The spectrum of interorganizational relationships and social capital mobilization of MNEs

The spectrum of interorganizational relationships and social capital mobilization of MNEs Diversidad de Relaciones Inter- Organizativas y la Movilizaci on del Capital Social de MNEs Ignacio Castro-Abanc ens, Crist obal Casanueva and  Angeles Gallego Administraci on de Empresas y Marketing, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain Abstract Purpose –Multinational enterprises (MNEs) establish a wide range of alliances to access the critical resources that they may need at any one time. Although inter-organizational relationships (IORs) constitute the channels through which social capital flows, MNEs should consider which mechanisms or characteristics of the relations facilitate their actual mobilization. Design/methodology/approach –A definition of alliance types yielded the parameters for an ordinary least squares regression of a sample from top global-reach MNEs from the airline industry. Findings –The results showed that certain kind of alliances favored the actual mobilization of social capital. Practical implications –Managers of MNEs must select the type of IOR taking into account the objective they pursue and the type of activity they will include. Originality/value –Analyzing the factors that influence the degree of mobilization of social capital and how MNEs actually use the resources of the partners require the establishment of a theoretical framework and the development of empirical evidence. Keywords Social capital mobilization, Types of alliances, Multilateral alliances, Governance mechanisms Paper type Research paper Resumen Prop osito –las Empresas Multinacionales (MNEs) establecen una amplia gama de alianzas para acceder a los recursos cr ıticos externos que puedan necesitar en cualquier memento. Las MNEs deben considerar qu e mecanismos o caracter ısticas de las relaciones facilitan su movilizaci on real. Dise~ no/metodolog ıa/enfoque –una definici on de los tipos de alianza produjo los par ametros para una regresi on de m ınimos cuadrados ordinarios de una muestra de las principales MNEs de alcance global de la industria de las aerol ıneas. Resultados –Los resultados mostraron que ciertos tipos de alianzas favorecieron la movilizaci on real del capital social. Social capital mobilization of MNEs 353 JEL Classification —M15, M16 © Ignacio Castro-Abanc ens, Crist obal Casanueva and  Angeles Gallego. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/ legalcode Funding: This research was supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovaci on of Spain (PID2021- 126358NB-I00). The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1012-8255.htm Received 23 March 2023 Revised 12 July 2023 Accepted 19 July 2023 Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administraci on Vol. 36 No. 3, 2023 pp. 353-370 Emerald Publishing Limited 1012-8255 DOI 10.1108/ARLA-03-2023-0043 Originalidad/valor –Analizar los factores que influyen en el grado de movilizaci on del capital social y c omo las MNEs utilizan en la pr actica los recursos de sus socios, requiere del establecimiento de un marco te orico y el desarrollo de evidencia emp ırica. Palabras clave Movilizaci on capital social, Tipos de alianzas, Alianzas multilaterales, Mecanismos de gobierno Tipo de papel Trabajo de investigaci on 1. Introduction Over recent years, the intense volatility of competitive business environments has provoked a common strategic response among MNEs, which is to establish inter-organizational relationships (IORs), such as joint ventures, minority equity alliances, R&D contracts, joint R&D, joint production, joint marketing and promotion, enhanced supplier partnership, distribution agreements, licensing agreements and other agreements (Das and Teng, 2000; Gulati, 1995). Their aim is to create value by sharing and exchanging resources with the objective of achieving a competitive advantage (Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos, 2011). Some scholars have conveniently defined these network resources in opposition to internal resources (Gulati, 2007;Lavie, 2007). This exchange of resources implies that firms should not only have access to the resources of their partners, but should also be capable of mobilizing those resources (Gulati et al., 2011). Consequently, Gulati et al. (2011, p. 209) pointed out that “a related stream of research has viewed the network as a form of social capital”;“social capital thus comprises both the network and the assets that may be mobilized through that network” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998, p. 243). Access to and mobilization of social capital constitute two different concepts or processes (Casanueva et al., 2014). The relatively intense relations of partners and their positions within the network structure of IORs yield access to social capital. However, not all the social capital to which they have access is finally mobilized by the focal firm. In the organizational context, there are different criteria for classifying IORs. One of the main criteria used in the literature is the nature of the agreement, which is closely linked to the governance mode. Thus, Gulati (1995) pointed out that cooperative agreements may be classified, on the one hand, as equity alliances (which imply sharing capital stakes in the firms in an effective way with the possibility or otherwise of creating an independent entity); and, on the other hand, as non-equity alliances (which implies no capital exchange); between both extremes would be the inter-organizational networks such as multipartner alliances, formal constellations or consortia, which are important to identify in order to explain global competition in many industries. Another criterion widely used in the literature would be the objective and scope of the relationship, which is closely linked to the quality of ties (Gulati et al., 2011). In this way, the application of both criteria and dimensions allows the identification and classification of a wide spectrum of IORs. In conclusion, beginning with this market-to-hierarchy continuum and following the line of investigation that Gulati et al. (2011) proposed for social networks researchers, particularly when considering the quality of ties, we may study whether the actual mobilization of social capital depends on the type of IORs that the focal actor establishes with its partners. Therefore, we identify a gap in the literature on the factors that influence the degree of social capital mobilization and how MNEs actually use the resources of their partners. There is no established theoretical framework on this topic and empirical evidence is scarce. With the aim of partially covering this gap, we establish two main research objectives: first, we analyze how different types of alliance classified according to two dimensions (1. Governance mode; 2. Relational quality of ties) influence the mobilization of social capital; second, we analyze if the intensity of values in these two dimensions causes a greater or lesser mobilization of social capital. In this way, we seek to respond to investigative questions ARLA 36,3 354 proposed by some authors with regard to whether organizations that establish formal functions to manage IORs have a greater capacity for social capital mobilization and the way that specific types of link affect that mobilization (Gulati et al., 2011). Furthermore, the mobilization of social capital is critical when MNEs operate globally (Hatani and McGaughey, 2013). At an empirical level, the results of our study showed that the characteristics of the IORs in terms of the mode of governance and the relational quality of the ties affect the real mobilization of social capital. The structure of this paper is as follows: In the following section, we performed a review of the literature before formulating a set of hypotheses. We then present and discuss the results of our empirical analysis of network information taken from 214 airlines. Finally, we conclude the study with a discussion of the results, both their implications and limitations, and set out future research lines. 2. Theoretical background and hypotheses 2.1 Mobilization of social capital: having versus using social capital As noted above, Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) state that social capital comprises the resources available through an actor’s relationships; these authors emphasize the importance of mobilizing resources in the conceptualization of social capital. Furthermore, some authors identified social capital as a potentially important source of competitive advantage for all organizations (Adler and Kwon, 2002). Kwon and Adler (2014) pointed to various studies, specifically sociological studies and personal social networks, where a distinction has been established in recent years between having social capital and using social capital. Thus, many researchers previously considered that simply having social capital, that is, having access to a network of contacts and, therefore, to network resources, was enough to achieve an advantage. However, recent studies have shown that this hypothesis is frequently not supported by empirical tests, showing that access to social capital does not guarantee its use or mobilization. Access to or “having”social capital has traditionally been used as a proxy for its mobilization (Koka and Prescott, 2002). The concept of mobilization has been put to various uses in the field of management, without any clear distinction between access to external resources or their mobilization (Acquaah, 2007;Finch et al., 2012;Kumar, 2010). In the organizational field, and with certain reservations over the transference of ideas and concepts from personal to inter-organizational networks, Gulati et al. (2011) pointed to three mechanisms through which social capital creates value: reach, richness, and receptivity. Receptivity is the mechanism that enables the mobilization of social capital and is highly dependent on the quality of the links (trust, commitment, multiplexity). Meanwhile, Kwon and Adler (2014) in developing their folk schema of Opportunity, Motivation and Ability (OMA), distinguished between “having”social capital and “using”social capital. Therefore, access to social capital constitutes a necessary but not sufficient condition; this implies that “Access, consequently, does not guarantee mobilization.”Following the OMA scheme of Kwon and Adler (2014), opportunity reflects the structural dimension of social capital, but the real mobilization of that social capital requires of motivation, which is determined by key sources such as: norms, values, trust and belonging to the community. For their part, Gulati et al. (2011) related the mobilization process with the quality of the ties, through the mechanism of receptivity. Consequently, the higher the levels of motivation or receptivity, the greater the mobilization of social capital. Therefore, social capital mobilization is likely to generate the possibility of actually using partner resources, absorbing and fusing them and integrating them into the focal firm’s own endowment of resources, its bargaining power with partners, its relationships that are socially close to those partners, etc. (Gulati et al., 2011). Consequently, part of the literature has Social capital mobilization of MNEs 355 shown evidence that it is precisely this mobilization or actual use of social capital that should lead to an increase in organizational success and performance. With the purpose of studying the process of social capital mobilization in greater depth, Mariotti and Delbridge (2012) established a typology of network ties, adding to the types of links previously identified by Granovetter (1985). These ideas indicate that the possibilities of mobilizing or actually using social capital are conditioned by the characteristics of the ties between the partners (Gulati et al., 2011). In that sense, cooperative IORs present a wide variety of types of ties between partners that can be of greater or lesser intensity or quality (Gulati et al., 2011). Therefore, different forms of IORs or alliances between MNEs can lead to different degrees of social capital mobilization and actual use, which, as we noted above, is critical when the firms operate globally. 2.2 Types of alliances and mobilization of social capital Figure 1 shows a typology or spectrum of IORs based on two relevant dimensions: (1) Governance mode: refers to how inter-organizational transactions are organized, one of the most relevant issues being understanding when IOR partners will choose equity or contractual (non-equity alliances) governance modes (Globerman and Nielsen, 2007;Grandori and Soda, 1995). Between both intermediate points, there would be hybrid government mechanisms linked to inter-organizational networks (such as global alliances or multilateral alliances). Thus, Doz (2019) notes that each of these multilateral alliances is essentially relying on various contractual agreements and does not involve equity investments at the level of joint ventures would. However, they do establish administrative structures dedicated to the management of this type of alliance, on certain occasions. Thus, this type of multilateral alliance requires a lower level of alliance-specific investment and consequently constitutes low cospecialization alliances, than equity alliances (Doz, 2019). Finally, the choice of the above governance modes will be influenced by the relational dimension that we are going to consider in the next dimension (2), because the relational quality of the ties will be closely linked to the establishment of government mechanisms of a contractual/formal nature or of a relational/informal nature. (2) Relational quality of ties: which represents different options in the nature of the cooperative IORs agreements depending on its scope and objective and whose interaction with receptivity enable it to take full advantage of social capital and their value (Gils and Zwart, 2004;Gulati et al., 2011;Polonsky et al., 2011). Consequently, the receptivity of this MNE depends first and mainly on the quality of its ties to partners, which facilitates the mobilization of social capital. Gulati et al. (2011) argue that quality of ties is a function of three factors: (1) inter-organizational trust; (2) degree of commitment; (3) multiplexity that is the extent to which two actors are linked by multiple ties simultaneously (Carpenter et al., 2012). 2.3 Tactical versus strategic alliances The application of these two dimensions will give rise to two major typologies of alliances: tactical versus strategic. Accordingly, researchers point out that there are relevant characteristics that differentiate strategic from tactical alliances (Polonsky et al., 2011; Rich, 2003). On the one hand, tactical alliances are characterized as short-term agreements, which imply scarce little organizational implication, due to the few organizational changes that they usually require and the intensity of their cooperation that is not usually very high (Polonsky et al., 2011). These agreements, which are oriented towards an ad hoc objective, are usually ARLA 36,3 356 non-equity alliances and demand no investments in co-specialized assets (Gimeno, 2004), such as dedicated administrative structures (Globerman and Nielsen, 2007). Garette and Dussauge (2000) classify joint purchasing, sale/marketing and distribution activities as tactical alliances. On the other hand, alliances of a strategic nature are cooperative agreements where the partners contribute certain complementary or supplementary resources and capabilities with the purpose of achieving mutually-beneficial objectives (Polonsky et al., 2011). The management of this type of alliance must entail a vision and an approach beyond shortterm earnings, and it has to imply proactive development and long-term objectives (Gils and Zwart, 2004;Rich, 2003). Likewise, partners share critical knowledge and/or other key resources of a tangible and an intangible nature, with the purpose of reaching, sustaining and improving the competitive positions of the MNE. Hence, unlike tactical alliances, this type of alliance usually and very frequently requires irreversible organization-wide changes, agreements of exclusivity, and they set higher exit barriers (Polonsky et al., 2011). 2.3.1 Tactical-non-equity alliances and social capital mobilization. These types of alliance are close to arm-length relations due to the scarce organizational effort they consume Figure 1. Typology of interorganizational alliances and social capital mobilization Social capital mobilization of MNEs 357 (Casanueva et al., 2014;Nohria and Garcia-Pont, 1991). Along these same lines, Gils and Zwart (2004) pointed out that the partners of these types of alliances are less mutually dependent and the information that is exchanged in the relation is not of a critical nature, and, in consequence, no partner is in a compromised position. In turn, Gulati et al. (2011) affirmed that the mechanism of receptivity that determines the real mobilization of social capital will depend on the quality of the links, an attribute that has, among other decisive factors, the degree of partner commitment within the relation. In this sense, the degree of commitment towards partners in this category of alliance will be lower in comparison with other types of alliance, such as the strategics that are analyzed further on, which will indicate a lower receptivity among partners when mobilizing social capital. The former characteristics appear to indicate that the tactical alliance entails reduced mobilization of social capital, as the resources that are used in the relationship are scarce, and it is difficult for the partners, in short-term agreements, to assess and to mobilize the resources held by partners (Gimeno, 2004;Lavie, 2007). Nevertheless, it has been pointed out that these tactical alliances frequently imply repeated relations and multiple transactions between partners (multiplexity) (Gils and Zwart, 2004), which can give rise to ties of trust and closer cooperation that can be the source of relational income and the mobilization of resources. Therefore, establishing tactical alliances will increase the possibilities of mobilizing social capital, in so far as the focal actor is capable of activating these types of IORs ties, based more on trust, commitment and multiplexity, thus increasing the relational quality of the ties, reached a medium level of relational quality of the ties (see Figure 1). H1. Tactical-non-equity alliances (non-equity governance and low-medium relational quality of the ties) will influence the mobilization of social capital. 2.3.2 Strategic alliances and social capital mobilization. An alliance of a strategic nature can cover one or more value-chain activities and can have a variety of organizational arrangements the principal basis of which is the absence or presence of equity relations (Kale and Singh, 2009). Consequently, on the one hand, when alliance activities are embedded in a “protective”governance structure such as an equity alliance, they will generally tend to come under closer scrutiny from anticompetitive and antitrust authorities than non-equity alliances (Oxley and Sampson, 2004); on the other hand, equity investments provide some protection against the unintended transfer of tacit knowledge from partners (Das and Teng, 2000). In view of the above, we now present the hypotheses in terms of strategic alliances that imply sharing capital between partners (equity alliances), or strategic multilateral alliances of a contractual nature that only imply sharing other resources such as knowledge or other tangible resources (Gils and Zwart, 2004). 2.3.2.1 Strategic-multilateral alliances. Strategic alliances come in a wide range, from R&D, manufacturing, to consortiums and multipartners, as well as joint ventures and minority equity investment (Das and Teng, 2000;Kale and Singh, 2009). Over the past few decades, a type of strategic alliance-referred to as global alliances and formal multilateral alliances has emerged that covers multiple firms and that is changing the form of competition in many sectors (Doz, 2019;Nohria and Garcia-Pont, 1991). Lazzarini (2007) proposed the existence of constellations or multiple firm alliances of an implicit and explicit type. The former is founded on structures generated through bilateral agreements between partners, mainly of a non-equity type. These types of alliances imply a high degree of commitment between the member firms of the explicit constellation which, through different mechanisms, facilitates the exchange and mobilization of different types of resource within the global alliance, strongly curtailing cooperation with firms that form other groups (Gimeno, 2004). These groups constitute ARLA 36,3 358 cohesive, dense networks characterized by high levels of trust, in which the conditions arise for resources to be channeled across organizational boundaries (Coleman, 1988;Granovetter, 1985;Gulati et al., 2011). Furthermore, these types of multilateral alliance imply that partners are linked by multiple ties simultaneously (high levels of multiplexity). Therefore, the relational quality of ties is high, which facilitates the mobilization of social capital. These global alliances or formal multilateral alliances opt for a hybrid governance mechanisms for the mobilization of social capital. This type of multilateral alliance requires a lower level of alliance-specific investment, and consequently constitutes low co-specialization alliances than equity alliances (Doz, 2019). These alliance-specific investments, which on occasions imply the development of organizational structures that facilitate coordination between partners, are nearly but not quite equity ownership structures, with the objective of increasing management controls, which might imply an important benefit, above all when there is a high risk of partners developing opportunistic behaviors between each other. Likewise, as mentioned earlier, global or multilateral alliances mitigate these risks through the development of trust and the strengthening of their links, reflecting an increase of relational quality of the ties, for which reason they implement that hybrid government system. Considering the above arguments, the following hypothesis may be advanced: H2. Strategic-multilateral alliances (non-equity governance and high relational quality of the ties) will have a positive effect on the mobilization of social capital. 2.3.2.2 Strategic-equity alliances. Equity alliances refer to cooperative agreements in which partners share or exchange capital (Das and Teng, 2000). These agreements cover (1) The launch of a new entity, which is the case of the International Joint Ventures, where a partner acquires capital interests in another partner and capital exchanges between partners or interlinked capital take place (Kuittinen et al., 2009); (2) Likewise, sharing capital (equity) is an essential contractual variable that will affect the performance or success of strategic alliances (Arslan, 2018;Rivera-Santos and Inkpen, 2009). Researchers point out that the fundamental difference between non-equity and equity alliances is that the latter enjoy greater stability in so far as they are “organization-ally embedded”(Oxley and Wada, 2009;Rivera-Santos and Inkpen, 2009). Therefore, the structure of equity cooperation agreements will to a greater extent facilitate the transfer of resources and knowledge (Oxley, 1997;Oxley and Wada, 2009). Finally, based on relational governance mechanisms (Grandori and Soda, 1995), equity agreements provide greater administrative control over partners; a governance structure that will allow the focal actor to control the activities of the alliances, as well having a seat on the board of directors; and a convergence of interests and objectives as a shared identity and a common language develops between the partners (Globerman and Nielsen, 2007;Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998;Oxley, 1997). It awakens commitment within corporate managers on both sides of the partnership to its objectives, and they are willing to invest in maintaining and developing their collaboration, which will, as a consequence, improve the relational quality of the ties and, in turn, improve the mobilization of social capital (Gulati et al., 2011). Strategic-equity alliances will therefore have a positive and significant influence on social capital mobilization, due to deeper partner commitment, greater stability and more partner embeddedness (trust and multiplexity), control over partner relations, and the existence of an institutional context that promotes that control. Consequently, the following hypothesis can be proposed: H3. Strategic-equity alliances (equity governance and very high relational quality of the ties) positively influence the mobilization of social capital. Social capital mobilization of MNEs 359 2.4 The continuum of inter-organizational relationships and social capital mobilization Having analyzed how the different types of IOR impact the mobilization of social capital, we shall center the study on the mechanisms that impact the mobilization of social capital, taking into account two perspectives: on the one hand (1) analyzing the alliance governance structures –non-equity versus equity; and (2) on the other hand, analyzing the relational quality of the ties (see Figure 1). Some researchers (Gulati, 1995;Oxley, 1997) have established a classification of alliance governance structures. Accordingly, these authors proposed the existence of a continuum with the market at one end and the hierarchy at the other. Between both options, there could be a wide range of organizational types that can result in hybrid forms (Das, 2012;Sullivan and Coughlan, 2004). Consequently, the incentives and control mechanisms for equity alliances resemble those that have hierarchical organizations (Gulati, 1995). On the contrary, non-equity contractual agreements of a commercial and technological nature are closer to the market and are under-researched. In between, we identify global alliances or formal/explicit multipartner alliances which are created in the forms of hybrid government (Doz, 2019). Gulati et al. (2011) related the mobilization process with the quality of the ties, through the mechanism of receptivity. Receptivity implies that an organization is capable of accessing and leveraging the full potential of social capital. The quality of the IORs has been presented in different ways, with a specific distinction between types of alliances and agreements (Nohria and Garcia-Pont, 1991;Oxley, 1997) and is captured for instance by interorganizational trust. Trust and strength of ties are closely linked and describe the quality of the relationship between the focal actor and its partners (Rost, 2011), which is even more important in new or uncertain markets (Suseno and Pinnington, 2018). In this sense, Subramanian (2017) affirmed that tactical alliances in many cases ended up evolving into strategic alliances. Thus, tactical alliances might perhaps be more appropriate in order to reach short-term objectives or to reach an ad hoc solution swiftly (Polonsky et al., 2011). In that same direction, Mariotti and Delbridge (2012) pointed out that the weak links associated with tactical alliances, such as latent ones; by contrast, strong links are associated with strategic alliances. The quality of the links is also a function of multiplexity, the degree to which ties between organizations are based on relations between multiple actors in each partner and imply multiple types of simultaneous agreement (Gulati et al., 2011). As we have justified above, strategic alliances involve a higher degree of commitment from the partners and present greater multiplexity than tactical alliances. As may be seen in Figure 1, this research analyzes how this continuum of types of alliances impacts social capital mobilization. In other words, the mobilization of social capital may or may not be favored as a consequence of the different attributes and characteristics that each type of alliance presents in terms of governance mechanisms and relational quality of ties. Therefore, we consider that the three types of alliances identified (tactical-non-equity alliance; strategic-multilateral alliances; strategic-equity alliances) are representative forms of the three positions shown in Figure 1. Based on previous literature, we propose that cooperative agreements that are closest to the hierarchy in the continuum and are higher to the relational quality of network ties in the continuum will facilitate the actual mobilization of social capital. In accordance with the ideas of the fourth hypothesis: H4. The more the hierarchical governance mode is chosen by the focal actor and a higher relational quality of network ties, the more the focal actor will have a positive influence on the mobilization of social capital. Specifically, alliance equity strategies will imply greater mobilization of social capital than the strategic-multilateral ARLA 36,3 360 alliances, and the strategic-multilateral alliances will mobilize greater social capital than the tactical non-equity alliances. 3. Methods We have studied the airline industry at a global level in order to analyze the mobilization of social capital. The airline industry is a mature sector with intense rivalry and a wide range of competitive practices within it. Additionally, it is an industry that exhibits a high level of cooperative activity. IORs between airlines have a long history that dates back to early airline activity, especially since the deregulation processes within the sector, both in the US and in Europe, and is extending to Asian countries. Consequently, the emergence of large-scale strategic alliances between companies to compete between groups at a global level has accelerated the whole process over the past few years (Gimeno, 2004;Gomes-Casseres, 1994; Shah and Swaminathan, 2008). In airlines, “the resources contributed through alliances can be clearly identified but cannot easily be transferred from one firm to another and, in particular, cannot be captured by a partner”(Wassmer and Dussauge, 2012, p. 874), but they can be mobilized if the firms establish more comprehensive agreements (Doganis, 2006). 3.1 Sample and data collection The sample was selected from a ranking of the 200 largest airline groups published in 2010, according to their revenue in 2009, by the journal Airline Business (Gimeno, 2004;Wassmer and Dussauge, 2012). Various business groups appear in that ranking of 200 MNEs, a detailed analysis of which gave a total of 214 airlines in these groups, all of which with sales volumes over 50 million dollars. Data on codeshare alliances were taken from the databases of ATI (Air Transportation Intelligence) and Airline Business Alliance Survey and were supplied by the company FlightGlobal. All alliances between airlines in the sample that were active at that time are included in the study. Financial data, traffic, and operatives of the airlines in the sample and their network of alliances were obtained from ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) and from ATI. Data were also collected from other agreements between airlines (marketing, FFP, global alliances, ownership ties, etc.). The specific data on each codeshare destination that one airline offers with another were obtained from the Airline Route report of 8 August 2011. In this study, the unit of analysis is the dyad. Consequently, in our empirical context of the airlines industry, a list was prepared with all dyads that had been arranged on the basis of the existing codeshare alliances at the point in time under consideration. Codeshare alliances were considered unidirectional; in other words, firm A (ego) had used seats on the flights of firm B (partner) to a particular destination, but firm B was not obliged to use seats from firm A from that destination. In total, 1,117 alliances between the MNEs in the sample were analyzed. With this information, we constructed different matrices that covered the relations between the MNEs in the sample: the destinations that each partner used through codeshares, FFP agreements, a joint presence in global alliances, joint experience in alliances, and ties of ownership, which were analyzed, together with other attributive data on the airlines. 3.2 Dependent variables In this study, the dependent variable is social capital mobilization. We studied the mobilization of a key resource for airlines: the destinations they reach through their codeshare alliances. Codeshare agreements, in addition, imply the mobilization of other partner resources beyond the specific resources of the market (destinations, routes, and frequencies), such as operation resources (handling services, land-based services, movement Social capital mobilization of MNEs 361 References Acquaah, M. (2007), “Managerial social capital, strategic orientation, and organizational performance in an emerging economy”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 1235-1255. Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.-W. (2002), “Social capital: prospects for a new concept”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-40. Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402. Arslan, B. (2018), “The interplay of competitive and cooperative behavior and differential benefits in alliances”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 12, pp. 3222-3246. Carpenter, M.A., Li, M. and Jiang, H. (2012), “Social network research in organizational contexts: a systematic review of methodological issues and choices”,Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1328-1361. Casanueva, C., Gallego, A., Castro, I. and Sancho, M. (2014), “Airline alliances: mobilizing network resources”,Tourism Management, Vol. 44 No. 0, pp. 88-98. Coleman, J.S. (1988), “Social capital in the creation of human capital”,The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, pp. S95-S120. Corbo, L.S.W. (2015), “Origins and evolution of alliance constellations”, in Das, T.K. (Ed.), Managing Multipartner Strategic Alliances, Information Age Publishing, pp. 89-114. Das, T.K. (2012), “Strategic alliances in a globalizing world”,Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 586-587. Das, T.K. and Teng, B.S. (2000), “A resource based theory of strategic alliances”,Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 31-61. Doganis, R. (2006), The Airline Business, 2nd ed., Routledge, Abingdon. Doz, Y.L. (2019), “Governing multilateral alliances”,California Management Review, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 93-114. Finch, J., Wagner, B. and Hynes, N. (2012), “Resources prospectively: how actors mobilize resources in business settings”,Resource Interaction in Inter-organizational Networks, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 164-174. Garette, B. and Dussauge, P. (2000), “Alliances versus acquisitions: choosing the right option”, European Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 63-69. Gils, A.V.A.N. and Zwart, P. (2004), “Knowledge acquisition and learning in Dutch and Belgian SMEs : the role of strategic alliances”,European Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 685-692. Gimeno, J. (2004), “Competition within and between networks: the contingent effect of competitive embeddedness on alliance formation”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 820-842. Globerman, S. and Nielsen, B.B. (2007), “Equity versus non-equity international strategic alliances involving Danish firms: an empirical investigation of the relative importance of partner and host country determinants”,Journal of International Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 449-471. Gomes-Casseres, B. (1994), “Group versus group: how alliance networks compete”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 62-74. Grandori, A. and Soda, G. (1995), “Inter-firm networks: antecedents, mechanisms and forms”, Organization Studies, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 183-214. Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”,The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510. Gulati, R. (1995), “Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 85-112. Gulati, R. (2007), Managing Network Resources: Alliances, Affiliations, and Other Relational Assets: A Resource-Based View, Oxford University Press, USA. ARLA 36,3 368 Gulati, R., Lavie, D. and Madhavan, R.R. (2011), “How do networks matter? The performance effects of interorganizational networks”,Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 207-224. Hagedoorn, J. and Schakenraad, J. (1994), “The effect of strategic technology alliances on company performance”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 291-309. Hatani, F. and McGaughey, S.L. (2013), “Network cohesion in global expansion: an evolutionary view”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 455-465. Kale, P. and Singh, H. (2009), “Managing strategic alliances: what do we know now, and where do we from here?”,Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 45-62. Koka, B.R. and Prescott, J.E. (2002), “Strategic alliance as social capital: a multidimensional view”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 795-816. Kuittinen, H., Kylaeheiko, K., Sandstroem, J. and Jantunen, A. (2009), “Cooperation governance mode: an extended transaction cost approach”,Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 303-323. Kumar, M.V.S. (2010), “Differential gains between partners in joint ventures: role of resource appropriation and private benefits”,Organization Science, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 232-248. Kwon, S.W. and Adler, P.S. (2014), “Social capital: maturation of a field of research”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 412-422. Lavie, D. (2007), “Alliance portfolios and firm performance: a study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 1187-1212. Lazzarini, S.G. (2007), “The impact of membership in competing alliance constellations: evidence on the operational performance of global airlines”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 345-367. Mariotti, F. and Delbridge, R. (2012), “Overcoming network overload and redundancy in interorganizational networks: the roles of potential and latent ties”,Organization Science, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 511-528. Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266. Nohria, N. and Garcia-Pont, C. (1991), “Global strategic linkages and industry structure”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 105-124. Oum, T.H., Park, J.-H. and Zhang, A. (1996), “The effects of airline codesharing agreements on firm conduct and international air fares”,Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 187-202. Oxley, J.E. (1997), “Appropriability hazards and governance in strategic alliances: a transaction cost approach”,Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 387-409. Oxley, J.E. and Sampson, R.C. (2004), “The scope and governance of international R&D alliances”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 723-749. Oxley, J. and Wada, T. (2009), “Alliance structure and the scope of knowledge transfer: evidence from U.S.-Japan agreements”,Management Science, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 635-649. Pansiri, J. (2009), “Strategic motives for alliance formation in the travel sector of tourism”, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 143-173. Parmigiani, A. and Rivera-Santos, M. (2011), “Clearing a path through the forest: a meta-review of interorganizational relationships”,Journal of Management, Vol. 37, pp. 1108-1136, doi: 10.1177/ 0149206311407507. Polonsky, M.J., Lefroy, K., Garma, R. and Chia, N. (2011), “Strategic and tactical alliances: do environmental non-profits manage them differently?”,Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 43-51. Social capital mobilization of MNEs 369 Rich, M.K. (2003), “Requirements for successful marketing alliances”,Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18 Nos 4-5, pp. 447-456. Rivera-Santos, M. and Inkpen, A.C. (2009), “Joint ventures and alliances”, in Kotabe, M. and Helsen, K. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of International Marketing, SAGE Publications, London, pp. 198-217. Rost, K. (2011), “The strength of strong ties in the creation of innovation”,Research Policy, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 588-604. Shah, R.H. and Swaminathan, V. (2008), “Factors influencing partner selection in strategic alliances: the moderating role of alliance context”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 471-494. Subramanian, R. (2017), “Competing through strategic networks: the ebbs and flows of a dynamic system”,International Journal of Business, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 305-318. Sullivan, U.Y. and Coughlan, A.T. (2004), Alliance Structure and Success in the Global Airline Industry: an Empirical Investigation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business, Illinois, Working Papers, 2004. Suseno, Y. and Pinnington, A.H. (2018), “Building social capital and human capital for internationalization: the role of network ties and knowledge resources”,Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 1081-1106. Vahlne, J.E. and Johanson, J. (2020), “The Uppsala model: networks and micro-foundations”,Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 4-10. Wassmer, U. and Dussauge, P. (2012), “Network resource stocks and flows: how do alliance portfolios affect the value of new alliance formations?”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 871-883. Corresponding author Ignacio Castro-Abanc ens can be contacted at: [email protected] For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] ARLA 36,3 370