keiretsu

(redirected from interfirm network)
Also found in: Financial, Encyclopedia.

kei·ret·su

 (kā-rĕt′so͞o)
n. pl. keiretsu or kei·ret·sus
A network of businesses that own stakes in one another as a means of mutual security, especially in Japan, and usually including large manufacturers and their suppliers of raw materials and components.

[Japanese, series, affiliation : kei, system + retsu, row, line.]

keiretsu

(kiːˈrɛtsuː)
n
1. (Commerce)
a. a group of Japanese businesses that are closely linked through shareholding, etc, and form a strong corporate unit
b. (as modifier): keiretsu groups.
2. (Commerce) (as modifier): keiretsu groups.
3. (Commerce) a non-Japanese business conglomerate similar to a keiretsu

kei•ret•su

(keɪˈrɛt su)
n., pl. -su.
(esp. in Japan) a loose coalition of business groups.
[1975–80; < Japanese]
References in periodicals archive ?
2009), is described as a new, modem form of interfirm network characterized by a focus on market exploration.
Using interfirm network data collected in 2007 from high-tech companies in Taiwan, this research found the relationship between social networks and corporate performance, as measured by sales growth, is inverted U-shape.
I submit that the formalization of an interfirm network in a multilateral alliance may help overcome problems of coordination and cooperation in a context of high resource diversity.
It does so by framing the issues in ways that transcend the standardization-adaptation contingency and instead focus an agency on the organizational issues of global policy development, intrafirm (interoffice) network linkages, interfirm network linkages, synergistic organizational learning, and efficient resource allocation, all of which result from the effective application of appropriate coordination strategies.
The following discussion begins with examinations of interfirm network research that reflects each of the previously noted six conceptual perspectives.
In this empirical study, our findings suggest that the interfirm network constrains and enables dyad-level interfirm exchanges, and these interfirm interactions shape and reproduce the interfirm network in which the interactions occur.
They found that this outcome was predicted by the pattern of ties in the technological niche of the innovation as well as by the quality of the innovation and the statu s of the innovator, but they did not directly examine the role of the interfirm network structure as a predictor of innovation output.
Their basic argument was that competition was not always from a dyad perspective (say, United Airlines going up against Delta Airlines), rather that firms often created resource pools and competed through such interfirm networks.
Third, broader interfirm networks are the context in which we identify nexus suppliers.
The question can be legitimately asked: Are interfirm networks increasing in prevalence to the degree that they require formal policy consideration and antitrust treatment?
The contributions pertain to the broad themes of contractual networks (challenges to contract theory); a comparative framework; and a private international law perspective on interfirm networks across Europe.