Asymmetries in Firm-Level Globalization: The Case of Swiss Multinational Enterprises
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper addresses the regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises (MNEs), with an application to the largest Swiss companies. We extend Rugman and Verbeke’s (2004) classic approach to measure MNE globalization by adopting a multidimensional lens, whereby we focus on four distinct parameters that evaluate respectively: market success across geographic space (proxied by sales); investments as a response to foreign business opportunities (proxied by assets); human capital (as proxied by the employees’ geographic distribution); and knowledge capital (as measured by patented innovations). We observe substantial discrepancies in globalization levels according to the parameter used. According to this study, the largest segment of companies (42.1%) remains home-regional in terms of sales. Bi-regional firms constitute the second largest category, comprising 28.9% of the sample. Only 21.1% of the companies can be classified as global in terms of sales distribution. Upstream activities such as knowledge capital seem to be more home-region oriented than downstream activities. One critical conclusion of this study is that not a single large Swiss MNE can be considered global in terms of knowledge capital creation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it