Multinationals' response to major disasters: how does subsidiary investment vary in response to the type of disaster and the quality of country governance?

277 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Not All Sparks Light a Fire: Stakeholder and Shareholder Reactions to Critical Events in Contested Markets (2017, background): “…2006; David, Bloom, and Hillman, 2007), strikes (e.g., Meyer, 1982), government-initiated contract renegotiations (e.g., Moran, 1973; Guasch, Laffont, and Straub, 2007), environmental campaigns (e.g., Reid and Toffel, 2009), and violent attacks on corporate property (e.g., Oh and Oetzel, 2011).”
Once bitten twice shy? Experience managing violent conflict risk and MNC subsidiary-level investment and expansion (2017, methodology): “We used firm-level, country-level, and home–host country pair-level control variables known to influence MNCs’ entry, expansion, or survival (e.g., Holburn and Zelner, 2010; Oh and Oetzel, 2011).”
Caught in the crossfire: Dimensions of vulnerability and foreign multinationals' exit from war‐afflicted countries (2017, unknown): “theory on important dimensions of firm vulnerability and delivers prescriptions for managing other external threats, such as natural disasters, disease outbreaks and mega events (Oh and Oetzel, 2011; Tilcsik and Marquis, 2013).”
International business responses to institutional voids (2017, background): “We know little about the risks created by systemic institutional failures and their effects on international business, despite some scholarly effort to understand them (Oh & Oetzel, 2011).”