies and strategy implementation?

How do subnational, national, regional and global industry effects interact to affect the behavior and performance of emerging market multinationals?

How do EMNCs impact on different types of host economies? How are costs and benefits distributed? How are benefits captured? Which new policy challenges do they introduce?

Do EMNCs differ from developed-country MNCs in terms of corporate governance and corporate social responsibility?

- What distinguishes international investment strategies by state-owned and privately owned EMNCs? Is government ownership enabler or liability in internationalization?

- Which are the roles of sovereign wealth funds? How does EMNC behavior vary between different industries and

why? How does the rise of EMNCs influence global competition in

different industries? Important dates Submission of paper deadline: 15 June Paper acceptance/rejection: 30 June Registration & submission of final paper: 30 September Conference: 27-28 October

Submission & publication Please email your paper to [email protected] as an MS Word or PDF document. Accepted papers will be uploaded to an electronic proceedings on the conference website.

As part of the conference, post-conference publication opportunities of submitted papers will be explored. We are currently negotiating with the International Journal of Emerging Markets building a special issue around the theme of the conference.

The previous conferences have produced special issues of Journal of International Management, International Journal of Technology Management, European Journal of Management, International Journal of Emerging Markets, International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, and Asia Pacific Journal of Management.

Conference fee The conference fee is EUR 250. The fee covers meals, refreshments and conference materials. The concluding dinner is an optional extra.


Organizing Committee Bersant Hobdari, Department of International Economics and

Management Peter Gammeltoft, Department of International Economics and

Management Confirmed Keynote Speakers

Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, Professor of International Business and Strategy, Robert Morrison Fellow, Northeastern University.

Grazia Santangelo, Jean Monnet Chair International Business for European Union, University of Catania.

Ilan Alon, University of Agder and Rollins College. Rajneesh Narula, The John H. Dunning Chair of International Business,

HenleyBusiness School, University of Reading. Ravi Ramamurti, Distinguished Professor of International Business and

Strategy Director, Center for Emerging Markets, Northeastern University.

Further information For further information contact: Bersant Hobdari Department of International Economics and Management Email: [email protected] Web: www.cbs.dk/int


Institute of East-Central Europe

Yearbook of the Institute of East‐Central Europe

Submission deadline: June 30, 2016 20 years following Poland’s membership in OECD, OECD and its influence on the exact shape and pace of economic transition and transformation in Poland remain under‐researched, whereas the role of OECD in influencing regulatory processes in the EU and beyond remain rarely discussed. OECD represents a unique form of international cooperation, operating in line with a logic best described as ‘noblesse oblige’ and therefore underpinned by processes of socialization, well‐founded advice, constructive discussion, enhanced analysis and peer‐pressure. OECD denotes soft ways of best‐practice sharing with regard to the design of regulatory frameworks necessary for improving the prospects of socio‐economic growth and development in its member‐states and beyond. To this end, OECD runs a variety of programs that offer its members the opportunity to exploit their unique areas of expertise and experience in line with


their strategic priorities. Given the multitude of problems and challenges that the broadly defined area of East‐Central Europe faces today, the frequently neglected potential inherent in OECD needs to be explored. The 20th anniversary of Poland’s membership in OECD presents itself as a unique opportunity to do so.

The Editors of the Special Issue of the Yearbook of the Institute of East‐Central Europe welcome paper proposals that address any of the issues highlighted above and in particular:

The role of OECD in defining the path of Poland’s transition and transformation

The relationship between the OECD and the EU in the fields of regulatory processes in the EU, including (but not limited to) such issues as corporate social responsibility, bribery and corruption, liberalization, competition policy etc.

“Daily‐life” in OECD: socialization, groups, committees, interests and preference formation

OECD, G20 and global governance Peer pressure and OECD’s effectiveness: limits and opportunities OECD and the design of economic policy strategies in the EU

member‐states Other

Prospective Authors are kindly asked to submit their paper proposals (300 words), including the Author’s name & affiliation, to the Editors of the Special Issue at: [email protected] until April 30, 2016. Selected Authors will be invited to submit the final drafts of their papers (6000 words including bibliography) until June 30, 2016. Please, contact the Editors in case of any questions.


Call for Papers

Human Relations

Politicization and political contests in contemporary multinational corporations

Submission deadline: September 30, 2016

Guest Editors: 1) Stewart Clegg (UTS, Sydney, Australia) 2) Mike Geppert (Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany) 3) Graham Hollinshead (University of Hertfordshire, UK)

Submission deadline: 30 September 2016. Papers should not be submitted before 01 September 2016.

Objective It is perplexing that mainstream studies, particularly in the domains of international business and economics, have either neglected to discuss issues of power and politics in multinational corporations (MNCs) or have addressed them in a rather one dimensional and rationalistic fashion, narrowly focusing on managerial, functional or transactional ideas.

There is now, however, a growing and welcome recognition of the observations made by more critical scholars that MNCs constitute inherently political institutional entities. Socio-political studies of MNCs draw long-overdue attention to the conceptual primacy of a concern with the interests, ideologies, identities and careers of key actors entangled within the social fabric of the politicized corporation?s power relations, and also outside its formal boundedness (Geppert and Dörrenbächer, 2014). Recent theoretical departures in the field are casting incisive light on the micro-political determinants of the social construction of the MNC (Morgan and Kristensen, 2006; Becker-Ritterspach et al., 2015) and in particular show that the power relations and constitution of interests on the part of the actors concerned have a fundamental impact on the transfer of employment practices within MNCs (Ferner et al., 2012). Other studies point to the crucial role of increased competition and its impact both on organizational politics (Becker-Ritterspach and Dörrenbächer, 2011) and conflicts within the MNC (Blazejewski and Becker-Ritterspach, 2011), demonstrating that the MNC constitutes a fundamentally contested terrain (Edwards and Bélanger, 2009).

Accordingly, this special issue intends to deepen the above discussions by capturing new developments within contemporary MNCs, based on macro-level challenges, including issues such as financialization, global production networks (GPNs) and the emergence of new types of MNCs originating from emerging market economies. Moreover, we are interested in contributions that apply new


conceptual and methodological approaches that will illuminate everyday processes within contemporary MNCs, researching political contestation and politicization, utilizing approaches such as critical realism, discourse and ethnomethodological analysis, actor network and structuration theory as well as critical institutionalist approaches. In seeking to unravel the dynamics of power relations in the contemporary MNC (Andersson and Holm, 2010), we are particularly interested in extending critical institutionalist theory building (Munir, 2015) focused primarily on actors in order to place power and politics centre-stage. In particular, we suggest that there are fruitful encounters for critical approaches that analyse the social construction and deconstruction of structures and institutions of the MNC as a site of socio-political contestation.

Scope, aims and themed questions The special issue aims to bring to the fore the ubiquity of power relations in modern MNC organizations. Previous scholarly contributions in the field of international business and related areas have tended to regard power as being stored in external institutional, or internal organizational structures. By contrast, the point of departure of the current call regards power in the MNC as being primarily relational, manifested as a product of continuously socially constructed relationships between key actors, flowing through different circuits (Clegg 1989; Clegg et al., 2006). The premise that MNC organization and management are fundamentally politicized is of considerable significance from a scholarly perspective, as it serves to breach the disciplinary shackles that have obscured meaningful insight into MNC praxis.

The study of politicization and political contests in contemporary MNCs raises questions about the role of identities and ideologies of primary stakeholders as well as the dominant external social and economic relations that contribute to the formation of normative and structural orders within international corporations. Accordingly, we look for papers that shed light on the emergence of a transnational capital class which shares a common set of elite interests and is engaged in a regime of global capital accumulation (see e.g. Carroll, 2010; Murray and Scott, 2012). Similarly we wish to attract studies that consider the patterns of domination resulting from post- or neo-colonialism and the pervasive financialization of capitalist societies pertinent to comprehending the shaping of power relationships between HQs and subsidiaries.

Related to the former, our special issue aims to address questions that include the power of MNCs in relation to the host countries in which their subsidiaries are based, relations that are often described as asymmetrical (Clark and Geppert, 2006) or hegemonic (Levy 2008), notably in the context of emerging economies. Within newly emerging transnational social spaces (Morgan, 2001) power relations are being constructed through the relational interplay of various transnational actors, elites, devices and discourses. We wish to explore the role of key actors, their conflicting perceptions and sensemaking, the powerful boundaries that they construct to constrain social and economic relations,


manage resistances to change, channel the powers of knowledge flows and innovation and deploy dominant ideologies. In addition, the national and transnational institutions operating to constitute power and political behaviour in MNCs require consideration.

The special issue will place emphasis on various forms of contemporary MNCs in both service and manufacturing sectors. Here we are in particular interested in new empirical studies focusing on the impact of GPNs (Kaplinsky, 2000) through which MNCs project systems of governance to co-ordinate and control networks of production across socially embedded and regionally dispersed organizational units. In accord with Levy (2008) we believe that GPNs are reflective of an era of transnational development in which not only that which is produced and consumed has become commodified through neo-liberal discourses but also the organizations engaged in these processes and relations. We would therefore encourage submissions that concentrate on new evolutions in the socially constructed international division of labour as well scholarly reflections on how GPNs and contemporary MNC constructions have served to perpetuate hegemonic and neo-colonial tendencies.

Additionally, this special issue should attract contributions that concentrate on newly emerging political contests (Edwards and Bélanger, 2009); for instance, those between the groups of actors occupying various social spaces manifesting the politicization of MNCs at local, national and international levels (Ferner et al., 2012). Submissions that study MNCs headquartered in emerging economies are particularly welcome. Papers might concentrate on pressing issues such as how multi-layered dominance effects between headquarters and subsidiaries are played out across unchartered institutional and geographical spaces and whether qualitatively different forms of resistance are encountered when the subsidiaries are embedded in a more robust and mature institutional environment than the parent.

Finally, another vital line of inquiry for submissions would relate to the question of how contemporary MNCs are divided and politicized on the basis of discursive orientations adopted by constituent groups according to differential linguistic capabilities (Riad, 2005; Vaara et al., 2005). Papers might draw on recent discursive departures in the study of MNCs but also cast some new and more radical theoretical light on MNC organization, placing social actors at the centre of debate, drawing upon a full range of social science disciplines to engender critical insight and empirically informed discussion.

Given these considerations, we seek submissions from a wide range of social science disciplines for potential contributions, e.g. from sociology, political economy, social psychology, economic geography, organization theory, organizational behaviour, international management, human resource management and industrial relations.


We welcome conceptual and empirical contributions that critically explore, but are not limited to, any of the following themed questions:

What are the meanings of power, politics and politicization within different contemporary and historical contexts of MNCs?

How does the existence of a transnational business elite have an impact on the normative frames available to contemporary MNCs?

What is the impact of financialization on power and political processes in contemporary MNCs?

What are the micro-political consequences of global standardized management approaches in local plants?

What is the nature of micro-political game playing across the contemporary MNC? Do we find new games played in MNCs originating from emerging economies?

How do global production networks (GPNs) and similar modern MNC constructions, manifest asymmetry/unequal power relations across constituent elements?

Can western conceptual constructs be generalised across non-western societies? If not, what changes in theorising and methods for the study of the politicised MNC are needed?

Contributors should note: This call is open and competitive, with the submitted papers being subject

to double-blind review by experienced scholars in the field. Submitted papers must be based on original material not accepted for

publication by, or under consideration for publication with, any other journal or publication outlet.

For empirical papers based on data sets from which multiple papers have been generated, authors must provide the guest editors with copies of all other papers based on the same data to ensure a unique intellectual contribution is being made.

The guest editors will select a limited number of papers to be included in the special issue. Other papers submitted to the special issue may be considered for publication in other issues of the journal at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. To be considered for this special issue, submissions must fit with the Aim and Scope of Human Relations (http://www.tavinstitute.org/humanrelations/about_journal/aims.html) as well as this call for papers. · Papers should also adhere to the submission requirements: http://www.tavinstitute.org/humanrelations/submit_paper.html · Papers should be submitted through the online system: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hr


Please indicate in your covering letter that your article is intended for this special issue. Please direct questions about the submission process, or any administrative matter, to the Editorial Office: [email protected].


International Journal of Emerging Markets (IJoEM)

Global Value Chains, International Trade, and Markets: The Role of Emerging Economies

Submission deadline: February 15, 2017 Global supply chains are continually evolving and transforming the way, emerging world economies do business with their developed counterparts. Developing nations are joining forces with developed nations through these rapidly transforming global value chains (GVCs) without investing in building their own; thus saving time, money and gaining access to technological innovations. Today, developing countries are exerting greater influence globally, economically and politically, given the power of GVCs. Through international organizations, such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), GVCs lead the way for shaping international trade, governance, production, employment, growth, development and competitiveness. Global economy is entering a "major inflection point", whereby GVCs are becoming increasingly predominant in both emerging and industrialized countries, and emerging economies have become a major engine of growth for global businesses and international trade.

In this special issue of the IJoEM, we invite submissions focused on supply chains as value chains in emerging (versus developed) economies, international trade, and interrelationships amongst logistics, supply chain management and global trade. We welcome submissions that offer important conceptual and empirical insights into the nature and processes of value chains, GVCs, GVC approaches and frameworks in different world economies, channel development and management, geographical collaborations, and global supply (value) chains. Of interest are papers that examine the impact of cross-cultural issues, characteristics, and challenges with regard to GVCs; institutional, political and regulatory factors on supply chain management issues; and the effects of institutional changes on IB discipline and supply chain processes with regard to emerging world economies.


Potential Topics of Interest (among others) We welcome papers within the broadly defined subject theme area from all the major disciplines in business and management studies, including: strategy, international business, organizational behavior and cross-cultural management, marketing, operations and decision sciences, finance and accounting, international trade and business economics. Potential topics include, but are not limited to:

Global supply (value) chains in developed vs emerging markets The role of institutions in promoting or constraining GVCs in emerging

markets Factors impacting the geographic clustering of internationalization efforts

for GVCs worldwide (developed as well as emerging economies) The impact of technology, innovation, institutions, industrialization,

internationalization and governance on GVCs with regard to developing and developed economies

The effect of internationalization on GVCs within a company, country or geographic region

Cross-cultural collaboration and managerial mindset needed in GVC efforts

Theoretical and Empirical contributions to the field of GVCs, institutions, international trade, and emerging markets

Deadlines, Submission Guidelines and Editors' Information The special issue will feature the best papers from the Academy of International Business Southeast (AIB-SE) chapter meeting to be held in November 2016 (2016 AIB-SE Conference CFP: http://www.aibse.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-CfP-AIBSE-April-.pdf and Conference Submission System:http://meetings.aib.msu.edu/us-se/2016/) as well as submissions in response to the general call for papers. Based on editorial review, top rated papers will be invited to go through additional peer review to be considered for publication. Manuscripts for the special issue should be submitted through the IJoEM website:http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijoem.

The deadline for submissions is February 15, 2017.

For general submission guidelines, see: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=ijoem For additional information on the 2016 AIB-SE Conference, see: http://www.aibse.org/2016-annual-conference

Documents

Journal of East European Management Studies …doctorat.feaa.uaic.ro/secretariat/Lists/AnunuriEvenimente...Journal of East European Management Studies ... The main aim of the Journal