Resumo

Studies on the relationship between headquarter and subsidiaries have evolved (since the seminal work of Bartlett Goshal), showing the importance that subsidiaries can have, besides the different ways in which this relationship is designed. Digitalization and the demands for increasingly agile and personalized responses from companies make the discussion even more complex.

This study aims to understand the HQ-subsidiary relationship within the digitalization context, specifically, the subsidiary autonomy for elaboration and implementation of digital strategies for the final consumer. This research discusses the role of the subsidiary among digital demands and the new components of these local units’ autonomy.

Meyer & Li (2020) point out important gaps for research about the subsidiary, especially regarding its new possible shapes and activities, created with the acceleration of the digital world. Studies reveal that, regardless of the role they played in the organization's structure (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1986) or in the global value chain (Rugman et al., 2011), subsidiaries are essential for multinationals to respond to the main demands imposed by the digital economy: high agility and local responsiveness, without losing its global efficiency (Birkinshaw et al., 2015; Finnegan & Longaigh, 2002)

The study is composed by a multi-case analysis with Brazilian agribusiness subsidiaries. The two subsidiaries selected for this study should present some basic criteria, such as: operating in agribusiness, include digital transformation as one of its main strategic focuses, in course of developing digital strategies with a focus on the final consumer – Brazilian farmer.

There is a new type of HQ-subsidiary relationship: it is fueled by data and high communication levels along with a close headquarter monitoring and guiding role. This equation culminates in a relationship which provides elevated credibility and autonomy. The most significant topic of divergence between the subsidiaries is related to the different types of digital strategies and multinationals core activities.

Therefore, there are four results presented by this study: (1) there is a tendency to integrate digital strategies with a focus on the producer, increasing relevance in services; (2) agribusiness subsidiaries can become exporters of innovation when it comes to customer experience; (3) subsidiaries can have a new role: technologies intermediaries for the field and (4) there is a new form of relationship between headquarter and subsidiary, based on credibility and control: while technology intensifies control and communication, it favors credibility and autonomy.

Bartlett, C. A. & Ghoshal S. (1986). Tap your subsidiaries for global reach. Harvard Business Review, 64, 87-94. Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 577–601. Meyer, K. E., & Li, C. (2020). Managing the MNE subsidiary: Advancing a multi-level and dynamic research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, v. 51, issue 4. Palgrave Macmillan UK. Ross, J. W., et al. (2017). How to develop a great digital strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(2): 7-9.