“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 Wold 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.