Risk of marginalization in the process of internationalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the process of internationalization and its associated risk of marginalization for the emerging Chinese multinationals; also to examine typical strategies emerging Chinese multinationals employ to deal with this challenge in order to provide insights for Chinese firms that are planning to enter the global market. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of Chinese multinationals that are listed in the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, this study conducts a multiple‐case analysis on three different Chinese multinationals to explore their experiences in the process of internationalization and their unique approaches to the risk of marginalization. Findings The results show that internationalized Chinese firms are strengthening their control over core businesses, designing effective corporate governance policy and adjusting their capital structure to increase their actual control in order to minimize the risk of marginalization accompanying their internationalization process. Originality/value While an increasing number of Chinese firms are on a fast track of internationalization to enter the global market, the risk of marginalization has become a prominent concern for emerging multinationals and many newly internationalized Chinese firms are faced with a crisis of identity, and consequently they may be marginalized, with the risk of losing control over their own companies and being excluded from major government projects or significant R&D funding opportunities in China. This paper explores Chinese firms' risk of marginalization in their internationalization process and their approaches to dealing with this risk. The paper's findings will provide important insights for Chinese firms that plan to go international and will make an important contribution to the literature and enrich our understanding of Chinese multinationals and their strategic expansion in the era of globalization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".