TY - GEN A1 - Steinberg, Philip J. A1 - Sofka, Wolfgang A1 - Peeters, Thijs A1 - Procher, Vivien D. A1 - Urbig, Diemo T1 - Providing Contract Research Services and Firms’ Own Product Innovation Performance T2 - Academy of Management Proceedings N2 - Extant literature has largely assumed that firms providing research services to other firms as an inventor-for-hire will do so at the expense of developing their own product innovations. Given this assumption, it is surprising that many firms provide research services to other firms without compromising their own flow of product innovations. In this study, we provide a systematic logic that connects the inventor-for-hire services that firms provide to others with the firms’ own product innovation performance. We hypothesize that opportunistic gains from providing contract research eventually enable firms to increase their product innovation performance. Furthermore, we suggest that this increase will be stronger for technology leaders and will be weaker for firms with a strong engagement in basic research. We test our hypotheses on a panel of 1,006 firms over 2005 to 2013 and find support for our hypotheses. Y1 - 2019 UR - https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.19667abstract U6 - https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.19667abstract SN - 2151-6561 VL - Vol. 2019 IS - 1 ER - TY - GEN A1 - Steinberg, Philip J. A1 - Urbig, Diemo A1 - Procher, Vivien D. A1 - Volkmann, Christine T1 - Knowledge transfer and home-market innovativeness: A comparison of emerging and advanced economy multinationals T2 - Journal of International Management N2 - Emerging market multinational enterprises (EMNEs) increasingly access foreign technology and knowledge by internationalizing their R&D activities. Since technological laggardness hinders efficient knowledge transfer, a successful catch-up with advanced-economy multinational enterprises (AMNEs) requires EMNEs to transfer foreign knowledge across national boundaries more effectively. However, we lack a clear understanding of how EMNEs manage this knowledge transfer and integration and to what extent the employment and effectiveness of corresponding facilitation mechanisms may differ from AMNEs. Adopting a sender-recipient model and drawing on arguments from learning theory and transaction costs economics, we suggest that EMNEs benefit more from and, consequently, are more likely to engage in mechanisms to increase recipient capabilities and sender motivation. In a comparative analysis of Chinese, Indian, German, and U.S. MNEs and focusing on frequent international exchange of R&D personnel regarding recipient capabilities and the governance of foreign R&D activities regarding sender motivation, we observe positive relationships with home-market innovation for EMNEs, but not for AMNEs. Moreover, we observe that EMNEs exploit this positive effect and are more likely to use these mechanisms when focusing on technology- than on market-seeking. KW - Innovation KW - Research and development KW - catch-up strategies KW - knowledge transfer KW - knowledge integration KW - emerging market KW - multinational enterprises KW - technological upgrading Y1 - 2021 UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075425321000533 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2021.100873 SN - 1075-4253 VL - 27 IS - 4 ER - TY - GEN A1 - Urbig, Diemo A1 - Procher, Vivien D. A1 - Steinberg, Philip J. A1 - Volkmann, Christine T1 - The role of firm-level and country-level antecedents in explaining emerging versus advanced economy multinationals' R&D internationalization strategies T2 - International Business Review N2 - We examined firm-level and country-level antecedents of R&D internationalization strategies, focusing on differences between enterprises in emerging and advanced economies. Previous research often focuses on the relative importance of home-base-exploiting versus home-base-augmenting knowledge transfer strategies. We suggest that country-level and firm-level effects differ for the two strategies, and hence, we examined each strategy independently. Collecting data in China, India, the United States, and Germany, we demonstrated that firms' relative technological position as a firm-level characteristic can explain differences in home-base-exploiting strategies between emerging and advanced economies. In contrast, home-base-augmenting is more closely related to exploratory institutional environments, a country-level factor. Thus, either firm- or country-level antecedents can gain a dominant role, depending on the strategy implemented. KW - Emerging-economy multinational companies KW - Institutional environment KW - Home-base-exploiting KW - Home-base-augmenting KW - Innovation KW - R&D Internationalization Y1 - 2022 UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969593121001724 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101954 SN - 0969-5931 VL - 31 IS - 3 SP - 1 EP - 14 ER - TY - GEN A1 - Steinberg, Philip J. A1 - Urbig, Diemo A1 - Procher, Vivien D. T1 - Too much or too little of R&D offshoring: The impact of captive offshoring and contract offshoring on innovation performance T2 - Research Policy N2 - Innovating firms may acquire foreign knowledge and improve their innovation performance by offshoring their R&D activities to their own foreign affiliates (captive offshoring) as well as by contracting out their R&D to external foreign parties (contract offshoring). This study examines the impact of both R&D offshoring strategies on innovation performance. Based on a panel dataset of 2421 R&D-active firms in Germany, we demonstrate that captive offshoring and contract offshoring differ fundamentally in their impact on firm innovation performance. At low degrees of offshoring, contract offshoring positively affects innovation performance and is preferable over captive offshoring. At larger degrees of offshoring, captive offshoring becomes more beneficial while contract offshoring is disadvantageous. Both offshoring strategies eventually harm innovation performance when excessively employed. Furthermore, the R&D offshoring-performance relationship is leveraged by R&D intensity, such that firms with a larger knowledge stock benefit stronger from both captive and contract offshoring. KW - R&D offshoring KW - Innovation KW - Contract offshoring KW - Captive offshoring KW - R&D intensity Y1 - 2017 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.08.008 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.08.008 SN - 1873-7625 VL - 46 IS - 10 SP - 1810 EP - 1823 ER -