Co‐parenting through subsidiaries: A model of value creation in the multinational firm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Summary We analyze a novel way to configure and manage multinational networks and propose a model of “co‐parenting,” characterized by the sharing of parenting roles and distribution of responsibilities between two units. We develop our argument around the notion of the springboard subsidiary, an operating subsidiary that assumes headquarters’ functions since it shares greater institutional closeness with both the headquarters’ country as well as with the host region. Based upon qualitative data, our inductive model revolves around three stages: establishment, consolidation, and maturity, each of which reflects distinct roles and loci of decision making among the three actors involved: headquarters, springboard subsidiary, and local subsidiary. Overall, our study sheds distinct light on when and how headquarters add value by matching parenting to context. Managerial Summary In expanding across regions, multinational firms often face a situation where neither the local unit nor the corporate headquarters possesses the competencies to be at the competitive forefront. This article analyzes a model of interregional expansion of multinational firms by using springboard subsidiaries—operating subsidiaries that can serve as a bridge between headquarters and local subsidiaries since they share institutional and business ties with both. We develop a model in which some parenting functions—coordination, control, and knowledge creation—are distributed between headquarters and the springboard subsidiary along an accumulative process of capabilities. By demonstrating how a springboard subsidiary can help align control to context, the model offers a tool for strategic analysis that helps avoid potential value destruction by headquarters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".