|
|
Special Issue Title: International Entrepreneurship and the Contemporary Global Firm
Guest Editors:
Gary Knight (Atkinson Graduate School of Management, Willamette University, USA)
Zaheer Khan (School of Business, University of Aberdeen, UK)
Niina Nummela (Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Finland)
Submission Deadline: 1 July 2023
We invite you to submit a paper to the Special Issue of International Business Review (IBR) on International Entrepreneurship (IE), which coincides with the 30-year and 20-year anniversaries, respectively, of publication of seminal works by Oviatt and McDougall (1994) and Knight and Cavusgil (2004) in this area. IE emphasizes proactive, innovative, and risk-seeking behaviors aimed at creatively discovering and exploiting opportunities internationally in pursuit of performance advantages (McDougall & Oviatt, 2000). For example, IE can refer to ‘born globals’ and ‘international new ventures’ (INVs) (e.g., Autio, 2005; Knight & Cavusgil, 2004; Oviatt and McDougall, 1994), a category of firms characterized by early or rapid internationalization.
Expanding abroad early and rapidly is a significant and fascinating exception in company internationalization because, historically, most firms initiated international business (IB) substantially after their founding, often decades later (Coviello et al, 2017; Jones & Coviello, 2005). Firms that internationalize early and/or rapidly are usually characterized by a paucity of tangible and financial resources (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004), resulting in the liabilities of small size, youth (e.g., inexperience), and foreignness, and the need to develop and apply distinctive performance-enhancing resources, capabilities, and strategies when they expand abroad (e.g., Jantunen et al, 2008). Research indicates that many such firms exhibit flexibility, international entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and superior international marketing capabilities (e.g., Cavusgil & Knight, 2015; Chandra, Styles, & Wilkinson, 2012; Khan & Lew, 2018).
IE encompasses young entrepreneurial ventures as well as managers in large, established firms who behave like entrepreneurs to launch international ventures (a phenomenon known as ‘corporate entrepreneurship’ or ‘intrapreneurship’) (McDougall & Oviatt, 2000). Firms undertake corporate entrepreneurship to develop new businesses, products or processes inside existing organizations to create value and generate new revenue. Corporate entrepreneurship can energize older organizations by fostering culture, resources, and processes that motivate, support, and engage the firm in entrepreneurial thinking and action. The established firm may develop an idea internally, and then build a startup inside the firms. Or the firm may identify an early-stage startup to acquire or collaborate with, and potentially assimilate into the larger organization.
Scholars also have examined IE as the cross-national exploration, discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities to create future goods and services (Mainela et al, 2014; Oviatt & McDougall, 2005). Exploration is searching abroad to discover new opportunities, and implies discovery, risk-taking, innovation, and experimentation. Exploitation implies taking advantage of existing opportunities, and developing and executing needed strategies and actions. Capabilities related to both exploration and exploitation support achieving superior international performance.
Firms that undertake IE are affected by national phenomena, such as economic, institutional, and sociocultural factors. Individual entrepreneurs and managers may be influenced by cognitive, emotional, and physical factors (Miller & Breton-Miller, 2017), alongside the risk, uncertainly, and complexity that characterize international expansion.
A growing number of firms adopt transnational entrepreneurship, leveraging the global mobility of people. Transnational entrepreneurs may rely on social and economic resources based in more than one country (Lundberg & Rehnfors, 2018). The category includes international entrepreneurs, migrant entrepreneurs, ethnic entrepreneurs, and returnee entrepreneurs (Drori, Honig, & Wright, 2009; Czinkota, Khan, & Knight, 2021). Migrants launch international ventures, targeting their home countries and other international markets. Migrant entrepreneurs bring to host nations social networks, experience, bridges to foreign investors, and other assets and resources. Interestingly, many of these entrepreneurs are able to overcome the liabilities of underdeveloped home markets, immature institutions, resource poverty, and other challenges (Dabić et al, 2020; Elo et al, 2018). Research is needed on such ‘challenge-based entrepreneurship’, including early and mature stages of growth (e.g., Miller & Breton-Miller, 2017, Rodgers et al., 2022). Other emerging topics relevant to IE include corporate political activity, social responsibility and sustainability (e.g., Rodgers et al., 2019; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011), as well as social entrepreneurship, which seeks solutions for poverty and other social problems (cf. Zahra et al., 2014; Zucchella, 2021).
The Internet and emerging technologies (e.g., blockchain, digital platforms, Internet of Things, artificial intelligence) are essential elements of IE (Nambisan, Zahra, & Luo, 2019; Walton, 2022). Technology is known to (i) broadly support IE, and (ii) actualize novel international opportunities for firms that operate via digital platforms and ecosystems (Chakravarty et al, 2021). Platforms generate value by facilitating low-cost third-party transactions at scale (e.g., Airbnb, Uber), attracting many buyers and sellers. Digital processes reduce spatial and temporal boundaries and facilitate IE (cf. Monaghan et al., 2020), including the rapid internationalization of firms from emerging and developing economies. Digital platform firms and companies in the services sector undertake early and rapid internationalization as they internationalize via the Internet. In addition, recent research has examined the role of digital platforms in crowdfunding — large-scale online fundraising from many sources for projects or ventures (e.g., Ahsan & Musteen, 2021).
The literature on IE remains fragmented, with substantial gaps in content, theory, and methodology (e.g., Reuber et al, 2017). Event studies, ethnography, mixed-methods research, experimental designs, and other rarely applied methodologies can help move the field forward (e.g., Eden et al., 2022; Nummela, 2014; Zellmer-Bruhn et al., 2016). Research is also needed that leverages theoretical perspectives that have been little employed in IE — for example, the integration-responsiveness framework (e.g., Roth & Morrison, 1990), the organizational life-cycle approach (e.g., Dodge, Fullerton, & Robbins, 1994), the effectuation view (e.g., Sarasvathy, 2001; Sarasvathy et al, 2014), and the legitimacy view (e.g., Kostova & Zaheer, 1999). Other potential theoretical perspectives include the knowledge-based view, capabilities view, resource dependency view, business models view, strategic choice theory, strategic ambidexterity, agency theory, network theory, social capital theory, institutional theory, culture explanations, and numerous others.
Markets and institutions are evolving. Recent exogenous factors — e.g., protectionism, populism, deglobalization, and sanctions — are affecting the landscape of internationalization and firms’ survival and growth. The liabilities of foreignness and local competition remain powerful hurdles in company internationalization. The Covid-19 pandemic has created additional pressures on internationally entrepreneurial firms (Amankwah-Amoah et al., 2021). Research is needed on how firms leverage IE to navigate external shocks and adapt their business models.
Potential Topics for Submissions
This Special Issue welcomes both theoretical and empirical papers. Appropriate topics for submissions include, but are not limited to the following.
The deadline for submission is July 1, 2023. The submission of the manuscripts will be through the IBR online submission system (https://www.editorialmanager.com/ibr) from 1 June until 1 July 2023 only. They should follow the IBR guidelines available at: https://www.elsevier.com/journals/international-business-review/0969-5931/guide-for-authors. Please ensure you submit your paper for this Special Issue by ticking the appropriate box at the above site. Papers will be double-blind reviewed, following the IBR review procedure.
For additional information, contact one of the Special Issue guest editors:
Gary Knight, gknight@willamette.edu
Zaheer Khan, zaheer.khan@abdn.ac.uk
Niina Nummela, niina.nummela@utu.fi
References
Amankwah-Amoah, J., Khan, Z., & Wood, G. (2021). Covid-19 and business failures: The paradoxes of experience, scale and scope for theory and practice. European Management Journal, 39(2), 179-184.
Ahsan, M. & Musteen, M. (2021). International opportunity development on crowdfunding platforms: A spatial, temporal, and structural framework, International Business Review, 30(6), 101912.
Autio, E. (2005). Creative tension: the significance of Ben Oviatt's and Patricia McDougall's article “toward a theory of international new ventures”. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1), 9-19.
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L.D., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72-95.
Cavusgil, S. T. & Knight, G. (2009). Born global firms: A new international enterprise, New York: Business Expert Press.
Cavusgil, S. T. & Knight, G. (2015). The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization, Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 3-16.
Chakravarty, S., Cumming, D., Murtinu, S., Scalera, V., & Schwens, C. (2021). Exploring the next generation of international entrepreneurship. Journal of World Business, 56 (5), 101229.
Chandra, Y., Styles, C., & Wilkinson, I. (2012). An opportunity-based view of rapid internationalization. Journal of International Marketing, 20 (1), 74-102.
Coviello, N., Kano, L. & Liesch, P.W. (2017). Adapting the Uppsala model to a modern world: Macro-context and microfoundations. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9), 1151-1164.
Czinkota, M., Khan, Z. & Knight, G. (2021). International business and the migrant-owned enterprise. Journal of Business Research, 122, 657-669.
Dabić, M., Vlačić, B., Paul, J., Dana, L-P., Sahasranamam, S. & Glinka, B. (2020). Immigrant entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 113, 25-38.
Dodge, H., Fullerton, S. & Robbins, J. (1994). Stage of the organizational life cycle and competition as mediators of problem perception for small businesses, Strategic Management Journal, 15, 121-134.
Drori, I., Honig, B., & Wright, M. (2009). Transnational entrepreneurship: An emergent field of study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(5), 1001-1022.
Eden, L., Miller, S.R., Khan, S., Weiner, R. & Li, D. (2022). The event study in international business research: Opportunities, challenges, and practical solutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 53, 803-817.
Elo, M., Sandberg, S., Servais, P., Basco, R., Cruz, A.D., Riddle, L. & Täube, F. (2018). Advancing the views on migrant and diaspora entrepreneurs in international entrepreneurship. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 119-133.
Hurmerinta-Peltomäki, L. & Nummela, N. (2006), Mixed methods in international business research: A value-added perspective. Management International Review, 46(4), 439-459.
Jantunen, A., Nummela, N., Puumalainen, K., & Saarenketo, S. (2008). Strategic orientations of born globals — Do they really matter? Journal of World Business, 43(2), 158-170.
Jones, M.V. & Coviello, N.E. (2005). Internationalisation: Conceptualising an entrepreneurial process of behaviour in time. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 284-303.
Khan, Z., & Lew, Y. (2018). Post-entry survival of developing economy international new ventures: A dynamic capability perspective. International Business Review, 27(1), 149-160.
Knight, G. & Cavusgil, S.T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 124-141.
Kostova, T. & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24, 64–81.
Li, J., Chen, L., Yi, J., Mao, J., & Liao, J. (2019). Ecosystem-specific advantages in international digital commerce. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(9), 1448–1463.
Lundberg, H. & Rehnfors, A. (2018). Transnational entrepreneurship: Opportunity identification and venture creation. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 150-175.
Mainela, T., Puhakka, V. & Servais, P. (2014). The concept of international opportunity in international entrepreneurship: A review and a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1), 105-129.
McDougall, P. & Oviatt, B. (2000). International entrepreneurship: The intersection of two research paths. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 902-906.
Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2017). Underdog entrepreneurs: A model of challenge–based entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 41(1), 7-17.
Monaghan, S., Tippmann, E., & Coviello, N. (2020). Born digitals: Thoughts on their internationalization and research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(1), 11-22.
Nambisan, S., S. Zahra & Luo, Y. (2019). Global platforms and ecosystems: Implications for international business theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 50, 1464-1486.
Nummela, N. (2014). Future agenda for research design in international entrepreneurship. In The Routledge Companion to International Entrepreneurship (pp. 265-275). Routledge.
Oviatt, B. & McDougall, P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64.
Oviatt, B. & McDougall, P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 537-553.
Reuber, A.R., Dimitratos, P. & Kuivalainen, O. (2017). Beyond categorization: New directions for theory development about entrepreneurial internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 48, 411–422.
Rodgers, P., Stokes, P., Tarba, S., & Khan, Z. (2019). The role of non-market strategies in establishing legitimacy: The case of service MNEs in emerging economies. Management International Review, 59(4), 515-540.
Rodgers, P., Vershinina, N., Khan, Z., & Stokes, P. (2022). Small firms' non-market strategies in response to dysfunctional institutional settings of emerging markets. International Business Review, 31(4), 101891.
Roth, K., & Morrison, A. (1990). An empirical analysis of the integration-responsiveness framework in global industries. Journal of International Business Studies, 21, 541–564.
Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26, 243–263.
Sarasvathy, S., Kumar, K., York, J.G. & Bhagavatula, S. (2014). An effectual approach to international entrepreneurship: Overlaps, challenges, and provocative possibilities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 71-93.
Shepherd D., & Patzelt H. (2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entrepreneurial action linking “what is to be sustained” with “what is to be developed”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 137-163.
Walton, N. (2022). Digital platforms as entrepreneurial ecosystems and drivers of born-global SMEs in emerging economies. International Entrepreneurship in Emerging Markets. 84-106. Routledge.
Zahra, S., Newey, L. & Li, Y. (2014). On the frontiers: The implications of social entrepreneurship for international entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 137-158.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M., Caligiuri, P., & Thomas, D.C. (2016). From the editors: Experimental designs in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(4), 399-407.
Zucchella, A. (2021). International entrepreneurship and the internationalization phenomenon: Taking stock, looking ahead. International Business Review, 30(2), 101800.
Guest Editors:
Gary Knight (Atkinson Graduate School of Management, Willamette University, USA)
Zaheer Khan (School of Business, University of Aberdeen, UK)
Niina Nummela (Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Finland)
Submission Deadline: 1 July 2023
We invite you to submit a paper to the Special Issue of International Business Review (IBR) on International Entrepreneurship (IE), which coincides with the 30-year and 20-year anniversaries, respectively, of publication of seminal works by Oviatt and McDougall (1994) and Knight and Cavusgil (2004) in this area. IE emphasizes proactive, innovative, and risk-seeking behaviors aimed at creatively discovering and exploiting opportunities internationally in pursuit of performance advantages (McDougall & Oviatt, 2000). For example, IE can refer to ‘born globals’ and ‘international new ventures’ (INVs) (e.g., Autio, 2005; Knight & Cavusgil, 2004; Oviatt and McDougall, 1994), a category of firms characterized by early or rapid internationalization.
Expanding abroad early and rapidly is a significant and fascinating exception in company internationalization because, historically, most firms initiated international business (IB) substantially after their founding, often decades later (Coviello et al, 2017; Jones & Coviello, 2005). Firms that internationalize early and/or rapidly are usually characterized by a paucity of tangible and financial resources (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004), resulting in the liabilities of small size, youth (e.g., inexperience), and foreignness, and the need to develop and apply distinctive performance-enhancing resources, capabilities, and strategies when they expand abroad (e.g., Jantunen et al, 2008). Research indicates that many such firms exhibit flexibility, international entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and superior international marketing capabilities (e.g., Cavusgil & Knight, 2015; Chandra, Styles, & Wilkinson, 2012; Khan & Lew, 2018).
IE encompasses young entrepreneurial ventures as well as managers in large, established firms who behave like entrepreneurs to launch international ventures (a phenomenon known as ‘corporate entrepreneurship’ or ‘intrapreneurship’) (McDougall & Oviatt, 2000). Firms undertake corporate entrepreneurship to develop new businesses, products or processes inside existing organizations to create value and generate new revenue. Corporate entrepreneurship can energize older organizations by fostering culture, resources, and processes that motivate, support, and engage the firm in entrepreneurial thinking and action. The established firm may develop an idea internally, and then build a startup inside the firms. Or the firm may identify an early-stage startup to acquire or collaborate with, and potentially assimilate into the larger organization.
Scholars also have examined IE as the cross-national exploration, discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities to create future goods and services (Mainela et al, 2014; Oviatt & McDougall, 2005). Exploration is searching abroad to discover new opportunities, and implies discovery, risk-taking, innovation, and experimentation. Exploitation implies taking advantage of existing opportunities, and developing and executing needed strategies and actions. Capabilities related to both exploration and exploitation support achieving superior international performance.
Firms that undertake IE are affected by national phenomena, such as economic, institutional, and sociocultural factors. Individual entrepreneurs and managers may be influenced by cognitive, emotional, and physical factors (Miller & Breton-Miller, 2017), alongside the risk, uncertainly, and complexity that characterize international expansion.
A growing number of firms adopt transnational entrepreneurship, leveraging the global mobility of people. Transnational entrepreneurs may rely on social and economic resources based in more than one country (Lundberg & Rehnfors, 2018). The category includes international entrepreneurs, migrant entrepreneurs, ethnic entrepreneurs, and returnee entrepreneurs (Drori, Honig, & Wright, 2009; Czinkota, Khan, & Knight, 2021). Migrants launch international ventures, targeting their home countries and other international markets. Migrant entrepreneurs bring to host nations social networks, experience, bridges to foreign investors, and other assets and resources. Interestingly, many of these entrepreneurs are able to overcome the liabilities of underdeveloped home markets, immature institutions, resource poverty, and other challenges (Dabić et al, 2020; Elo et al, 2018). Research is needed on such ‘challenge-based entrepreneurship’, including early and mature stages of growth (e.g., Miller & Breton-Miller, 2017, Rodgers et al., 2022). Other emerging topics relevant to IE include corporate political activity, social responsibility and sustainability (e.g., Rodgers et al., 2019; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011), as well as social entrepreneurship, which seeks solutions for poverty and other social problems (cf. Zahra et al., 2014; Zucchella, 2021).
The Internet and emerging technologies (e.g., blockchain, digital platforms, Internet of Things, artificial intelligence) are essential elements of IE (Nambisan, Zahra, & Luo, 2019; Walton, 2022). Technology is known to (i) broadly support IE, and (ii) actualize novel international opportunities for firms that operate via digital platforms and ecosystems (Chakravarty et al, 2021). Platforms generate value by facilitating low-cost third-party transactions at scale (e.g., Airbnb, Uber), attracting many buyers and sellers. Digital processes reduce spatial and temporal boundaries and facilitate IE (cf. Monaghan et al., 2020), including the rapid internationalization of firms from emerging and developing economies. Digital platform firms and companies in the services sector undertake early and rapid internationalization as they internationalize via the Internet. In addition, recent research has examined the role of digital platforms in crowdfunding — large-scale online fundraising from many sources for projects or ventures (e.g., Ahsan & Musteen, 2021).
The literature on IE remains fragmented, with substantial gaps in content, theory, and methodology (e.g., Reuber et al, 2017). Event studies, ethnography, mixed-methods research, experimental designs, and other rarely applied methodologies can help move the field forward (e.g., Eden et al., 2022; Nummela, 2014; Zellmer-Bruhn et al., 2016). Research is also needed that leverages theoretical perspectives that have been little employed in IE — for example, the integration-responsiveness framework (e.g., Roth & Morrison, 1990), the organizational life-cycle approach (e.g., Dodge, Fullerton, & Robbins, 1994), the effectuation view (e.g., Sarasvathy, 2001; Sarasvathy et al, 2014), and the legitimacy view (e.g., Kostova & Zaheer, 1999). Other potential theoretical perspectives include the knowledge-based view, capabilities view, resource dependency view, business models view, strategic choice theory, strategic ambidexterity, agency theory, network theory, social capital theory, institutional theory, culture explanations, and numerous others.
Markets and institutions are evolving. Recent exogenous factors — e.g., protectionism, populism, deglobalization, and sanctions — are affecting the landscape of internationalization and firms’ survival and growth. The liabilities of foreignness and local competition remain powerful hurdles in company internationalization. The Covid-19 pandemic has created additional pressures on internationally entrepreneurial firms (Amankwah-Amoah et al., 2021). Research is needed on how firms leverage IE to navigate external shocks and adapt their business models.
Potential Topics for Submissions
This Special Issue welcomes both theoretical and empirical papers. Appropriate topics for submissions include, but are not limited to the following.
- Integration of the literature on entrepreneurship and IB. How can ‘entrepreneurship’ perspectives (e.g., behavioral models like bricolage and improvisation) inform IE? How do IB perspectives (e.g., the eclectic paradigm) inform IE?
- Novel theoretical perspectives to explain IE, including the post-entry performance of entrepreneurial firms
- Factors that give rise to early and rapid internationalization
- Role of resources, capabilities, and/or dynamic capabilities in IE, and in born globals and INVs
- Factors that allow born globals and INVs to supersede the advantages of large MNEs
- Processes required for early and rapid internationalization, such as scaling operations up and down
- Multi-level research incorporating diverse units of analysis — individuals, teams, organizations (including non-governmental organizations and nonprofits), networks, platforms, nascent industries, sectors (including products and services), ecosystems, and nations
- Characteristics and antecedents of value creation and capture in IE
- Home- and host-country environments, including cultural and institutional environments, as well as industrial clusters and ecosystems
- Characteristics of opportunity exploration and exploitation in IE. For example, how do opportunities emerge or reveal themselves in IE? How can scholars leverage the opportunities literature to inform IE?
- Emergent factors in the global external environment and their effect on early/rapid internationalization, born globals, and INVs
- IE arising in or from emerging markets and by challenge-based entrepreneurs
- Born global and INV navigation of regulatory uncertainty through non-market strategies
- IE as corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship in a global context
- Implications of emergent, novel trends in globalization and ‘deglobalization’ for IE
- The role of emergent or ‘fourth industrial revolution’ technologies, including digital platforms and ecosystems. For example, how do digital platforms affect the liabilities of size and foreignness in entrepreneurial internationalization and post-entry survival?
- The contrast between traditional views on born globals and INVs that leverage firm-specific advantages, versus digital firms that emphasize external resources and ‘ecosystem-specific advantages’ (e.g., Li et al, 2019).
- Transnational entrepreneurship and the global mobility of people, including international entrepreneurs, migrant entrepreneurs, ethnic entrepreneurs, and returnee entrepreneurs.
- The role of corporate political activity, social responsibility and sustainability in IE and international performance.
- The role of public policy in supporting early internationalization and superior international performance in IE.
- The future of born globals and INVs. How do such firms evolve over time?
The deadline for submission is July 1, 2023. The submission of the manuscripts will be through the IBR online submission system (https://www.editorialmanager.com/ibr) from 1 June until 1 July 2023 only. They should follow the IBR guidelines available at: https://www.elsevier.com/journals/international-business-review/0969-5931/guide-for-authors. Please ensure you submit your paper for this Special Issue by ticking the appropriate box at the above site. Papers will be double-blind reviewed, following the IBR review procedure.
For additional information, contact one of the Special Issue guest editors:
Gary Knight, gknight@willamette.edu
Zaheer Khan, zaheer.khan@abdn.ac.uk
Niina Nummela, niina.nummela@utu.fi
References
Amankwah-Amoah, J., Khan, Z., & Wood, G. (2021). Covid-19 and business failures: The paradoxes of experience, scale and scope for theory and practice. European Management Journal, 39(2), 179-184.
Ahsan, M. & Musteen, M. (2021). International opportunity development on crowdfunding platforms: A spatial, temporal, and structural framework, International Business Review, 30(6), 101912.
Autio, E. (2005). Creative tension: the significance of Ben Oviatt's and Patricia McDougall's article “toward a theory of international new ventures”. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1), 9-19.
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L.D., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72-95.
Cavusgil, S. T. & Knight, G. (2009). Born global firms: A new international enterprise, New York: Business Expert Press.
Cavusgil, S. T. & Knight, G. (2015). The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization, Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 3-16.
Chakravarty, S., Cumming, D., Murtinu, S., Scalera, V., & Schwens, C. (2021). Exploring the next generation of international entrepreneurship. Journal of World Business, 56 (5), 101229.
Chandra, Y., Styles, C., & Wilkinson, I. (2012). An opportunity-based view of rapid internationalization. Journal of International Marketing, 20 (1), 74-102.
Coviello, N., Kano, L. & Liesch, P.W. (2017). Adapting the Uppsala model to a modern world: Macro-context and microfoundations. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9), 1151-1164.
Czinkota, M., Khan, Z. & Knight, G. (2021). International business and the migrant-owned enterprise. Journal of Business Research, 122, 657-669.
Dabić, M., Vlačić, B., Paul, J., Dana, L-P., Sahasranamam, S. & Glinka, B. (2020). Immigrant entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 113, 25-38.
Dodge, H., Fullerton, S. & Robbins, J. (1994). Stage of the organizational life cycle and competition as mediators of problem perception for small businesses, Strategic Management Journal, 15, 121-134.
Drori, I., Honig, B., & Wright, M. (2009). Transnational entrepreneurship: An emergent field of study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(5), 1001-1022.
Eden, L., Miller, S.R., Khan, S., Weiner, R. & Li, D. (2022). The event study in international business research: Opportunities, challenges, and practical solutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 53, 803-817.
Elo, M., Sandberg, S., Servais, P., Basco, R., Cruz, A.D., Riddle, L. & Täube, F. (2018). Advancing the views on migrant and diaspora entrepreneurs in international entrepreneurship. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 119-133.
Hurmerinta-Peltomäki, L. & Nummela, N. (2006), Mixed methods in international business research: A value-added perspective. Management International Review, 46(4), 439-459.
Jantunen, A., Nummela, N., Puumalainen, K., & Saarenketo, S. (2008). Strategic orientations of born globals — Do they really matter? Journal of World Business, 43(2), 158-170.
Jones, M.V. & Coviello, N.E. (2005). Internationalisation: Conceptualising an entrepreneurial process of behaviour in time. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 284-303.
Khan, Z., & Lew, Y. (2018). Post-entry survival of developing economy international new ventures: A dynamic capability perspective. International Business Review, 27(1), 149-160.
Knight, G. & Cavusgil, S.T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 124-141.
Kostova, T. & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24, 64–81.
Li, J., Chen, L., Yi, J., Mao, J., & Liao, J. (2019). Ecosystem-specific advantages in international digital commerce. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(9), 1448–1463.
Lundberg, H. & Rehnfors, A. (2018). Transnational entrepreneurship: Opportunity identification and venture creation. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 150-175.
Mainela, T., Puhakka, V. & Servais, P. (2014). The concept of international opportunity in international entrepreneurship: A review and a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1), 105-129.
McDougall, P. & Oviatt, B. (2000). International entrepreneurship: The intersection of two research paths. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 902-906.
Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2017). Underdog entrepreneurs: A model of challenge–based entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 41(1), 7-17.
Monaghan, S., Tippmann, E., & Coviello, N. (2020). Born digitals: Thoughts on their internationalization and research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(1), 11-22.
Nambisan, S., S. Zahra & Luo, Y. (2019). Global platforms and ecosystems: Implications for international business theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 50, 1464-1486.
Nummela, N. (2014). Future agenda for research design in international entrepreneurship. In The Routledge Companion to International Entrepreneurship (pp. 265-275). Routledge.
Oviatt, B. & McDougall, P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64.
Oviatt, B. & McDougall, P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 537-553.
Reuber, A.R., Dimitratos, P. & Kuivalainen, O. (2017). Beyond categorization: New directions for theory development about entrepreneurial internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 48, 411–422.
Rodgers, P., Stokes, P., Tarba, S., & Khan, Z. (2019). The role of non-market strategies in establishing legitimacy: The case of service MNEs in emerging economies. Management International Review, 59(4), 515-540.
Rodgers, P., Vershinina, N., Khan, Z., & Stokes, P. (2022). Small firms' non-market strategies in response to dysfunctional institutional settings of emerging markets. International Business Review, 31(4), 101891.
Roth, K., & Morrison, A. (1990). An empirical analysis of the integration-responsiveness framework in global industries. Journal of International Business Studies, 21, 541–564.
Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26, 243–263.
Sarasvathy, S., Kumar, K., York, J.G. & Bhagavatula, S. (2014). An effectual approach to international entrepreneurship: Overlaps, challenges, and provocative possibilities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 71-93.
Shepherd D., & Patzelt H. (2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entrepreneurial action linking “what is to be sustained” with “what is to be developed”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 137-163.
Walton, N. (2022). Digital platforms as entrepreneurial ecosystems and drivers of born-global SMEs in emerging economies. International Entrepreneurship in Emerging Markets. 84-106. Routledge.
Zahra, S., Newey, L. & Li, Y. (2014). On the frontiers: The implications of social entrepreneurship for international entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 137-158.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M., Caligiuri, P., & Thomas, D.C. (2016). From the editors: Experimental designs in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(4), 399-407.
Zucchella, A. (2021). International entrepreneurship and the internationalization phenomenon: Taking stock, looking ahead. International Business Review, 30(2), 101800.
Joint International Marketing Paper Development Workshop
|
|
1. Fast Facts
2. Who is This Event For?
Hosted jointly by representatives of the Journal of International Marketing and International Marketing Review, This workshop is aimed at providing feedback and guidance to participants on papers in one of two stages: (1) Papers that are nearing submission to JIM/IMR or other leading international marketing journals and, as such, are already in full draft form; and (2) Papers that are still at an advanced idea stage, or essentially the front end of a paper through the planned methodology section but without results, discussion, and implications sections developed.
The goal with the first type of paper is to help the authors polish their manuscripts for submission, identifying key weaknesses and areas for improvement.
For the second type of paper, the expectation is that the conceptual arguments and planned methodology are fairly well developed so that the workshop can be used to help course-correct or steer the authors in a direction that will increase the project’s chances for success. Note that the joint PDW is intended for doctoral students and early career academics.
3. How is This Event Structured?
During the workshop, mentors will provide feedback to participants as to how they can further develop their papers. The workshop will also include a panel discussion on tips for publishing in JIM/IMR and other top journals.
4. How Can I Submit a Paper?
The deadline for submitting a paper is 15 May 2022. Papers should be submitted via AIB’s Online Submission Portal. Once on the website choose the Joint International Marketing Paper Development Workshop”. Papers can be submitted in any formatting style and length, consistent with any of the associated journals; however, they should be in English.
Please note that each participant may submit only one manuscript for the PDW. The cover page of the submission should include all authors’ names, e-mails, and affiliations.
5. What Should I Do if My Paper is Accepted?
By submitting a paper, at least one of the paper’s authors commits to participate in the workshop if the application is accepted. Manuscripts will be selected based on the suitability for JIM/IMR, quality of their submitted work, and fit with one of the two stages described above.
NOTE: Participants must be registered for the AIB 2022 meeting before they confirm their attendance at the Joint International Marketing PDW.
Download the CFP
- Workshop Date: 5 July 2022
- Submission Deadline: 15 May 2022
- PDW Organizer: Kelly Hewett (The University of Tennessee), Olli Kuivalainen (LUT University)
- Contact Info: khewett@utk.edu, olli.kuivalainen@lut.fi
2. Who is This Event For?
Hosted jointly by representatives of the Journal of International Marketing and International Marketing Review, This workshop is aimed at providing feedback and guidance to participants on papers in one of two stages: (1) Papers that are nearing submission to JIM/IMR or other leading international marketing journals and, as such, are already in full draft form; and (2) Papers that are still at an advanced idea stage, or essentially the front end of a paper through the planned methodology section but without results, discussion, and implications sections developed.
The goal with the first type of paper is to help the authors polish their manuscripts for submission, identifying key weaknesses and areas for improvement.
For the second type of paper, the expectation is that the conceptual arguments and planned methodology are fairly well developed so that the workshop can be used to help course-correct or steer the authors in a direction that will increase the project’s chances for success. Note that the joint PDW is intended for doctoral students and early career academics.
3. How is This Event Structured?
During the workshop, mentors will provide feedback to participants as to how they can further develop their papers. The workshop will also include a panel discussion on tips for publishing in JIM/IMR and other top journals.
4. How Can I Submit a Paper?
The deadline for submitting a paper is 15 May 2022. Papers should be submitted via AIB’s Online Submission Portal. Once on the website choose the Joint International Marketing Paper Development Workshop”. Papers can be submitted in any formatting style and length, consistent with any of the associated journals; however, they should be in English.
Please note that each participant may submit only one manuscript for the PDW. The cover page of the submission should include all authors’ names, e-mails, and affiliations.
5. What Should I Do if My Paper is Accepted?
By submitting a paper, at least one of the paper’s authors commits to participate in the workshop if the application is accepted. Manuscripts will be selected based on the suitability for JIM/IMR, quality of their submitted work, and fit with one of the two stages described above.
NOTE: Participants must be registered for the AIB 2022 meeting before they confirm their attendance at the Joint International Marketing PDW.
Download the CFP
|
|
|
International Knowledge Sourcing by TNCs in Services
Guest Editors:
Scope of the special issue:
In the last 30 years transnational corporations (TNCs) have increasingly located innovation and R&D activities outside their home countries to gain access to knowledge not available at home. This trend is known as international knowledge sourcing, or the internationalization of R&D.
This special issue focuses on papers that examine international knowledge sourcing in service industries. A focus lies on digital multinational enterprises (MNEs) including platform-based TNCs, content providers, e-commerce firms, providers of hardware and software, or telecommunication providers. Empirical evidence suggests that service industries gained a prominent role in international knowledge sourcing in recent years. Digital MNEs – e.g. Alphabet, Microsoft and Facebook – today appear among the largest R&D performers globally.
The trend towards more international knowledge sourcing by service firms is, on the one hand, a result of the diffusion of information and communication technologies which have increased the tradability of services and created new business opportunities. On the other hand, there is general trend towards a higher knowledge intensity in services. The shift towards services, however, is hardly reflected in the academic literature which still focusses on knowledge sourcing in manufacturing firms.
Indicative topics:
We encourage contributions from a variety of perspectives, including international business, innovation economics, economic geography, management, or an international economics perspective. In particular, we welcome papers related to policies towards international knowledge sourcing in services and studies that take an emerging economies perspective on the topic. Contributions may cover, but are not limited to, the following topics:
Guidelines for submission:
Transnational Corporations is an official United Nations academic policy-orientated journal. In line with the scope of the journal (https://unctad.org/Topic/Investment/Transnational-Corporations-Journal/Editorial-Statement), papers submitted to the Special Issue need to include:
Authors should refer to the Transnational Corporations website and the guidelines on submitting papers:
https://unctad.org/Topic/Investment/Transnational-Corporations-Journal/Guidelines-for-Contributors. Questions and informal enquiries should be directed to any of the guest editors.
Submission deadline:
31 August 2022
Approximate date of publication:
Issue 3, December 2022
Submissions should be sent to:
tncj@unctad.org
Home page: https://unctad.org/Topic/Investment/
- Bernhard Dachs, Center for Innovation Systems and Policy, Austrian Institute of Technology, Austria,
- Tamar Almor, Faculty of Business, College of Management, Rishon LeZion, Israel, talmor@colman.ac.il
- Marina Papanastassiou, Department of International Business, Centre for International Business, University of Leeds, United Kingdom, m.papanastasiou@leeds.ac.uk; Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar, Qatar, mpapanas@andrew.cmu.edu
- Ana Teresa Tavares-Lehmann, Faculty of Economics, University of Porto, Portugal, atavares@fep.up.pt
Scope of the special issue:
In the last 30 years transnational corporations (TNCs) have increasingly located innovation and R&D activities outside their home countries to gain access to knowledge not available at home. This trend is known as international knowledge sourcing, or the internationalization of R&D.
This special issue focuses on papers that examine international knowledge sourcing in service industries. A focus lies on digital multinational enterprises (MNEs) including platform-based TNCs, content providers, e-commerce firms, providers of hardware and software, or telecommunication providers. Empirical evidence suggests that service industries gained a prominent role in international knowledge sourcing in recent years. Digital MNEs – e.g. Alphabet, Microsoft and Facebook – today appear among the largest R&D performers globally.
The trend towards more international knowledge sourcing by service firms is, on the one hand, a result of the diffusion of information and communication technologies which have increased the tradability of services and created new business opportunities. On the other hand, there is general trend towards a higher knowledge intensity in services. The shift towards services, however, is hardly reflected in the academic literature which still focusses on knowledge sourcing in manufacturing firms.
Indicative topics:
We encourage contributions from a variety of perspectives, including international business, innovation economics, economic geography, management, or an international economics perspective. In particular, we welcome papers related to policies towards international knowledge sourcing in services and studies that take an emerging economies perspective on the topic. Contributions may cover, but are not limited to, the following topics:
- How did international knowledge sourcing by service firms and digital TNCs evolve over the last decades? What are important host and home countries?
- What differences can be found between developed and developing countries? What is the evidence for international knowledge sourcing outside the OECD, in China and India?
- What differences can be observed across service industries? How can the characteristics of service industries such as the knowledge base explain international sourcing strategies?
- Does the structure of ownership and the size of the domestic market determine the respective knowledge sourcing strategies?
- How do the knowledge sourcing strategies of larger service TNCs differ from those of International New Ventures (INVs), Born Globals (BG), or Born Digitals? What is the role of outsourcing and the fragmentation of value chains for international knowledge sourcing in service firms?
- How relevant is the knowledge base and specialization of the home country for international activities in services? How much local embeddedness in the host country does international knowledge sourcing by service firms need? What is the role of innovation hot-spots, agglomerations, and localized knowledge spillovers for the process?
- What can emerging economies do to attract R&D investments by service TNCs from developed countries? Examples of successful policies are welcomed in particular.
- How do the international knowledge sourcing activities of service TNCs contribute to sustainable development and the SDGs?
Guidelines for submission:
Transnational Corporations is an official United Nations academic policy-orientated journal. In line with the scope of the journal (https://unctad.org/Topic/Investment/Transnational-Corporations-Journal/Editorial-Statement), papers submitted to the Special Issue need to include:
- appropriate policy framing and explicitly stating the policy relevance of the paper
- draw clear policy conclusions from the findings of the study
- include a substantial section on policy implications and policy recommendations engaging with concrete and substantive policy issues relevant to the study and key take-aways for policymakers
- where relevant and where there is a (potential) development angle to the research, address the development impact.
Authors should refer to the Transnational Corporations website and the guidelines on submitting papers:
https://unctad.org/Topic/Investment/Transnational-Corporations-Journal/Guidelines-for-Contributors. Questions and informal enquiries should be directed to any of the guest editors.
Submission deadline:
31 August 2022
Approximate date of publication:
Issue 3, December 2022
Submissions should be sent to:
tncj@unctad.org
Home page: https://unctad.org/Topic/Investment/
|
|
Special Issue Editor(s)
Dr. Riad Shams, Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, UK
Riad.Shams@northumbria.ac.uk
Professor Demetris Vrontis, University of Nicosia, Cyprus
vrontis.d@unic.ac.cy
Professor (Sir) Cary Cooper, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK
cary.cooper@mbs.ac.uk
Professor Michael R. Czinkota, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA
czinkotm@georgetown.edu
Professor Alessandra Colombelli, Department of Management and Production Engineering (DI GEP) and Entrepreneurship and Innovation Centre (EIC), Polytechnic of Turin, Italy
alessandra.colombelli@polito.it
Generating profit for a social or ecological cause as a social business (SB) concept is acknowledged for its potential contribution to regional development. In comparison to the traditional profit-only business firms, SB is considered a more suitable business model to protect and underpin the socio-economic and ecological welfare of a market or region that is served by different types of public and private sector businesses. Despite our growing acknowledgement of SBs’ potential for regional development, we have limited knowledge of how SBs could prolifically influence diverse social and ecological issues across different regions. In addition to a few notable examples of SBs’ socio-economic and ecological contribution, many SBs also struggle with their business operations across the world to survive and prosper, considering that SBs need to satisfy both their commercial and social stakeholders. Operational sustainability is more challenging for SBs than for profit-only business firms, as the latter are only mostly focussed on satisfying their commercial stakeholders. Therefore, a timely call is needed to explore an appropriate equilibrium between SBs’ social, ecological and commercial policy and strategy to strategically leverage their triple value-creating variables in order to enhance regional socio-economic and ecological welfare.
The ongoing acknowledgement of SBs’ potential to address social and ecological concerns, and the subsequent interests in SB research from different research areas, such as economics, business, entrepreneurship, ethics, sociology and information technology, among others, lead us to an alienated instead of an integrated field of SB research. Therefore, we also lack integrated theoretical and practical development in this field that could significantly enable SBs to prolifically pursue their triple bottom line, simultaneously. The lack of such integrated propositions subsequently lessens SBs’ potential to contribute to regional development. On the one hand, there is the possibility of taking advantage of the SB concept as a means of generating profit by promoting the social or ecological cause. On the other hand, as a relatively newer business concept, SBs lack appropriate policy and legislative support in comparison to the traditional profit-only businesses. It also undermines SBs’ operational sustainability and their capacities to underpin regional socio-economic and ecological welfare. There is debate about the effectiveness of socially-responsible investments to simultaneously improve the social, ecological and commercial performance of SBs. To contribute to this debate, we need more conceptual development and empirical replication to understand why and how SBs could be a superior business model to address different regional social and ecological concerns while making profit. As a consequence, different forms of SBs’ potential contribution to society and ecology across diverse urban and rural regions need to be examined.
In this context, this special issue aims to develop novel insights into how SBs could sustainably manage their triple (social, ecological and economic) value dynamics in an integrated way to ensure their commercial sustainability while underpinning their socio-ecological contribution for regional development.
Thematic Area
The extent of business surplus that would be generated by SBs after their operational costs could be considered as the extent of their commercial sustainability. SBs' contribution to regional socio-ecological sustainability could be considered as their long-term operational consistency, which does not detrimentally impact a region’s societal and ecological features, but preserves and reinforces those features for regional development. Based on this background, the guest editors encourage theoretical and/or empirical contributions in the following two core areas and related to subsequent area-specific research questions (RQs); however it is not a comprehensive list of RQs:
(1) Social business hybrids (contributing to people and planet while making a profit) for regional development:
Author Information:
Regional Studies is focused on “the development of theories and concepts, empirical analysis and policy debate in the field of regional studies. The Journal publishes original research spanning the economic, social, political and environmental dimensions of urban and regional (subnational) change”. In this context, this special issue aims to develop novel insights into how SBs could sustainably manage their triple (social, ecological and economic) value dynamics in an integrated way to ensure their economic sustainability while underpinning their socio-ecological contribution for regional development.
Prospective contributors to this special issue should note that the regional focus of the special issue topic and published papers in this issue must be adequately developed and emphasised to meet the Journal’s aims and scope. Papers submitted to the special issue should focus specifically on the core contribution of social business to regional development, based on underpinning the social and commercial missions of social businesses for regional development.
Submission Instructions:
An extended abstract of no more than 350 words should be submitted to Dr. Riad Shams with all other guest editors in copy by 30 June 2022. Authors should include the paper title, contributors’ details, the abstract, and keywords.
A special issue workshop will be organized at the 2022 RSA Winter Conference (Regions in Transition: Balancing Economic, Social and Environmental Sustainability in the Face of Uncertainty), London, UK, 10 November 2022 (https://www.regionalstudies.org/events/2022-winter-conference/#). The deadline to submit an expression of interest (EOI) to participate in this author workshop is 31 August 2022. The EOI should be sent to Dr. Riad Shams, with all other guest editors in copy. Please note, participating in this author workshop is not a prerequisite to submit a paper to this special issue, nor does participating in this workshop ensure the acceptance of a paper in this special issue.
Full manuscripts will be expected by 31 December 2022 and will be subject to the journal's normal peer-review process.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS
SUBMIT AN ARTICLE
Dr. Riad Shams, Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, UK
Riad.Shams@northumbria.ac.uk
Professor Demetris Vrontis, University of Nicosia, Cyprus
vrontis.d@unic.ac.cy
Professor (Sir) Cary Cooper, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK
cary.cooper@mbs.ac.uk
Professor Michael R. Czinkota, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA
czinkotm@georgetown.edu
Professor Alessandra Colombelli, Department of Management and Production Engineering (DI GEP) and Entrepreneurship and Innovation Centre (EIC), Polytechnic of Turin, Italy
alessandra.colombelli@polito.it
Generating profit for a social or ecological cause as a social business (SB) concept is acknowledged for its potential contribution to regional development. In comparison to the traditional profit-only business firms, SB is considered a more suitable business model to protect and underpin the socio-economic and ecological welfare of a market or region that is served by different types of public and private sector businesses. Despite our growing acknowledgement of SBs’ potential for regional development, we have limited knowledge of how SBs could prolifically influence diverse social and ecological issues across different regions. In addition to a few notable examples of SBs’ socio-economic and ecological contribution, many SBs also struggle with their business operations across the world to survive and prosper, considering that SBs need to satisfy both their commercial and social stakeholders. Operational sustainability is more challenging for SBs than for profit-only business firms, as the latter are only mostly focussed on satisfying their commercial stakeholders. Therefore, a timely call is needed to explore an appropriate equilibrium between SBs’ social, ecological and commercial policy and strategy to strategically leverage their triple value-creating variables in order to enhance regional socio-economic and ecological welfare.
The ongoing acknowledgement of SBs’ potential to address social and ecological concerns, and the subsequent interests in SB research from different research areas, such as economics, business, entrepreneurship, ethics, sociology and information technology, among others, lead us to an alienated instead of an integrated field of SB research. Therefore, we also lack integrated theoretical and practical development in this field that could significantly enable SBs to prolifically pursue their triple bottom line, simultaneously. The lack of such integrated propositions subsequently lessens SBs’ potential to contribute to regional development. On the one hand, there is the possibility of taking advantage of the SB concept as a means of generating profit by promoting the social or ecological cause. On the other hand, as a relatively newer business concept, SBs lack appropriate policy and legislative support in comparison to the traditional profit-only businesses. It also undermines SBs’ operational sustainability and their capacities to underpin regional socio-economic and ecological welfare. There is debate about the effectiveness of socially-responsible investments to simultaneously improve the social, ecological and commercial performance of SBs. To contribute to this debate, we need more conceptual development and empirical replication to understand why and how SBs could be a superior business model to address different regional social and ecological concerns while making profit. As a consequence, different forms of SBs’ potential contribution to society and ecology across diverse urban and rural regions need to be examined.
In this context, this special issue aims to develop novel insights into how SBs could sustainably manage their triple (social, ecological and economic) value dynamics in an integrated way to ensure their commercial sustainability while underpinning their socio-ecological contribution for regional development.
Thematic Area
The extent of business surplus that would be generated by SBs after their operational costs could be considered as the extent of their commercial sustainability. SBs' contribution to regional socio-ecological sustainability could be considered as their long-term operational consistency, which does not detrimentally impact a region’s societal and ecological features, but preserves and reinforces those features for regional development. Based on this background, the guest editors encourage theoretical and/or empirical contributions in the following two core areas and related to subsequent area-specific research questions (RQs); however it is not a comprehensive list of RQs:
(1) Social business hybrids (contributing to people and planet while making a profit) for regional development:
- What policy and legislative support would be instrumental for SBs to underpin their contribution to regional communities and ecology while making a profit?
- How could regional business values impact on developing dominant SB frameworks to profitably contribute to regional societies and environments? What are the generalization aspects of such SB frameworks across different regions?
- How could SBs effectively balance the informal governance mechanisms (e.g. trust and collective norms) of different regions and more formal governance systems (e.g. state-led or corporate governance) to contribute to regional societies and environments while making a profit?
- How could strategic and everyday entrepreneurial initiatives be better connected to regional social and ecological problems? How could SBs transform such connectedness into profit-making ventures while contributing to regional socio-ecological development?
- What are the core challenges to simultaneously pursue the SBs’ triple bottom line (contributing to society and ecology while making a profit), and how could such challenges be addressed in order to underpin SBs’ contribution to regional development?
- How could SBs proactively manage business risks and uncertainty during both normal times and times of crises in order to sustain their economic stability while contributing to regional social and ecological sustainability?
- How could exploring the social and economic value of embryonic technologies be instrumental in balancing SBs’ social and economic missions in order to strategically leverage SBs’ social, ecological and economic value-creating variables for regional development?
- What additional support would be instrumental to sustain SBs that are launched and/or managed by different under-represented groups of entrepreneurs (especially women, indigenous people and immigrants) to ensure such SBs’ ongoing economic viability, in order to contribute to societies and environments across different regions?
Author Information:
Regional Studies is focused on “the development of theories and concepts, empirical analysis and policy debate in the field of regional studies. The Journal publishes original research spanning the economic, social, political and environmental dimensions of urban and regional (subnational) change”. In this context, this special issue aims to develop novel insights into how SBs could sustainably manage their triple (social, ecological and economic) value dynamics in an integrated way to ensure their economic sustainability while underpinning their socio-ecological contribution for regional development.
Prospective contributors to this special issue should note that the regional focus of the special issue topic and published papers in this issue must be adequately developed and emphasised to meet the Journal’s aims and scope. Papers submitted to the special issue should focus specifically on the core contribution of social business to regional development, based on underpinning the social and commercial missions of social businesses for regional development.
Submission Instructions:
An extended abstract of no more than 350 words should be submitted to Dr. Riad Shams with all other guest editors in copy by 30 June 2022. Authors should include the paper title, contributors’ details, the abstract, and keywords.
A special issue workshop will be organized at the 2022 RSA Winter Conference (Regions in Transition: Balancing Economic, Social and Environmental Sustainability in the Face of Uncertainty), London, UK, 10 November 2022 (https://www.regionalstudies.org/events/2022-winter-conference/#). The deadline to submit an expression of interest (EOI) to participate in this author workshop is 31 August 2022. The EOI should be sent to Dr. Riad Shams, with all other guest editors in copy. Please note, participating in this author workshop is not a prerequisite to submit a paper to this special issue, nor does participating in this workshop ensure the acceptance of a paper in this special issue.
Full manuscripts will be expected by 31 December 2022 and will be subject to the journal's normal peer-review process.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS
SUBMIT AN ARTICLE
|
|
Guest Editors (in alphabetical order):
Dr Natasha Evers, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, natasha.evers@tcd.ie
Dr Stephan Gerschewski, University of Kent, UK, s.gerschewski@kent.ac.uk
Prof Zaheer Khan, University of Aberdeen, UK, zaheer.khan@abdn.ac.uk
Dr Tim King, University of Kent, UK, t.p.king@kent.ac.uk
Prof Olli Kuivalainen, LUT University, Finland, olli.kuivalainen@lut.fi
Dr Pushyarag Puthusserry, University of Kent, UK, p.n.puthusserry@kent.ac.uk
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE
In an increasingly complex, technology-driven, and networked global economy, corporate governance has become an important factor in managing and leading organisations. With its theoretical roots traversing the various disciplines of economics, finance, accounting, law, sociology, and management (Zattoni & van Ees, 2012; Durisin & Puzone, 2009), corporate governance looks at how firms are governed so that they operate effectively and efficiently (Strange et al., 2009). More specifically, corporate governance can be considered as a set of processes, rules and structures for controlling and leading organisations. Such corporate mechanisms encapsulate how relationships between firm management, company shareholders and stakeholders are governed (Ching et al., 2006).
In the area of international business (IB), many studies have generally examined corporate governance, primarily in the context of multinational corporations (MNCs) (Aguilera et al., 2019; Bhaumik et al., 2019) and internationally mature small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Li et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2011; Kuivalainen et al., 2012). Although IB scholars have recognised the importance of corporate governance and executive leadership decision-making in MNC management, studies with a specific focus on young, rapidly internationalising firms, such as international new ventures (INVs) and born global (BG) firms, are surprisingly still relatively few (e.g., Romanello & Chiarvesio, 2019; Gerschewski et al., 2018; Coviello et al., 2017). In addition, we tend to have more of an understanding of how INVs and BGs compete than how they are actually governed (e.g., Zahra, 2014). Consequently, new studies on corporate governance in the context of INVs and BGs have the potential to provide valuable insights into the existing research, which is predominately based on advanced economies (cf., Aguilera et al., 2019; Puthusserry et al., 2021).
There are some issues, which can make INVs and BGs different from MNCs in the context of corporate governance. For example, the traits and characteristics of entrepreneurs – who are entrepreneurs and why people become entrepreneurs affect governance – for example, they may want to be their own boss and/or desire to grow and run an international business. Such motivations are undoubtedly important, and we know from existing literature that motivation in its various guises plays a key role in early firm internationalisation and international entrepreneurship (e.g., Autio et al., 2000). As INVs and BGs often naturally aim for rapid and early international firm growth, they often need (or even exist because of) external capital funding. Further, an entrepreneur’s desire to be their own boss may lead to conflicts with their own Board of Directors and other influential stakeholders.
Ownership characteristics, especially from the family firm perspective, have also been studied in relation to the ownership concentration and stewardship attitudes (e.g., Kontinen & Ojala, 2012). However, a thorough understanding of the roles of board effectiveness (including e.g., returnee board of directors, cf. Lin et al., 2018), individual executives (CEOs and Managing Directors) and TMTs, present increasingly important avenues for research in the context of INVs and BGs given the critical roles of corporate governance structures in both large multinational enterprises (MNEs) and SMEs in a globalised world economy (Aguilera et al., 2019; Bhaumik et al., 2019).
The aims and objectives of this proposed Special Issue (SI) are four-fold: (1) understand what makes BoDs, executive leadership groups, and TMTs effective in INVs and BGs; (2) examine the relationships between BoDs, TMT, structures, processes and effectiveness; (3) build an intellectual framework for discussion related to various dimensions of upper echelons at micro- and macro-levels of corporate governance in INVs and BGs; and (4) advance multi-disciplinary studies by integrating the literature strands of IE, IB, OB, finance, sociology, law, and HR.
POTENTIAL THEMES AND QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED WITHIN THE SPECIAL ISSUE
This Special Issue welcomes studies examining antecedents, determinants, and processes of corporate governance of INVs and BGs (and other types of early and rapidly internationalising firms) and its respective consequences. Corporate governance in international business has been studied from a number of perspectives, including transaction cost economics, resource-based view, agency theory, and institutional theory (e.g., Aguilera et al., 2019). We encourage contributions from a variety of theoretical lenses, research methods, and studies analysing corporate governance in diverse types of entrepreneurial firms and institutional contexts across different countries and contexts.
Consistent with the above context, we invite manuscripts on topics related to the issues described above, which include, but are not limited, to the following topics:
The deadline for submission of papers is 31 January 2022. The journal submission site will be open for submissions from 21 January 2022. The Special Issue is scheduled to be published in April 2023. Papers must be original and comply with ISBJ submission guidelines. Please refer to http://isb.sagepub.com/ for submission guidelines and the link to the online submission system. In the online system please ensure you submit your paper within Manuscript Type: ‘Special Issue: Corporate Governance in INVs and Born Global Firms’.
Questions and informal enquiries should be directed to any of the guest editors (please see contact details at beginning of document).
REFERENCES:
Aguilera, R.V., Marano, V., and Haxhi, I. (2019). International corporate governance: A review and opportunities for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 1-42
Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., and Almeida, J. G. (2000). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 909-924.
Bhaumik, S., Driffield, N., Gaur, A., Mickiewicz, T., and Vaaler, P. (2019). Corporate governance and MNE strategies in emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 54(4), 234-243.
Ching, K. W., Tan, J. S., and Chi Ching R. G. (2006). Corporate Governance in East Asia. The Road Ahead: Analysis and Case Studies in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea and Japan. Prentice Hall: Singapore.
Coviello, N., Kano, L., and Liesch, P. W. (2017). Adapting the Uppsala model to a modern world: macro-context and microfoundations. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9), 1151-1164.
Durisin B., and Puzone, F. (2009). Maturation of corporate governance research, 1993-2007: An assessment. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(2), 266-291.
Gerschewski, S., Lew, Y. K., Khan, Z., and Park, B. I. (2018). Post-performance of international new ventures: The mediating role of learning orientation. International Small Business Journal, 36(7), 807-828.
Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., and Tang, Y. K. (2011). International Entrepreneurship research (1989-2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 632-659.
Kontinen, T., and Ojala, A. (2012). Internationalization pathways among family-owned SMEs. International Marketing Review, 29(5), 496-518.
Kuivalainen, O., Sundqvist, S., Saarenketo, S., and McNaughton, R. (2012). Internationalization patterns of small and medium-sized enterprises. International Marketing Review, 29(5), 448-465.
Li, H., Terjesen, S., and Umans, T. (2018). Corporate governance in entrepreneurial firms: a systematic review and research agenda. Small Business Economics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0118-1.
Lin, Y. H., Chen, C. J., and Lin, B. W. (2018). The dual-edged role of returnee board members in new venture performance. Journal of Business Research, 90, 347-358.
Puthusserry, P., Khan, Z., Nair, S. R., and King, T. (2021). Mitigating psychic distance and enhancing internationalization of Fintech SMEs from emerging markets: The role of board of directors. British Journal of Management, DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12502.
Romanello, R., and Chiarvesio, M. (2019). Early internationalizing firms: 2004-2018. Journal of International Entrepreneurship. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-018-0241-8.
Strange, R., Filatotchev, I., Buck, T., and Wright, M. (2009). Corporate governance and international business. Management International Review, 49(4), 395-407.
Zahra, S. A. (2014). Public and corporate governance and young global entrepreneurial firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(2), 77-83.
Zattoni, A., and van Ees, H. (2012). How to contribute to the development of a global theory of corporate governance? Reflections from submitted and published articles on CGIR. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(1), 106-118.
Dr Natasha Evers, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, natasha.evers@tcd.ie
Dr Stephan Gerschewski, University of Kent, UK, s.gerschewski@kent.ac.uk
Prof Zaheer Khan, University of Aberdeen, UK, zaheer.khan@abdn.ac.uk
Dr Tim King, University of Kent, UK, t.p.king@kent.ac.uk
Prof Olli Kuivalainen, LUT University, Finland, olli.kuivalainen@lut.fi
Dr Pushyarag Puthusserry, University of Kent, UK, p.n.puthusserry@kent.ac.uk
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE
In an increasingly complex, technology-driven, and networked global economy, corporate governance has become an important factor in managing and leading organisations. With its theoretical roots traversing the various disciplines of economics, finance, accounting, law, sociology, and management (Zattoni & van Ees, 2012; Durisin & Puzone, 2009), corporate governance looks at how firms are governed so that they operate effectively and efficiently (Strange et al., 2009). More specifically, corporate governance can be considered as a set of processes, rules and structures for controlling and leading organisations. Such corporate mechanisms encapsulate how relationships between firm management, company shareholders and stakeholders are governed (Ching et al., 2006).
In the area of international business (IB), many studies have generally examined corporate governance, primarily in the context of multinational corporations (MNCs) (Aguilera et al., 2019; Bhaumik et al., 2019) and internationally mature small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Li et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2011; Kuivalainen et al., 2012). Although IB scholars have recognised the importance of corporate governance and executive leadership decision-making in MNC management, studies with a specific focus on young, rapidly internationalising firms, such as international new ventures (INVs) and born global (BG) firms, are surprisingly still relatively few (e.g., Romanello & Chiarvesio, 2019; Gerschewski et al., 2018; Coviello et al., 2017). In addition, we tend to have more of an understanding of how INVs and BGs compete than how they are actually governed (e.g., Zahra, 2014). Consequently, new studies on corporate governance in the context of INVs and BGs have the potential to provide valuable insights into the existing research, which is predominately based on advanced economies (cf., Aguilera et al., 2019; Puthusserry et al., 2021).
There are some issues, which can make INVs and BGs different from MNCs in the context of corporate governance. For example, the traits and characteristics of entrepreneurs – who are entrepreneurs and why people become entrepreneurs affect governance – for example, they may want to be their own boss and/or desire to grow and run an international business. Such motivations are undoubtedly important, and we know from existing literature that motivation in its various guises plays a key role in early firm internationalisation and international entrepreneurship (e.g., Autio et al., 2000). As INVs and BGs often naturally aim for rapid and early international firm growth, they often need (or even exist because of) external capital funding. Further, an entrepreneur’s desire to be their own boss may lead to conflicts with their own Board of Directors and other influential stakeholders.
Ownership characteristics, especially from the family firm perspective, have also been studied in relation to the ownership concentration and stewardship attitudes (e.g., Kontinen & Ojala, 2012). However, a thorough understanding of the roles of board effectiveness (including e.g., returnee board of directors, cf. Lin et al., 2018), individual executives (CEOs and Managing Directors) and TMTs, present increasingly important avenues for research in the context of INVs and BGs given the critical roles of corporate governance structures in both large multinational enterprises (MNEs) and SMEs in a globalised world economy (Aguilera et al., 2019; Bhaumik et al., 2019).
The aims and objectives of this proposed Special Issue (SI) are four-fold: (1) understand what makes BoDs, executive leadership groups, and TMTs effective in INVs and BGs; (2) examine the relationships between BoDs, TMT, structures, processes and effectiveness; (3) build an intellectual framework for discussion related to various dimensions of upper echelons at micro- and macro-levels of corporate governance in INVs and BGs; and (4) advance multi-disciplinary studies by integrating the literature strands of IE, IB, OB, finance, sociology, law, and HR.
POTENTIAL THEMES AND QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED WITHIN THE SPECIAL ISSUE
This Special Issue welcomes studies examining antecedents, determinants, and processes of corporate governance of INVs and BGs (and other types of early and rapidly internationalising firms) and its respective consequences. Corporate governance in international business has been studied from a number of perspectives, including transaction cost economics, resource-based view, agency theory, and institutional theory (e.g., Aguilera et al., 2019). We encourage contributions from a variety of theoretical lenses, research methods, and studies analysing corporate governance in diverse types of entrepreneurial firms and institutional contexts across different countries and contexts.
Consistent with the above context, we invite manuscripts on topics related to the issues described above, which include, but are not limited, to the following topics:
- What is the role of the Board of Directors (BoDs) for INVs and BGs?
- How do BoDs affect the post-entry performance of INVs and BGs?
- What are the unique features and characteristics in the corporate governance of INVs and BGs as compared to ‘traditional’ firms and large, multinational corporations (MNCs)?
- To what extent do BoDs help in overcoming the liabilities of smallness, foreignness and help in establishing legitimacy in host markets?
- What is the role of BoDs for different foreign market entry modes of INVs and BGs?
- What is the relationship between the strategic orientations of INVs and BGs and corporate governance?
- How do dynamic managerial capabilities enable INVs and BGs to address corporate control and resource allocation issues?
- What are the impacts of (foreign) ownership structure and corporate governance on the strategy and management of INVs and BGs?
- What is the relationship between institutional contexts and BoDs? How do BoDs help in overcoming psychic distance for INVs?
- Which theoretical approaches can help explain corporate governance of INVs and BGs?
- What is the role of BoDs, venture capitalists, and angel investors in the early development phases of INVs and BGs?
- What is the role of returnee board of directors in INVs and BGs?
The deadline for submission of papers is 31 January 2022. The journal submission site will be open for submissions from 21 January 2022. The Special Issue is scheduled to be published in April 2023. Papers must be original and comply with ISBJ submission guidelines. Please refer to http://isb.sagepub.com/ for submission guidelines and the link to the online submission system. In the online system please ensure you submit your paper within Manuscript Type: ‘Special Issue: Corporate Governance in INVs and Born Global Firms’.
Questions and informal enquiries should be directed to any of the guest editors (please see contact details at beginning of document).
REFERENCES:
Aguilera, R.V., Marano, V., and Haxhi, I. (2019). International corporate governance: A review and opportunities for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 1-42
Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., and Almeida, J. G. (2000). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 909-924.
Bhaumik, S., Driffield, N., Gaur, A., Mickiewicz, T., and Vaaler, P. (2019). Corporate governance and MNE strategies in emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 54(4), 234-243.
Ching, K. W., Tan, J. S., and Chi Ching R. G. (2006). Corporate Governance in East Asia. The Road Ahead: Analysis and Case Studies in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea and Japan. Prentice Hall: Singapore.
Coviello, N., Kano, L., and Liesch, P. W. (2017). Adapting the Uppsala model to a modern world: macro-context and microfoundations. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9), 1151-1164.
Durisin B., and Puzone, F. (2009). Maturation of corporate governance research, 1993-2007: An assessment. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(2), 266-291.
Gerschewski, S., Lew, Y. K., Khan, Z., and Park, B. I. (2018). Post-performance of international new ventures: The mediating role of learning orientation. International Small Business Journal, 36(7), 807-828.
Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., and Tang, Y. K. (2011). International Entrepreneurship research (1989-2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 632-659.
Kontinen, T., and Ojala, A. (2012). Internationalization pathways among family-owned SMEs. International Marketing Review, 29(5), 496-518.
Kuivalainen, O., Sundqvist, S., Saarenketo, S., and McNaughton, R. (2012). Internationalization patterns of small and medium-sized enterprises. International Marketing Review, 29(5), 448-465.
Li, H., Terjesen, S., and Umans, T. (2018). Corporate governance in entrepreneurial firms: a systematic review and research agenda. Small Business Economics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0118-1.
Lin, Y. H., Chen, C. J., and Lin, B. W. (2018). The dual-edged role of returnee board members in new venture performance. Journal of Business Research, 90, 347-358.
Puthusserry, P., Khan, Z., Nair, S. R., and King, T. (2021). Mitigating psychic distance and enhancing internationalization of Fintech SMEs from emerging markets: The role of board of directors. British Journal of Management, DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12502.
Romanello, R., and Chiarvesio, M. (2019). Early internationalizing firms: 2004-2018. Journal of International Entrepreneurship. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-018-0241-8.
Strange, R., Filatotchev, I., Buck, T., and Wright, M. (2009). Corporate governance and international business. Management International Review, 49(4), 395-407.
Zahra, S. A. (2014). Public and corporate governance and young global entrepreneurial firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(2), 77-83.
Zattoni, A., and van Ees, H. (2012). How to contribute to the development of a global theory of corporate governance? Reflections from submitted and published articles on CGIR. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(1), 106-118.
|
|
Guest Editors: Jakob Müllner (WU-Vienna) & Riccardo Crescenzi (LSE)
UNCTAD’s 2020 World Investment Report concluded that, over the coming years, the attention of global investment and development policymakers is likely to shift from investment in productive capacity in global supply chains towards investment in infrastructure and domestic services. This shift implies a focus on a wider range of actors (e.g. not only traditional TNCs but also financial institutions, institutional investors and funds).
In this special issue, we invite academic research on actors, strategies, institutions, and effects of sustainable development finance and investment in the context of the post-pandemic recovery. Research should combine finance and development aspects and, ideally, point towards policy and practice implications. Of special interest is research that looks at implications for policies targeting green, digital and inclusive recovery in advanced and emerging economies and their sub-national regions.
The special issue will be open to research covering the full ‘investment chain’ from the mobilization of funds in financial markets to the impact of investment projects on the ground. Because COVID-19 has significantly affected the market for development finance, priority will be given to recent empirical research that considers the repercussions of COVID-19 for sustainable finance. We invite qualitative, quantitative and conceptual contributions and offer an accelerated submission process. Possible topics include, but are not limited to:
Development finance capital providers and their role in development finance
Development finance strategies & instruments
The global institutional development finance environment
Economic, social and environmental impacts of development finance
Accelerated submission process
Guest Editors
Riccardo Crescenzi is Professor of Economic Geography at the London School of Economics and is the current holder of a European Research Council (ERC) Grant. He is also an Associate at the Centre for International Development, Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Riccardo is the Editor-in-Chief of the LSE Blog Global Investment and Local Development (GILD) and is currently part of the National Infrastructure Commission of Italy. He has been a Jean Monnet Fellow at the European University Institute (EUI) and a Visiting Scholar at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Taubman Centre and at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). His research is focused on regional economic development, innovation, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and multinationals and the analysis and evaluation of European Union policies. His ERC project looks at the location strategies of FDI, at their impacts on the host economies and at the evaluation of policies for FDI attraction and retention.
Jakob Müllner is Associate Professor at the Institute of International Business at WU-Vienna. His research seeks to integrate finance and international business perspectives. It focuses on financing international business and financial risk management strategies in internationalization. He published in ABS 4 ranked journals in the disciplines International Finance, International Business and Management (e.g. Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Corporate Finance, Journal of World Business). He was nominated for Haynes Prize for most promising scholar (AIB), the Carolyn B. Dexter Award (AOM), the Alan Rugman Young Scholar Award (AIB) and received the Distinguished Paper Award from the Academy of Management Strategy Division in 2019. Jakob Müllner serves as track chair for International Finance, Accounting and Corporate Governance in the European International Business Association (EIBA) and co-founded the annual WU-Vienna IB & Finance Paper Development Workshop.
Submissions should be sent to: tncj@unctad.org
Home page: http://unctad.org/tnc
Additional questions regarding this special issue and submissions can be sent to:
Riccardo Crescenzi
Professor
London School of Economics
Tel.: +44 20 7955 6720
r.crescenzi@lse.ac.uk
Jakob Müllner
Associate Professor
WU Vienna – Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien
Tel.: +43-1-313 36-4374
jakob.muellner@wu.ac.at
UNCTAD’s 2020 World Investment Report concluded that, over the coming years, the attention of global investment and development policymakers is likely to shift from investment in productive capacity in global supply chains towards investment in infrastructure and domestic services. This shift implies a focus on a wider range of actors (e.g. not only traditional TNCs but also financial institutions, institutional investors and funds).
In this special issue, we invite academic research on actors, strategies, institutions, and effects of sustainable development finance and investment in the context of the post-pandemic recovery. Research should combine finance and development aspects and, ideally, point towards policy and practice implications. Of special interest is research that looks at implications for policies targeting green, digital and inclusive recovery in advanced and emerging economies and their sub-national regions.
The special issue will be open to research covering the full ‘investment chain’ from the mobilization of funds in financial markets to the impact of investment projects on the ground. Because COVID-19 has significantly affected the market for development finance, priority will be given to recent empirical research that considers the repercussions of COVID-19 for sustainable finance. We invite qualitative, quantitative and conceptual contributions and offer an accelerated submission process. Possible topics include, but are not limited to:
Development finance capital providers and their role in development finance
- Traditional sponsors, creditors & guarantee agencies
- New players: ESG & impact funds, Sovereign Wealth Funds, Infrastructure & Hedge Fund
Development finance strategies & instruments
- Project finance
- Private public partnerships (PPP)
- Blended finance
- Micro-finance
- Soft & concessionary loans
- Green bonds
- Development assistance
The global institutional development finance environment
- Voluntary international standards (e.g. Equator Principles, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises)
- Multinational development institutions in project finance investment (UN, WTO, OECD, IMF, MIGA)
- International investment regime and international arbitration
Economic, social and environmental impacts of development finance
- Sectoral or sub-national regional impacts and their global geography
- Interactions between recovery plans (supra-national, national and sub-national) and development finance
- Impact evaluation of specific projects of general interest for digital, green and inclusive recovery
- Development finance and EU Cohesion Policy
- Role and impacts of public policies (e.g. Investment Promotion Agencies)
- COVID-19 implications for development finance and its impacts
Accelerated submission process
- Optional preliminary submission July 15th: Authors may submit either (1.1) Full papers OR (1.2) Paper abstracts for upfront feedback
- Preliminary response August 1st. Those accepted for further development will receive a detailed review. A positive preliminary feedback does not guarantee publication but it allows authors to get early feedback on suitability of the proposed paper, chances and detailed feedback from editors & reviewers
- Mandatory main submission September 1st: Authors submit full papers
- Decision announcement September 29th: Authors receive conditional acceptance or rejection decision within 30 days
- Final submission November 14th
- Publication of the special issue: December 2021
Guest Editors
Riccardo Crescenzi is Professor of Economic Geography at the London School of Economics and is the current holder of a European Research Council (ERC) Grant. He is also an Associate at the Centre for International Development, Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Riccardo is the Editor-in-Chief of the LSE Blog Global Investment and Local Development (GILD) and is currently part of the National Infrastructure Commission of Italy. He has been a Jean Monnet Fellow at the European University Institute (EUI) and a Visiting Scholar at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Taubman Centre and at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). His research is focused on regional economic development, innovation, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and multinationals and the analysis and evaluation of European Union policies. His ERC project looks at the location strategies of FDI, at their impacts on the host economies and at the evaluation of policies for FDI attraction and retention.
Jakob Müllner is Associate Professor at the Institute of International Business at WU-Vienna. His research seeks to integrate finance and international business perspectives. It focuses on financing international business and financial risk management strategies in internationalization. He published in ABS 4 ranked journals in the disciplines International Finance, International Business and Management (e.g. Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Corporate Finance, Journal of World Business). He was nominated for Haynes Prize for most promising scholar (AIB), the Carolyn B. Dexter Award (AOM), the Alan Rugman Young Scholar Award (AIB) and received the Distinguished Paper Award from the Academy of Management Strategy Division in 2019. Jakob Müllner serves as track chair for International Finance, Accounting and Corporate Governance in the European International Business Association (EIBA) and co-founded the annual WU-Vienna IB & Finance Paper Development Workshop.
Submissions should be sent to: tncj@unctad.org
Home page: http://unctad.org/tnc
Additional questions regarding this special issue and submissions can be sent to:
Riccardo Crescenzi
Professor
London School of Economics
Tel.: +44 20 7955 6720
r.crescenzi@lse.ac.uk
Jakob Müllner
Associate Professor
WU Vienna – Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien
Tel.: +43-1-313 36-4374
jakob.muellner@wu.ac.at
“Working towards the Sustainable Development Goals in earnest –
critical international business perspectives on designing better
interventions”
Guest Editors
Introduction to the Special Issue
This special issue intends to foster critical debate around the challenges and opportunities facing enterprises when working towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) beyond ‘SDG washing’ (cf. van Zanten & van Tulder, 2018). The SDGs are the latest in a series of transnational attempts at designing a governance framework for sustainable development. The scale of stakeholder consultations that preceded the design of the SDGs along with the framework’s emphasis on the role of the business sector in achieving these goals makes this framework “the most important frame of the global development agenda until 2030” (cf. Kolk, 2016; van Zanten & van Tulder, 2018: 209). As such, they provide an excellent frame of reference when critically investigating issues that are “of crucial concern to the world, groups of countries or stakeholders” (cf. Buckley et al., 2017; Dörrenbächer & Gammelgaard, 2019: 254; George et al., 2016).
While there is an increasing number of grey literature on the SDGs, academic studies need to yet incorporate them into their analyses as the rule, rather than the exception (cf. Sinkovics et al., 2016; Sinkovics et al., 2015). This is all the more important as several of the nine planetary boundaries for a safe operating space for humanity have been already exceeded (Rockstrom et al., 2009a; Rockstrom et al., 2009b; Steffen et al., 2015). This has serious implications for the extent to which the SDGs can be met. As firms cannot be separated from human beings, nor from their environment, academic studies need to investigate how the SDGs can become an integral part of the (re)design of business models as well as global value chains (Elkington & Braun, 2013; Linnenluecke et al., 2016; Sinkovics & Archie-acheampong, 2019).
In line with the remit of critical perspectives on international business (Dörrenbächer & Michailova, 2019) we encourage submissions that take a critical stance to what is needed to meaningfully contribute to the SDGs and also clearly outline the relevance of their insights for future critical IB research. We are especially looking for contributions that 1) identify and question widely held assumptions that hinder the design and implementation of more effective SDG contributions and/or 2) propose alternatives to predominant ‘business as usual’ solutions that are not sufficient to effectuate meaningful change. This special issue is interested in a wide range of SDG related projects including but not limited to solutions that originated from multinational enterprises (MNEs), large domestic corporations, small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), commissioned by governments/local authorities, initiated by standard setting bodies or by third sector organizations. We will only consider contributions for publication if they clearly and meaningfully discuss the implication of their study for 1) international business, 2) global value chains, or 3) cross-border collaborations for designing and implementing more effective policies.
Conceptual and Empirical Topics of Particular Interest
The special issue of cpoib provides an opportunity for scholars from different academic disciplines and sub-disciplines with relevance to IB research to submit their work on how the business sector, on its own or in collaboration with other actors, can contribute to the SDGs. Indicative research questions invited for submission are:
Guidelines for submission
References
Buckley, P. J., Doh, J. P., & Benischke, M. H. (2017). Towards a renaissance in international business research? Big questions, grand challenges, and the future of ib scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9), 1045-1064. doi: 10.1057/s41267-017-0102-z
Dörrenbächer, C., & Gammelgaard, J. (2019). Critical and mainstream international business research. critical perspectives on international business, 15(2/3), 239-261. doi: 10.1108/cpoib-02-2019-0012
Dörrenbächer, C., & Michailova, S. (2019). Editorial. critical perspectives on international business, 15(2/3), 110-118. doi: 10.1108/cpoib-05-2019-103
Elkington, J., & Braun, S. (2013). Breakthrough business leaders, market revolutions (pp. 1-64): Volans.
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880-1895. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.4007
Kolk, A. (2016). The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to csr and sustainable development. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 23-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2015.08.010
Linnenluecke, M. K., Smith, T., & McKnight, B. (2016). Environmental finance: A research agenda for interdisciplinary finance research. Economic Modelling, 59, 124-130. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2016.07.010
Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E., . . . Foley, J. (2009a). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 33.
Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., . . . Foley, J. A. (2009b). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475. doi: 10.1038/461472a
Sinkovics, N., & Archie-acheampong, J. (2019). The social value creation of mnes - a literature review across multiple academic fields. critical perspectives on international business. doi: 10.1108/cpoib-06-2017-0038
Sinkovics, N., Hoque, S. F., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2016). Rana plaza collapse aftermath: Are csr compliance and auditing pressures effective? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(4), 617-649. doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-07-2015-2141
Sinkovics, N., Sinkovics, R. R., Hoque, S. F., & Czaban, L. (2015). A reconceptualisation of social value creation as social constraint alleviation. critical perspectives on international business, 11(3-4), 340-363. doi: 10.1108/cpoib-06-2014-0036
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., . . . Sorlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 11. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855
van Zanten, J. A., & van Tulder, R. (2018). Multinational enterprises and the sustainable development goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(3), 208-233. doi: 10.1057/s42214-018-0008-x
- Noemi Sinkovics, University of Auckland Business School, New Zealand, noemi.sinkovics@auckland.ac.nz
- Luciana Marques Vieira, Fundação Getúlio Vargas/Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo - (FGV/EAESP), luciana.vieira@fgv.br
- Rob van Tulder, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, rtulder@rsm.nl
Introduction to the Special Issue
This special issue intends to foster critical debate around the challenges and opportunities facing enterprises when working towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) beyond ‘SDG washing’ (cf. van Zanten & van Tulder, 2018). The SDGs are the latest in a series of transnational attempts at designing a governance framework for sustainable development. The scale of stakeholder consultations that preceded the design of the SDGs along with the framework’s emphasis on the role of the business sector in achieving these goals makes this framework “the most important frame of the global development agenda until 2030” (cf. Kolk, 2016; van Zanten & van Tulder, 2018: 209). As such, they provide an excellent frame of reference when critically investigating issues that are “of crucial concern to the world, groups of countries or stakeholders” (cf. Buckley et al., 2017; Dörrenbächer & Gammelgaard, 2019: 254; George et al., 2016).
While there is an increasing number of grey literature on the SDGs, academic studies need to yet incorporate them into their analyses as the rule, rather than the exception (cf. Sinkovics et al., 2016; Sinkovics et al., 2015). This is all the more important as several of the nine planetary boundaries for a safe operating space for humanity have been already exceeded (Rockstrom et al., 2009a; Rockstrom et al., 2009b; Steffen et al., 2015). This has serious implications for the extent to which the SDGs can be met. As firms cannot be separated from human beings, nor from their environment, academic studies need to investigate how the SDGs can become an integral part of the (re)design of business models as well as global value chains (Elkington & Braun, 2013; Linnenluecke et al., 2016; Sinkovics & Archie-acheampong, 2019).
In line with the remit of critical perspectives on international business (Dörrenbächer & Michailova, 2019) we encourage submissions that take a critical stance to what is needed to meaningfully contribute to the SDGs and also clearly outline the relevance of their insights for future critical IB research. We are especially looking for contributions that 1) identify and question widely held assumptions that hinder the design and implementation of more effective SDG contributions and/or 2) propose alternatives to predominant ‘business as usual’ solutions that are not sufficient to effectuate meaningful change. This special issue is interested in a wide range of SDG related projects including but not limited to solutions that originated from multinational enterprises (MNEs), large domestic corporations, small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), commissioned by governments/local authorities, initiated by standard setting bodies or by third sector organizations. We will only consider contributions for publication if they clearly and meaningfully discuss the implication of their study for 1) international business, 2) global value chains, or 3) cross-border collaborations for designing and implementing more effective policies.
Conceptual and Empirical Topics of Particular Interest
The special issue of cpoib provides an opportunity for scholars from different academic disciplines and sub-disciplines with relevance to IB research to submit their work on how the business sector, on its own or in collaboration with other actors, can contribute to the SDGs. Indicative research questions invited for submission are:
- Are existing theories in IB able to support a better understanding of the SDGs including the process of their implementation and evaluation? If not, how can we extend or modify these theories? Do we need new theories?
- How can SDGs be addressed at different units of analysis (individual, firm, sector, nation state, the supranational level)?
- How can the tensions between climate change and development be mitigated? Can local or regional solutions be scaled up nationally and internationally?
- How can the SDGs help achieve more meaningful social and environmental upgrading in GVCs? Should MNEs be the main driving force?
- What are the limitations of current SDG projects? How can they be addressed? Do MNEs foster or hinder the design of more effective interventions?
- How can multi-stakeholder SDG collaborations be made more effective? Where are the tensions?
- What are the challenges of transforming existing business models into models that embrace the SDGs?
- What are the challenges of designing and implementing cross-border solutions to SDGs?
Guidelines for submission
- Authors should refer to the cpoib website and the instructions on submitting a paper. For author guidelines and more information see: https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=CPOIB
- Submissions to cpoib are made using ScholarOne Manuscripts http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cpoib
- All papers will be subjected to double-blind peer review and papers will be reviewed in accordance with cpoib guidelines.
- Manuscripts will be only considered for this special issue if they 1) adopt a critical stance (in the sense of reflection and problematization) and 2) clearly and meaningfully discuss the implications of the findings for internal business research
- The guest editors welcome informal enquiries related to proposed topics.
- Submission deadline: 15 July 2020
- Approximate date of publication: volume 18
References
Buckley, P. J., Doh, J. P., & Benischke, M. H. (2017). Towards a renaissance in international business research? Big questions, grand challenges, and the future of ib scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9), 1045-1064. doi: 10.1057/s41267-017-0102-z
Dörrenbächer, C., & Gammelgaard, J. (2019). Critical and mainstream international business research. critical perspectives on international business, 15(2/3), 239-261. doi: 10.1108/cpoib-02-2019-0012
Dörrenbächer, C., & Michailova, S. (2019). Editorial. critical perspectives on international business, 15(2/3), 110-118. doi: 10.1108/cpoib-05-2019-103
Elkington, J., & Braun, S. (2013). Breakthrough business leaders, market revolutions (pp. 1-64): Volans.
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880-1895. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.4007
Kolk, A. (2016). The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to csr and sustainable development. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 23-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2015.08.010
Linnenluecke, M. K., Smith, T., & McKnight, B. (2016). Environmental finance: A research agenda for interdisciplinary finance research. Economic Modelling, 59, 124-130. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2016.07.010
Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E., . . . Foley, J. (2009a). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 33.
Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., . . . Foley, J. A. (2009b). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475. doi: 10.1038/461472a
Sinkovics, N., & Archie-acheampong, J. (2019). The social value creation of mnes - a literature review across multiple academic fields. critical perspectives on international business. doi: 10.1108/cpoib-06-2017-0038
Sinkovics, N., Hoque, S. F., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2016). Rana plaza collapse aftermath: Are csr compliance and auditing pressures effective? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(4), 617-649. doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-07-2015-2141
Sinkovics, N., Sinkovics, R. R., Hoque, S. F., & Czaban, L. (2015). A reconceptualisation of social value creation as social constraint alleviation. critical perspectives on international business, 11(3-4), 340-363. doi: 10.1108/cpoib-06-2014-0036
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., . . . Sorlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 11. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855
van Zanten, J. A., & van Tulder, R. (2018). Multinational enterprises and the sustainable development goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(3), 208-233. doi: 10.1057/s42214-018-0008-x
Journal of World Business
A Special Issue on
“Time Matters: Rethinking the Role of Time in International Business Research”
Submissions open August 15, 2020; Submissions due August 30, 2020
Guest Editors:
Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki, University of Vienna, Austria
Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, University of Turku, Finland
Melanie E. Hassett, University of Sheffield, UK
Elizabeth L. Rose, University of Leeds, UK
Peter W. Liesch, The University of Queensland, Australia
Supervising Editor:
Ulf Anderson, Mälardalen University, Sweden
Special Issue Overview
This special issue intends to stimulate thinking on the role and impact of time in International Business (IB) theory and practice. We seek conceptual, theoretical and empirical – both qualitative and quantitative – papers that advance our understanding of temporal issues as they pertain to IB phenomena.
The current global environment is changing rapidly. Climate change, migration, trade wars, political volatility[1], technological disruptions (e.g., artificial intelligence) and the depletion of natural resources create grand challenges for firms. Such rapid changes pose challenges to the applicability of traditional theories. While scholars are calling for grand theories to address grand challenges (e.g., Buckley, Doh & Benischke, 2017), firms are struggling with the timing of their international activities in an increasingly uncertain, disruptive and complex environment (Doh, 2015).
Time is central to IB theory and practice, relevant to both stability and change in internationalization and cross-border operations. It has a crucially important role in the three domains - the philosophical, conceptual, and the methodological (George & Jones, 2000). The literature reflects a strong interest in processes, particularly with respect to internationalization (Knight & Liesch, 2016; Odlin, 2019; Welch, Nummela, Liesch, 2016; Welch & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki 2014). However, much IB research seeks to advance our understanding of internationalization processes by focusing on antecedents and consequences of specific events, rather than on the events’ temporal emergence and their associated dynamic mechanisms (Jones & Coviello, 2005; for similar arguments see Pettigrew, 2012; Van de Ven 1992). For example, the focus is often on explaining firms’ attaining specific internationalization-related goals rather than explaining the temporally-embedded processes of how they reach the goals (Welch & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2014). Researchers are more likely to study initial foreign entry with less consideration given to subsequent post-entry strategies and their evolution (Chen, Sousa, & He, 2019; Fuad & Gaur, 2019). While one of the first principles of process research is the study of events over time, several scholars (e.g., Hurmerinta, Paavilainen-Mäntymäki & Hassett, 2016; Jones & Coviello, 2005) have expressed concern that much of this research in IB fails to focus specifically on the temporal dimension of the processes under study.
In addition, while IB research has long emphasized the importance of context (Delios, 2017; Teagarden, Von Glinow & Mellahi, 2018), we advocate explicit attention to time in our consideration of context to offer more deeply-contextualized explanations of IB phenomena (Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, & Paavilainen, 2011). Accomplishing this will require the use of different methodological approaches, including the addition of deep historical accounts (e.g., Jones & Khanna 2006) and the application of novel tools such as interactive visualization (Schotter, Buchel, Vashchilko, 2018).
Few studies fully adopt a “temporal paradigm” (Pauwels & Matthyssens, 1999) vis-à-vis fieldwork, data sources (e.g. real time; longitudinal, retrospective) and focal phenomena (e.g. dynamic, discontinuous, historical). Time is often neglected despite its inherent presence in research design. Analytical approaches seldom allow for a processual contribution, rather relying on the prevailing variance-oriented approaches that disconnect processes through categorizations and coding (Welch & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2014). The IB field will benefit from making effective use of processual analytical methods aimed at uncovering dynamics and the relationships between constructs, rather than focusing on their similarities and differences or their antecedents and consequences (Maxwell & Miller, 2008). Bringing business history perspectives and the analogous futures research methods to the IB toolkit will help IB scholars make stronger theoretical contributions. Methodological advances are needed.
In qualitative research, the methodological approaches used in IB for analyzing temporal and process-related phenomena remain underdeveloped (Plakoyiannaki, Wei, & Prashantham, 2019). Process and temporal research is currently subject to limitations associated with narratives that may be considered as chronologies of anecdotes that can be potentially flawed due to memory bias, hindsight-based conclusions and subjective choices regarding what is included in retrospective studies. Observational, visual and multimodal research are scarce in IB despite their potential to represent, contextualize and theorize temporal phenomena. There are also concerns about the feasibility of contemporaneous research, given time and financial constraints, and the challenges associated with analyzing longitudinal or processual data.
For quantitative research, there are well-established statistical approaches for analyzing time-series data. However, effective estimation of these time-series models (e.g., ARIMA) requires access to a long history of data (see, e.g., Rose, 1993). This is problematic in IB, as the assumption of consistent underlying mechanisms across long periods of time (e.g., a minimum of 100 years if the data are annual) is highly questionable. Therefore, we need to develop different approaches for accounting for time, without resorting to assumptions that relationships are consistent across different eras.
Objectives of this Special Issue
Illustrative Topics
We encourage conceptual, methodological and empirical contributions that address, but are not limited to, the following topics:
Philosophical domain: Theorizing about time in IB
Conceptual domain: The role of time in the conceptualization of IB phenomena
Methodological domain: Accounting for time in research design
We look forward to your submissions that address the important issue of advancing our understanding of time in the context of IB.
References
Buckley, P., Doh, J. P., & Benischke, M. H. (2017). Towards a renaissance in international business research? Big questions, grand challenges, and the future of IB scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9), 1045-1064.
Chen, J., Sousa, C. M., & He, X. (2019). Export market re-entry: Time-out period and price/quality dynamisms. Journal of World Business, 54(2), 154-168.
Delios, A. (2017). The death and re-birth (?) of international business research. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 391-397.
Doh, J. (2015). Why we need phenomenon-based research in international business. Journal of World Business, 50(4), 609-611.
Fuad, M., & Gaur, A. S. (2019). Merger waves, entry-timing, and cross-border acquisition completion: A frictional lens perspective. Journal of World Business, 54(2), 107-118.
George J. M. & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26(4), 657-684.
Hurmerinta, L., Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. & Hassett, M. E. (2016). Tempus fugit: A hermeneutic approach to the internationalisation process. Management International Review, 56(6), 805–825.
Jones, M. V. & Coviello, N. E. (2005). Internationalisation: Conceptualising an entrepreneurial process of behaviour in time. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 284–303.
Jones, G. & Khanna T. (2006). Bringing history (back) into international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4), 453-468.
Knight, G. A. & Liesch, P.W. (2016). Internationalization: From incremental to born global. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 93-102.
Maxwell, J. A. & Miller, B. A. (2008). Categorizing and connecting strategies in qualitative data analysis. In S. Nagy Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (461–477). New York: Guilford Press.
Odlin, D. (2019). Domestic competitor influence on internationalizing SMEs as an industry evolves. Journal of World Business, 54(2), 119-136.
Pauwels, P. & Matthyssens, P. (1999). A strategy process perspective on export withdrawal. Journal of International Marketing, 7(3), 10–37.
Pettigrew, A. M. (2012). Context and action in the transformation of the firm: A reprise. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1304-1328.
Plakoyiannaki, E., Wei, T., & Prashantham, S. (2019). Rethinking qualitative scholarship in emerging markets: Researching, theorizing and reporting. Management and Organization Review, 15(2), 217-234.
Rose, E. L. (1993). Some effects of rounding errors on ARMA(1,1) models. Communications in Statistics: Simulation and Computation, 22(1), 155-174.
Schotter, A. P. J., Buchel, O. & Vashchilko, T. (2018). Interactive visualization for research contextualization in international business. Journal of World Business, 53(3), 356-377.
Teagarden, M. B., Von Glinow, M. A. & Mellahi, K. (2018). Contextualizing international business research: Enhancing rigor and relevance. Journal of World Business, 53(3), 303– 306.
Van de Ven, A.H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note, Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 169–191.
Welch, C., Nummela, N. & Liesch, P. (2016). The internationalization process model revisited: An agenda for future research. Management International Review, 56(6), 783–804.
Welch, C. & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2014). Putting process (back) in: Research on the internationalisation process of the firm. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1), 2–23.
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E. & Paavilainen, E. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 740-762.
Submission Process
Between August 15 and August 31, 2020, authors should submit their manuscripts online via the Journal of World Business submission system. To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that authors select ‘VSI: Time Matters’ when they reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process. Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Journal of World Business Guide for Authors available at
www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-world-business/1090-9516/guide-for-authors. All submitted manuscripts will be subject to the Journal of World Business’s double-blind review process.
Manuscript Development Workshops
The editors of the Special Issue anticipate holding information sessions and development workshop at different conferences. Participation in these events does not guarantee acceptance of the paper for publication in JWB, and attendance is not prerequisite for publication in the special issue. The second event is a panel titled “When Time Matters: Rethinking the Role of Time in IB Theory and Practice” organized at the 47th Academy of International Business UK and Ireland Chapter Conference (AIB-UKI) in Glasgow in April 2020. We will announce details of these events through different channels.
For more information, please contact the guest editors
Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki, emmanuella.plakoyiannaki@univie.ac.at
Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, eriikka.paavilainen-mantymaki@utu.fi
Melanie E. Hassett, melanie.hassett@sheffield.ac.uk
Elizabeth L. Rose, e.rose@leeds.ac.uk
Peter Liesch, p.liesch@business.uq.edu.au
[1] Current and unfolding phenomena, such as Brexit and the trade wars between the US and China, highlight how political uncertainty can affect the timing of events in domestic and international business.
“Time Matters: Rethinking the Role of Time in International Business Research”
Submissions open August 15, 2020; Submissions due August 30, 2020
Guest Editors:
Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki, University of Vienna, Austria
Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, University of Turku, Finland
Melanie E. Hassett, University of Sheffield, UK
Elizabeth L. Rose, University of Leeds, UK
Peter W. Liesch, The University of Queensland, Australia
Supervising Editor:
Ulf Anderson, Mälardalen University, Sweden
Special Issue Overview
This special issue intends to stimulate thinking on the role and impact of time in International Business (IB) theory and practice. We seek conceptual, theoretical and empirical – both qualitative and quantitative – papers that advance our understanding of temporal issues as they pertain to IB phenomena.
The current global environment is changing rapidly. Climate change, migration, trade wars, political volatility[1], technological disruptions (e.g., artificial intelligence) and the depletion of natural resources create grand challenges for firms. Such rapid changes pose challenges to the applicability of traditional theories. While scholars are calling for grand theories to address grand challenges (e.g., Buckley, Doh & Benischke, 2017), firms are struggling with the timing of their international activities in an increasingly uncertain, disruptive and complex environment (Doh, 2015).
Time is central to IB theory and practice, relevant to both stability and change in internationalization and cross-border operations. It has a crucially important role in the three domains - the philosophical, conceptual, and the methodological (George & Jones, 2000). The literature reflects a strong interest in processes, particularly with respect to internationalization (Knight & Liesch, 2016; Odlin, 2019; Welch, Nummela, Liesch, 2016; Welch & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki 2014). However, much IB research seeks to advance our understanding of internationalization processes by focusing on antecedents and consequences of specific events, rather than on the events’ temporal emergence and their associated dynamic mechanisms (Jones & Coviello, 2005; for similar arguments see Pettigrew, 2012; Van de Ven 1992). For example, the focus is often on explaining firms’ attaining specific internationalization-related goals rather than explaining the temporally-embedded processes of how they reach the goals (Welch & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2014). Researchers are more likely to study initial foreign entry with less consideration given to subsequent post-entry strategies and their evolution (Chen, Sousa, & He, 2019; Fuad & Gaur, 2019). While one of the first principles of process research is the study of events over time, several scholars (e.g., Hurmerinta, Paavilainen-Mäntymäki & Hassett, 2016; Jones & Coviello, 2005) have expressed concern that much of this research in IB fails to focus specifically on the temporal dimension of the processes under study.
In addition, while IB research has long emphasized the importance of context (Delios, 2017; Teagarden, Von Glinow & Mellahi, 2018), we advocate explicit attention to time in our consideration of context to offer more deeply-contextualized explanations of IB phenomena (Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, & Paavilainen, 2011). Accomplishing this will require the use of different methodological approaches, including the addition of deep historical accounts (e.g., Jones & Khanna 2006) and the application of novel tools such as interactive visualization (Schotter, Buchel, Vashchilko, 2018).
Few studies fully adopt a “temporal paradigm” (Pauwels & Matthyssens, 1999) vis-à-vis fieldwork, data sources (e.g. real time; longitudinal, retrospective) and focal phenomena (e.g. dynamic, discontinuous, historical). Time is often neglected despite its inherent presence in research design. Analytical approaches seldom allow for a processual contribution, rather relying on the prevailing variance-oriented approaches that disconnect processes through categorizations and coding (Welch & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2014). The IB field will benefit from making effective use of processual analytical methods aimed at uncovering dynamics and the relationships between constructs, rather than focusing on their similarities and differences or their antecedents and consequences (Maxwell & Miller, 2008). Bringing business history perspectives and the analogous futures research methods to the IB toolkit will help IB scholars make stronger theoretical contributions. Methodological advances are needed.
In qualitative research, the methodological approaches used in IB for analyzing temporal and process-related phenomena remain underdeveloped (Plakoyiannaki, Wei, & Prashantham, 2019). Process and temporal research is currently subject to limitations associated with narratives that may be considered as chronologies of anecdotes that can be potentially flawed due to memory bias, hindsight-based conclusions and subjective choices regarding what is included in retrospective studies. Observational, visual and multimodal research are scarce in IB despite their potential to represent, contextualize and theorize temporal phenomena. There are also concerns about the feasibility of contemporaneous research, given time and financial constraints, and the challenges associated with analyzing longitudinal or processual data.
For quantitative research, there are well-established statistical approaches for analyzing time-series data. However, effective estimation of these time-series models (e.g., ARIMA) requires access to a long history of data (see, e.g., Rose, 1993). This is problematic in IB, as the assumption of consistent underlying mechanisms across long periods of time (e.g., a minimum of 100 years if the data are annual) is highly questionable. Therefore, we need to develop different approaches for accounting for time, without resorting to assumptions that relationships are consistent across different eras.
Objectives of this Special Issue
- To understand how assumptions about time shape theorizing in IB
- To incorporate the role of time in the conceptualization of IB phenomena
- To account for time more explicitly in IB research
- To develop more effective ways to include time empirically in qualitative and quantitative IB research
Illustrative Topics
We encourage conceptual, methodological and empirical contributions that address, but are not limited to, the following topics:
Philosophical domain: Theorizing about time in IB
- How do different conceptions of time (e.g., subjective; organic; cyclical) advance knowledge of IB phenomena?
- How do different philosophical traditions (e.g., interpretivism, phenomenology, critical realism, positivism) define the study of time in IB scholarship?
Conceptual domain: The role of time in the conceptualization of IB phenomena
- How can we define time in IB research?
- What is the role of time in theorizing in IB?
- How can process and variance-oriented research complement one another in providing IB with stronger theoretical bases?
- How is time conceptualized in IB research?
- How can time-related concepts be defined in IB research?
- How do IB researchers take advantage of dynamic theories?
Methodological domain: Accounting for time in research design
- How do we define and distinguish between dynamic and static theories in IB?
- How can we incorporate time into the assembly of qualitative and quantitative data in IB research?
- How can we analyse longitudinal or process data – qualitatively and quantitatively?
- How can we incorporate practices and methods from business history research into IB?
- How can we make strong theoretical contributions using temporal, processual and longitudinal research?
We look forward to your submissions that address the important issue of advancing our understanding of time in the context of IB.
References
Buckley, P., Doh, J. P., & Benischke, M. H. (2017). Towards a renaissance in international business research? Big questions, grand challenges, and the future of IB scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9), 1045-1064.
Chen, J., Sousa, C. M., & He, X. (2019). Export market re-entry: Time-out period and price/quality dynamisms. Journal of World Business, 54(2), 154-168.
Delios, A. (2017). The death and re-birth (?) of international business research. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 391-397.
Doh, J. (2015). Why we need phenomenon-based research in international business. Journal of World Business, 50(4), 609-611.
Fuad, M., & Gaur, A. S. (2019). Merger waves, entry-timing, and cross-border acquisition completion: A frictional lens perspective. Journal of World Business, 54(2), 107-118.
George J. M. & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26(4), 657-684.
Hurmerinta, L., Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. & Hassett, M. E. (2016). Tempus fugit: A hermeneutic approach to the internationalisation process. Management International Review, 56(6), 805–825.
Jones, M. V. & Coviello, N. E. (2005). Internationalisation: Conceptualising an entrepreneurial process of behaviour in time. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 284–303.
Jones, G. & Khanna T. (2006). Bringing history (back) into international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4), 453-468.
Knight, G. A. & Liesch, P.W. (2016). Internationalization: From incremental to born global. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 93-102.
Maxwell, J. A. & Miller, B. A. (2008). Categorizing and connecting strategies in qualitative data analysis. In S. Nagy Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (461–477). New York: Guilford Press.
Odlin, D. (2019). Domestic competitor influence on internationalizing SMEs as an industry evolves. Journal of World Business, 54(2), 119-136.
Pauwels, P. & Matthyssens, P. (1999). A strategy process perspective on export withdrawal. Journal of International Marketing, 7(3), 10–37.
Pettigrew, A. M. (2012). Context and action in the transformation of the firm: A reprise. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1304-1328.
Plakoyiannaki, E., Wei, T., & Prashantham, S. (2019). Rethinking qualitative scholarship in emerging markets: Researching, theorizing and reporting. Management and Organization Review, 15(2), 217-234.
Rose, E. L. (1993). Some effects of rounding errors on ARMA(1,1) models. Communications in Statistics: Simulation and Computation, 22(1), 155-174.
Schotter, A. P. J., Buchel, O. & Vashchilko, T. (2018). Interactive visualization for research contextualization in international business. Journal of World Business, 53(3), 356-377.
Teagarden, M. B., Von Glinow, M. A. & Mellahi, K. (2018). Contextualizing international business research: Enhancing rigor and relevance. Journal of World Business, 53(3), 303– 306.
Van de Ven, A.H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note, Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 169–191.
Welch, C., Nummela, N. & Liesch, P. (2016). The internationalization process model revisited: An agenda for future research. Management International Review, 56(6), 783–804.
Welch, C. & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2014). Putting process (back) in: Research on the internationalisation process of the firm. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1), 2–23.
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E. & Paavilainen, E. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 740-762.
Submission Process
Between August 15 and August 31, 2020, authors should submit their manuscripts online via the Journal of World Business submission system. To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that authors select ‘VSI: Time Matters’ when they reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process. Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Journal of World Business Guide for Authors available at
www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-world-business/1090-9516/guide-for-authors. All submitted manuscripts will be subject to the Journal of World Business’s double-blind review process.
Manuscript Development Workshops
The editors of the Special Issue anticipate holding information sessions and development workshop at different conferences. Participation in these events does not guarantee acceptance of the paper for publication in JWB, and attendance is not prerequisite for publication in the special issue. The second event is a panel titled “When Time Matters: Rethinking the Role of Time in IB Theory and Practice” organized at the 47th Academy of International Business UK and Ireland Chapter Conference (AIB-UKI) in Glasgow in April 2020. We will announce details of these events through different channels.
For more information, please contact the guest editors
Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki, emmanuella.plakoyiannaki@univie.ac.at
Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, eriikka.paavilainen-mantymaki@utu.fi
Melanie E. Hassett, melanie.hassett@sheffield.ac.uk
Elizabeth L. Rose, e.rose@leeds.ac.uk
Peter Liesch, p.liesch@business.uq.edu.au
[1] Current and unfolding phenomena, such as Brexit and the trade wars between the US and China, highlight how political uncertainty can affect the timing of events in domestic and international business.