{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019963702359346643, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.808641975308642, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Status Climbing vs. Bridging: Multinational Stakeholder Engagement Strategies

Multinational corporations seeking to overcome the “liability of foreignness” through partnerships with stakeholders in their overseas markets face an important tension in choosing between two alternative strategies. Firms who build relationships with high-status local stakeholders may experience increased cooperation and reduced conflict with other stakeholders. However, the short-term benefits of this status climbing strategy may be difficult to sustain because stakeholders with low-status, particularly those outside the formal political structure, are more likely to increase their conflict as the firm becomes increasingly distant from them. An alternative strategy of bridging structural holes in the host country stakeholder network also faces theoretical limits as access to scarce information and resources is likely to engender conflict with other stakeholders. The status climbing strategy is more attractive where insider connections dominate (i.e., the rule of law is weak) while the bridging strategy ...