Because of the limitations of the Swiss domestic market, Brown Boveri established subsidiaries throughout Europe relatively early in its history, and at times had difficulty maintaining managerial control over some of its larger operating units.

The merger with ASEA, a company which was praised for its strong management, was expected to help Brown Boveri reorganize and reassert control over its vast international network.

The agreement gave Brown Boveri a significant amount of money and the promise of substantial annual revenue, and also helped the company expand into foreign markets at a time when protectionist policies inhibited international expansion.

In the early 1920s, Brown Boveri, which was already a geographically diversified company with successful operating subsidiaries in Italy, Germany, Norway, Austria, Czechoslovakia and the Balkans, suffered losses due to the devaluation of the French franc and the German mark.

Italy's burgeoning railroad industry provided a particularly strong boost to Brown Boveri's Italian subsidiary, and the company's German facility actually did considerably more business than the Swiss parent.

The company's subsidiaries were divided into five groups: German, French, Swiss, "medium-sized" (seven manufacturing bases in Europe and Latin America), and Brown Boveri International (the remaining facilities).

Brown Boveri had a handful of major U.S. customers as its clients, among them large utilities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and American Electric Power's Nuclear Plant in southwest Michigan DC Cook Unit 2 steam turbine.

The deal at first raised concern in Britain over foreign ownership of such highly sensitive technology, but Brown Boveri prevailed with the encouragement of George Kent's rank-and-file employees, who feared the alternative of being bought by General Electric Company.

Oil-rich African nations, like Nigeria, attempting to diversify their manufacturing capabilities also created new markets for Brown Boveri's heavy electrical engineering expertise.

In 1985 the subsidiary's performance improved as a result of cost-cutting measures but price decreases in the international market and unfavorable shifts in currency exchanges rates largely offset these gains.