Monday, May 8, 2017

Call for papers. Special Issue: Renewable Energy in International Business

Special Issue – critical perspectives on international business 


“Renewable Energy in International Business”


Guest Editors

  • Valtteri Kaartemo, University of Turku, Finland; Masar B.V., the Netherlands
  • Maria Alejandra Gonzalez-Perez, Universidad EAFIT, Colombia

Introduction to the Special Issue


Renewable energy sources are continually restored by nature and derived directly (e.g., thermal and photovoltaics) or indirectly (e.g., wind and hydro) from the sun, or from other natural mechanisms of the environment (e.g., geothermal and tidal energy). Renewable energy excludes resources derived from fossil fuels, waste products from fossil sources, and waste products from inorganic sources (Ellabban et al., 2014). As a result, renewable energy is to a large extent climate neutral and resource saving.

In 2016, around 300 billion US dollars were invested in renewable energy worldwide (Bloomberg, 2017). Major multinational enterprises (MNEs) have announced their transition towards renewable energy sources (Hardy, 2016). Renewable energy has the potential to be a fascinating topic to study for international business (IB) scholars. Most of the production, particularly solar photovoltaics, is highly scalable and currently concentrated in China (Kaartemo, 2016). However, resources and demand for renewable energy investments are global. Moreover, renewables are highly influenced by international institutions (e.g. the Paris Climate Change Agreement was signed by 194 nations in 2015). Yet, these agreements have to be locally implemented, and countries have different capacities and institutional regulatory environments for attracting (and sometimes distracting) renewable energy investments, and to drive environmental innovations (Gonzalez-Perez, 2016).

Despite the need for understanding renewable energy business as a complex global phenomenon, there is a general lack of research in addressing environmental challenges from an IB perspective. The extant research on renewable energy markets is mostly studied within country boundaries, without interest in studying the cross-border dynamics. These studies focus on the development of current status, public policies and future potential of individual countries. Only few studies have been published on how IB practices or countries’ cross-border institutional development and geopolitics influence the investments, competitiveness, and MNE interaction in the era of ‘energy transition’ (Kolk, 2015, 2016).

This is unfortunate. Studies on renewable energy can open up new perspectives to how international opportunities are discovered and created (Mainela et al., 2014). In addition, as renewable energy attracts impact investors (Bugg-Levine and Emerson, 2011), financiers who make investments with the intention to generate social or environmental impact alongside a financial return, studies in renewable energy may challenge the current monetary oriented focus in international finance research (Ockenden and Ye Zou, 2016). Furthermore, being heavily influenced by national decision-making and local stakeholders, studies on renewable energy can critically depict institutional work – how institutions are created, maintained, and disrupted (Lawrence et al., 2011), and how international markets are created. Instead of focusing primarily on local transformations, IB research could provide new insights on the global developments of renewable energy markets. Finally, the linkage between renewable energy and IB scholarship can further advance our understanding of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the thematic area of renewable energy, itself.

Conceptual and Empirical Topics of Particular Interest


For this special issue, we seek conceptual, theoretical and empirical work that debates issues linking renewable energy research and IB research. We encourage scholars to utilise different theoretical perspectives and apply a wide variety of rigorous methodological approaches. We are looking for studies identifying and examining common issues in renewable energy across countries as well as highlighting industry and country-specific issues. Manuscripts may also cover wider perspectives as long as the papers are in line with the broad theme of the special issue.

Guiding questions may include, but are not restricted to:


  • What is the role of national and international institutions in the creation and shaping of renewable energy markets?
  • How do differences in institutional environments enable or constrain the development of indigenous renewable energy markets?
  • How do relevant international networks differ from one form of renewable energy to another?
  • How effective has been the activism of the global civil society and international non-governmental organisations to promote a critical view on man-made climate change?
  • What is the importance of local networks in deploying renewable energy in an MNE’s target market?
  • How does positive news around adopting of renewable energy influence CSR and corporate sustainability practices internationally?
  • How does corporate sustainability and CSR influence adoption of renewable energy in different target markets?
  • How can research on international entrepreneurship advance insight on renewable energy adoption?
  • Which incentives need to be put in place for renewable energy adopting in new international ventures? 
  • What are the investment criteria of international renewable energy financiers?
  • What is the role of target country image in attracting funding for renewable energy projects?
  • What are the dark sides of international renewable energy?
  • What are the local environmental and societal consequences of the excessive use of land by renewable energy MNEs?
  • To what extent is renewable energy a solution also for developing countries as well as the global poor? 
Following the aim and mission of critical perspectives on international business (cpoib) (Roberts and Dörrenbächer, 2016), submissions must promote dialogue and new thinking in the broad field of IB. Potential contributors are encouraged to creatively and critically question the hegemony of transnational corporations, managerial orthodoxy and the dominant academic discourse.

The special issue is open to various formats and styles of presentation. We encourage potential contributors to review previous issues of cpoib to see the breadth of perspectives and contributions.

Submission Process and Deadlines

Guidelines for submission

  • Authors should refer to the cpoib website and the instructions on submitting a paper. For author guidelines and more information see: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/cpoib.htm
  • 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. 

The guest editors welcome informal enquiries related to proposed topics.

  • Submission deadline: 28 February 2018 

  • Approximate date of publication: Issue 1, 2019


Guest Editors’ Contact Details:

Dr. Valtteri Kaartemo 
University Teacher
University of Turku, Finland
valtteri.kaartemo@utu.fi
https://www.utu.fi/en/units/tse/units/international_business/contact/Pages/Valtteri-Kaartemo.aspx
Head of Research
Masar B.V., the Netherlands
valtteri@masar.io
www.masar.io


Prof. Dr. Maria Alejandra Gonzalez-Perez
Vice-President of the Academy of International Business (2015-2018)
Full Professor of Management
Universidad EAFIT, Colombia
mgonza40@eafit.edu.co
http://www.eafit.edu.co/docentes-investigadores/Paginas/maria-gonzalez.aspx

References


  • Bugg-Levine, A. and Emerson, J. (2011), “Impact Investing: Transforming How We Make Money while Making a Difference”, Innovations, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 9–18. 
  • Bloomberg (2017) “Clean Energy Investment End of Year 2016”. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, available at: https://about.bnef.com/clean-energy-investment/
  • Ellabban, O., Abu-rub, H. and Blaabjerg, F. (2014), “Renewable energy resources : Current status , future prospects and their enabling technology”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 39, pp. 748–764. 
  • Gonzalez-Perez, M.A. (2016), “Climate change and the 2030 corporate agenda for sustainable development”, Advances in Sustainability and Environmental Justice, Vol. 19, pp. 1–6. 
  • Hardy, Q. (2016), “Google Says It Will Run Entirely on Renewable Energy in 2017”, The New York Times, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/technology/google-says-it-will-run-entirely-on-renewable-energy-in-2017.html?_r=0
  • Kaartemo, V. (2016), “Creation and shapping of the global solar photovoltaic (PV) market”, Advances in Sustainability and Environmental Justice, Vol. 19, pp. 229–250. 
  • Kolk, A. (2015), “The role of international business in clean technology transfer and development”, Climate Policy, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 170–176. 
  • Kolk, A. (2016), “The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to CSR and sustainable development”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 23–34. 
  • Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R. and Leca, B. (2011), “Institutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of Organization”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 52–58. 
  • Mainela, T., Puhakka, V. and Servais, P. (2014), “The Concept of International Opportunity in International Entrepreneurship: A Review and a Research Agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 105–129. 
  • Ockenden, S. and Ye Zou, S. (2016), What Enables Effective International Climate Finance in the Context of Development Co-Operation?, OECD Publishing, Paris. 
  • Roberts, J. and Dörrenbächer, C. (2016), “Renewing the call for critical perspectives on international business”, Critical Perspectives on International Business, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 2–21.

Friday, March 17, 2017

CfP: Strategy, Innovation, and New Ventures in the New Normal Global Business Landscape

Journal of Management Studies

Special Issue Call for Papers:

Strategy, Innovation, and New Ventures  in the New Normal Global Business Landscape

Submission Deadline: 15 December 2017

Guest Editors:


JMS Editor:
  • Dries Faems, University of Groningen, Dept. of Innovation Management & Strategy (d.l.m.faems@rug.nl)

Overview


At the end of the 1990s, Hitt and colleagues (Hitt, Keats & DeMarie, 1998) introduced the notion of the new competitive landscape to describe the emergence of a changing business environment. That newer environment was characterized by more turbulent and technology-intensive conditions where some firms (and countries) grew at almost unheard of rates and new competitors could appear unexpectedly, assisted by new technologies as well as the increased globalization that facilitated market entry, cost arbitrage, and scale. However, the current competitive landscape is shifting once again. Since the worldwide financial crisis of 2008 and its aftermath, coupled with simmering populist concerns, we are seeing emergence of a new business landscape changing the environment for firms once again – i.e. a New Normal whereby something that was previously unusual has started to become more commonplace (El-Erian, 2010; Hitt, Li, & Xu, 2016). In a 2010 talk titled Navigating the New Normal in Industrial Countries, the head of PIMCO, Mohamed A. El-Erian stated: “Our use of the term was an attempt to move the discussion beyond the notion that the [financial] crisis was a mere flesh wound...instead the crisis cut to the bone. It was the inevitable result of an extraordinary, multiyear period which was anything but normal." International Monetary Fund Director, Christine Lagarde, added in October 2014 that the advanced economies may be facing a “new mediocre,” while former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Lawrence Summers, foresaw an era of “secular stagnation.”

The New Normal

It has become increasingly clear that a restructuring of the economic order has been taking place, and has particularly affected multinational enterprises (MNEs), and others doing business across borders. After the 2008 crisis for example, capital flows between countries and trade in goods and services have retreated significantly to levels not seen in a quarter century (Sharma, 2016: 2). Foreign direct investment has fallen from its pre-crisis high of over $3 trillion to around $2 trillion in 2015 (The World Bank, 2017). The more developed economies could linger in a low-level growth equilibrium for an unusually prolonged period (El-Erian, 2016). High debts caused in part by heavy reliance on accommodating monetary policy, may be prolonging that equilibrium. This may also mean costlier capital, an expanded role for governments, and a much larger burden of regulation and taxation for all, as firms find it more difficult to shift activities and park funds in the most favorable locations.

Before the financial crash, many companies had moved or were moving toward globally integrated structures, many encompassing hundreds of locations for various corporate activities. But the notion that we live in a world where the constituent parts of enterprises can be unbundled and distributed almost anywhere at will has been challenged by economic volatility, and changing political sentiments regarding borders, trade, and disruptive new (often local) competitors. The related inattention to the negative labor market and legitimacy consequences of trade and globalization may have further helped to energize populists opposition and the issues for multinational enterprises. At the same time, labor markets have become less dynamic and flexible, contributing to increasing inequality, which itself is hurting economic growth and increasing resentment toward wealthier individuals and firms, and the free trade they encourage (Autor, Dorn, and Hanson, 2016). This labor inflexibility is also seen in projections forecasting shortfalls in the global supply of many categories of engineers and other technical personnel.

The New Normal economy thus challenges how businesses are organized and governed, and even raises concerns with respect to their position in previously difficult-to-contest markets based on scale and scope economies and other thought-to-be strong barriers to competition (Davis, 2016). Global firms and entrepreneurs alike must account for these developments in terms of their plans and strategies in the coming years. Thus, the purpose of this Special Issue (SI) is to explore and explain the ways in which the New Normal affects strategies, innovation, and new venture activity. 

Core Goals of the Special Issue

  • First, this SI seeks a clearer conceptualization of the New Normal. Which major economic and commercial changes have occurred and are occurring during this time? How do these changes influence different environmental conditions related to economic growth, industrial environments, commercial practices, and important formal and informal institutions?
  • Second, this SI also seeks to increase our understanding of how the New Normal conditions impact key actors at various levels such as MNEs, suppliers, entrepreneurs, investors, and customers. We hope to refine our understanding of the contexts wherein the New Normal is most likely to have its greatest impact.
  • Third, this SI hopes to provide a better understanding of how the New Normal conditions unfolding in different domains and different locations may have impact across different actors and ecosystems. Our SI will also seek manuscripts that address big research questions across levels of analysis and create foundational knowledge on a range of topics that addresses the strategic, operational, governance, institutional and performance consequences of the New Normal environment. Contributors are encouraged to provide not only quantitative or qualitative empirical evidence, but also new theory and concepts that can help to explain how some firms are able to adapt to and profit from the New Normal environment.

Possible topics

There are a number of topics/issues that can be addressed in the SI. In particular, it seeks to examine firm strategies, innovation, cooperation, and new venture creation in this New Normal environment. Several possible topics for the SI are provided below, though they need not be limited to these.
  • I. Strategies

A. Global and Business Level

  1. Globalization in the New Normal: A positive or malevolent force? In many developed countries, optimistic and positive feelings about a “Global World” have been replaced by negative ones, blaming globalization and unrooted, widely distributed corporate structures for existing economic or societal problems. How have MNEs been dealing with these legitimacy concerns? Are they purely problems of perception and reputation, or can something else be done?
  2.  Entry-related issues in the New Normal: In recent years, lower-tech, less environmentally-friendly industries have been less desired by many host countries, while industries using high-tech and clean-energy are preferred. How have potential multinational entrants responded to these and other changes in industrial policies and how they should respond?
  3.  Exit-related issues in the New Normal: Given the increase in the cost of doing business in some formerly “hot” host countries such as China in which costs are rising, how will multinational firms design and implement retrenchment or exit strategies if it becomes necessary to back out of foreign investments? Will they return to their home countries?
  4.  Regional strategies in the New Normal: Companies whose strategies currently emphasize flexible supply chains, arbitraging costs, and achieving economies of scale across national boundaries may need to shift toward embeddedness, adapting to local conditions. Companies whose strategies emphasize arbitrage—taking advantage of differences—may need to make the same shift.
B. Strategies – Corporate (Mergers & Acquisitions, Strategic Alliances)

In the face of economic slowdown, overcapacity and low interest rates, there are numerous questions and issues related to use of corporate strategies in the new environment:
  1.  What types of M&A or alliances are most effective for a firm to deal with environmental challenges of the New Normal?
  2.  What potential difficulties/problems with the corporate strategies exist under the New Normal that may not have been problems before the changes of the past decade?
  3.  Will M&As enable firms to take advantage of environmental changes in the New Normal?
  4. Will M&As prompt domestic firms to increase the pace of international market expansion under the New Normal?
  5. What attitudes of governments towards M&As and particularly towards international M&As are likely to exist? Are they preventing or encouraging M&As under the New Normal?
  6. What strategies can firms best use to achieve their desired growth?

II. Innovation

  1. In the New Normal, economic weakness, extra capacity, and possibly a shift in the zeitgeist toward more frugality, may put downward pressure on prices. Expansion into poorer markets at home and abroad will intensify this trend. How should firms respond to this pressure (and opportunities)?
  2. Are more entrepreneurs and firms pursuing disruptive innovation in the New Normal and what are the outcomes of this innovation strategy?
  3. A sustainable competitive position is more difficult if a company is unable to innovate its business model. How do firms develop business model innovations in the New Normal?
  4. How does management innovation help firms design and implement organizational transformation in the New Normal?
  5. Why and how do firms conduct social innovations for a sustainable development in the New Normal? 
  6. Market-creating innovations use capital to scale up to a greater extent than more common incremental innovations to enhance efficiency. How can these crucial market-creating innovations be encouraged in the New Normal?

III. New ventures 
  1. Does the New Normal enhance or hinder entrepreneurial activity?
  2. What forms of new ventures may be required for the New Normal?
  3.  What are the mechanisms for firms to conduct new opportunity discovery, evaluation, and exploitation in the New Normal?
  4. How do new entrepreneurial firms adapt to changes such as low interest rates and trade barriers in the New Normal?
  5. In the New Normal, what strategies help new entrepreneurial firms to strengthen their competitiveness domestically and internationally?
  6.  The New Normal conditions also suggest that efficiency ratios such as ROI may not be as helpful for resource allocation decisions. What other measures are appropriate for managers and venture capitalists to use in making investment decisions?
  7.  How is economic growth proceeding in the New Normal compared to the past two decades? Are the most commonly publicized figures masking things of which management and IB researchers should be aware? 

Submission Process and Deadlines

  •  Submissions should be prepared using the JMS Manuscript Preparation Guidelines.
  • Manuscripts should be submitted by 23 December 2017 to Margaret Turner (business.jms@durham.ac.uk).
  • Manuscripts will be reviewed according to the JMS double-blind review process.
  • For informal inquires related to the Special Issue, proposed topics and potential fit with the Special Issue objectives, please contact the guest editors.


Special Issue Workshop:

 To help authors advance their manuscripts, a Special Issue Workshop may be held on or around 9 August 2018 (possibly immediately before the Academy of Management Annual Meeting in Chicago, USA). If there is a workshop, authors of R&R manuscripts will be invited to present and discuss their papers during the workshop. However, presentation at the workshop will not guarantee acceptance of a paper for publication in JMS. Also, attending the workshop will not be a precondition for acceptance of a paper for the Special Issue.



CfP. Challenges and opportunities in the sharing economy

Journal of Management Studies’ Special Issue Call for Papers:

Challenges and opportunities in the sharing economy

Submission Deadline: January 15, 2018

Guest Editors:

Overview

This special issue explores how, when, why, where and under what conditions an emerging form of collaborative consumption, popularly known as the “sharing economy” affects the creation and capture of value. The sharing economy (a.k.a. shareconomy, access, collaborative, and peer economy) refers to a class of economic arrangements in which asset owners and users mutualize access to the products or services associated with these assets (Lamberton & Rose, 2012; Sundararajan, 2016). Fueled in part by advances in information technology and excess resources, the sharing economy is now recognized as offering easy and broad connection with customers and suppliers. 

The emergence of collaborative consumption and the sharing economy has led to dramatic changes in the nature of competition between entrants and incumbents. For instance, the sharing economy has fostered the growth of many well-known startups, including accommodation companies (Airbnb), social media firms (Facebook), and financial firms (Lending Club) (Belk, 2014; Matzler et al., 2015). The valuation of Airbnb, a 7-year-old startup, is $30 billion, which is worth nearly $7 billion more than the 97 years old, publicly-traded Hilton Worldwide—the next most valuable hospitality company. Age and valuations aside, Airbnb boasts more than 2 million listings in more than 191 countries whereas the newly combined Marriott and Starwood offer ‘only’ 1.1 million rooms in 110 countries worldwide. Some estimate that the sharing economy is valued at $26 billion, with new services and multisided platforms emerging almost daily (Botsman, 2014; Botsman, & Roger, 2011). 

This Special Issue (SI) aims to explore and explain how, why and when the sharing economy affects consumers, business competition, and regulators. The SI also aim to shed light on how the sharing economy addresses problems of profit making, trust building, and market legitimacy in both B2B and B2C markets. In the sharing economy, the roles of suppliers, buyers, and users tend to blur and overlap as parties build platforms to share their resources (Belk, 2014; Williamson & De Meyer, 2012). Academic research, however, has yet to explain, especially theoretically how multisided platforms overcome these challenge while increasing asset accessibility and maximize the value of resources. As the sharing economy challenges how businesses are organized and governed, it creates opportunities for scholars to assess management theories, labor laws, practices and the nature of for profit and nonprofit enterprises (Davis, 2016).

What the Special Issue (SI) Hopes to Accomplish

First, this SI seeks to offer a clear conceptualization of the sharing economy. By identifying and categorizing the critical actors—the suppliers, platform providers, social entrepreneurs, and users associated with the sharing economy, as well as regulatory institutions—we hope to refine our understanding of the contexts wherein the sharing economy is most likely to have its greatest impact.


Second, this SI seeks to better understand how the sharing economy coordinates action across these diverse actors and even ecosystems.  Our SI will favor manuscripts that, individually and collectively, address big research questions and create foundational knowledge that addresses the logistical, operational, governance and performance consequences of the sharing economy for new entrants and incumbents alike.  Such work may explore, for instance, whether existing conceptualizations of platform competition are precise enough to explain how traditional incumbents should react to sharing-economy entrants.  

Third, our experience shows that studies on emerging phenomena tend to homogenize; they usually follow similar empirical methodologies, converge around a dominant conceptual lens, and tackle similar research questions.  The risks associated with such “convergence” is potentially overemphasizing branded players (e.g. Airbnb, Craig’s List, etc.), while underspecifying processes (e.g. how, when and where players inside and outside the sharing economy collaborate and compete).  Our SI favors attention to processes, especially the underlying mechanism in both developed and developing worlds.  

Given the multi-disciplinary and multi-level nature of the sharing economy, we encourage conceptual and empirical studies using a variety of methods (qualitative and quantitative).  Our SI will also differentiate other special issues on this topic (e.g., AMD, which focuses on empirical research and MIS Quarterly, which focuses on information technology)  

Submission Process and Deadlines

*  Manuscripts will be reviewed according to the JMS double-blind review process.
*  Submissions should be prepared using the JMS Manuscript Preparation Guidelines.
* Manuscripts should be submitted by January 15, 2018 to Margaret Turner (business.jms@durham.ac.uk).
*  For informal inquires related to the Special Issue, proposed topics and potential fit with the Special Issue objectives, please contact the guest editors.


Special Issue Workshop: To help authors advance their manuscripts, a Special Issue Workshop will be held in May 2018 (location to be announced). Authors of R&R manuscripts will be invited to present and discuss their papers during the workshop, but presentation at the workshop does not guarantee acceptance of a paper for publication in JMS. Attending the workshop is not a precondition for acceptance into the Special Issue.

References:
Davis, G. F. 2016. The vanishing American corporation: Navigating the hazards of a new economy. Ann Arbor, MI: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 
Matzler, K., Veider, V., and Kathan, W. 2015. Adapting to the sharing economy. MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 71-77.
Sundararajan, A., 2016. The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism, MIT Press

Williamson, P.J., & De Meyer, A. 2012. Ecosystem advantage: How to successfully harness the power of partners. California Management Review, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 24-46.

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Special Issue of Transnational Corporations on the role of the Multinational Corporation in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

Special Issue of Transnational Corporations on the role of the Multinational Corporation in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

Transnational Corporations 


Special Issue on the role of the Multinational in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

Proposed Title: MNEs and the Sustainable Development Goals
Editors: John Dilyard, Ph.D. and Caroline Witte, Ph.D.

Dear Fellow Scholars and Researchers: 
 
The highly successful Town Hall meeting, ‘How the AIB Community Can Best Contribute to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals’, held at the 2016 AIB Annual Meeting in New Orleans generated several ideas for research on the link between the private sector, particularly multinational enterprises (MNEs), and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As a way to both highlight existing and encourage further work on this topic, we are proposing a special issue (and potentially a series of issues) of Transnational Corporations, UNCTAD’s policy-oriented journal on MNEs (TNCs), FDI and development. UNCTAD is one of the leading agencies supporting the implementation of the SDGs, and has a long-standing partnership with the AIB. The first special issue is planned for early 2017 to coincide with the 2017 AIB conference in Dubai and its theme “The Contribution of MNEs to Building Sustainable Societies”.

As was discussed in New Orleans, IB research is shifting increasingly toward the relationships between MNEs and developing countries, sustainability, socially responsible investment, socially responsible behavior and public policy. The scale, scope and ambition of the SDGs creates an opportunity for IB research to systematically analyze these relationships and to serve as an advocate for both the promotion of sustainable practices by MNEs and the design of policies to support them. And while there are many resources devoted to the private sector and sustainability, academic work specifically linking the private sector to the SDGs is sparse. Our proposed issue, therefore, helps fill a void. 
 
The Sustainable Development Goals can be found here. Further information on the related Financing for Development (FfD) and 2030 Action Agenda (for the SDGs) can be found at the webpage of the UN Inter-agency task force on Financing for Development. In addition, the Business for 2030 initiativeillustrates how the UN envisions private sector contributions to the SDGs. Work on the SDGs is also being done by the UN Global Compact (https://www.unglobalcompact.org/sdgs) and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development ([https://wbcsdpublications.org]https://wbcsdpublications.org). Examples of studies and resources can be found on the latter’s SDG Business Hub.

We are interested in contributions on relevant themes, perhaps linked to your existing work, on the role of the MNE in achieving the SDGs. While our focus is on developing countries, we recognize that the SDGs apply to all countries and that interesting work on how MNEs contribute to the implementation of SDGs in developed countries may exist. We are looking first for ‘op-ed’ and essay style contributions that are lightly referenced rather than heavy quantitative and/or theoretical analysis. The purpose here is to facilitate new, yet concrete, ideas that can generate ongoing research and policy discussions. Hence, we are interested in research agendas and perspectives in support of meeting specific SDGs (or targets within SDGs), but we also invite short empirical or theoretical papers for which the criteria for robustness, thoroughness or completeness are not as high as those for a typical journal submission. Because the SDGs involve many different scientific disciplines and are highly interconnected, we also encourage interdisciplinary efforts. The review process will include the editors of the issue, as well as editors of TransnationalCorporations. 

The following topics are meant to illustrate the range of possible submissions:

  • To what extent do the SDGs influence (international) business conduct?
  • How can MNEs support and promote poverty alleviation?
  • What is the role of MNEs in promoting gender equality, particularly in developing countries?
  • How can the pursuit of sustainable supply chains in MNEs contribute to the SDGs?
  • What are the characteristics of successful public private partnerships in support of the SDGs?
  • How could the SDGs affect MNEs’ value chains?
  • What is the link between MNEs’ corporate social responsibility activities and the SDGs?
  • What are the governance implications for MNEs if they choose to commit to the SDGs?
  • Which characteristics or contexts make MNEs more likely to actively contribute to the SDGs?

The theme of the special issue is dependent on the number of initial submissions received and the topics they address. 

  • Length of contributions: Between 2500-5000 words.
  • Submission deadline: February 28, 2017.

Please send questions regarding this special issue and submissions to either:
John Dilyard jdilyard@sfc.edu, or
Caroline Witte witte@ese.eur.nl

Monday, September 26, 2016

Call for papers. Special issues. How Does a Multinational Company’s Home Country Matter?

Journal of World Business

A Special Issue on


How Does a Multinational Company’s Home Country Matter?

Submissions open January 1-31, 2017


Special Issue Editors:
  • Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, Northeastern University
  • Yadong Luo, University of Miami
  • Ravi Ramamurti, Northeastern University
Supervising Editor:

  • Siah Hwee Ang, Victoria University of Wellington

Objective of the Special Issue:

“The multinationalizing trend (is) widely recognized as similar in nature irrespective of the nationality of the parent company” – Raymond Vernon (quoted in Wilkins 1986: 202)
Vernon’s quote above presents an interesting hypothesis that is worthy of deeper examination. Does the home country of a multinational company (MNC) not matter much, as he asserts, or does it, and if so how? That is the main question explored in this special issue of the Journal of World Business.
The rise of new multinationals from emerging markets serves as a valuable natural experiment for probing the impact of a firm’s home country on its international strategy and behavior (Ramamurti, 2009). By 2015, emerging market multinational companies (EMNCs) accounted for one-quarter of world outward foreign direct investment (FDI) flows and one-fifth of the largest firms in the Fortune Global 2000. This growth led to a surge in academic interest in these firms, including special issues and volumes dedicated to their analysis (e.g. Aulakh, 2007; Cuervo-Cazurra, 2012; Cuervo-Cazurra & Ramamurti, 2014; Gammeltoft, Barnard & Madhok, 2010; Luo & Tung, 2007; Ramamurti & Singh, 2009; Williamson et al., 2013). However, there has also been a growing debate on the value of studying them as a distinct type of MNC (see Aharoni, 2014; Cuervo-Cazurra, 2012; Dunning, Kim & Park, 2008; Godley, 2014; Ramamurti, 2012; Rugman, 2010). Part of the debate and associated confusion emerges from the flawed comparison that some of the analyses make, particularly in disentangling the impact of a multinational’s home country from that of other variables. Some unique features of these firms may be not so much associated with their home country but rather with their industry of operation, stage of internationalization, ownership structure, and international experience (Ramamurti, 2012). An appropriate comparison of EMNCs with firms from other countries, such as advanced country multinational companies (AMNCs), may reveal which features of EMNCs are truly unique because of the country they come from and which are common to all MNCs regardless of their home country.
Many of the current MNC theories have paid limited attention to an MNC’s home country. Location has received relatively less attention than other firm characteristics (Dunning, 1998). Even those studies that tackle location explicitly have tended to focus on how characteristics of the host country affect the expansion of foreign firms, such as the host country’s level of development, its institutional and political system, or its economic size and degree of economic openness (e.g., Barkema, Bell & Penning, 1996; Chung & Beamish, 2005; Delios & Henisz, 2003; Meyer et al., 2013). Other studies have examined how the “distance” between the home and host country affects the international expansion of companies (e.g., Johanson & Vahlne, 1977; Ghemawat, 2001; Luo & Shenkar, 2011). More recently, a few studies have started paying attention to the impact of home country characteristics on a firm’s innovations and foreign expansion (e.g., Cuervo-Cazurra, 2006; Cuervo-Cazurra & Genc, 2008; del Sol & Kogan, 2007; Garcia-Canal & Guillen, 2008; Govindarajan & Ramamurti, 2011; Holburn & Zelner, 2010; Hoskisson et al., 2013; Luo & Wang, 2012).
In this special issue we propose to go beyond these studies and expand theories and models of the multinational by explaining how the home country affects the internationalization of the firm. This includes not only analyses of EMNCs, but also studies of AMNCs as well as comparisons of the behavior of EMNCs and AMNCs. Studies of EMNCs are a natural laboratory for extending existing models of the multinational because these have been built implicitly on the experience of AMNCs. Hence, studies that focus on EMNCs can provide new insights because their variation in home country characteristics and lower levels of economic, social, and political development facilitate the identification of mechanisms and a comparison of differences with current models. Moreover, home country tends to be more important to EMNCs than to incumbent AMNCs, providing another base for understanding how the home country affects internationalization. Studies of AMNCs can provide useful insights as long as they focus on advancing our theoretical understanding of the role of home country on internationalization. Comparative studies of companies from multiple home countries are particularly welcome if they tease out the role of the home country on internationalization. Single-country studies that pay particular attention to the mechanisms by which the home country affects a firm’s internationalization are also welcome. We welcome papers using diverse methodologies, including theoretical essays, large-sample analyses, and qualitative studies, as long as they provide a clear and detailed explanation of theoretical mechanisms and a strong theoretical contribution.
The objective of the special issue is to develop a better understanding of the theoretical mechanisms that explain how the home country influences the internationalization of the firm. The following topics are meant to illustrate the range of submissions rather than limit the ideas; authors are welcome to contact the guest editors to discuss the appropriateness of other topics related to theme of this Special Issue:



  • 1. How do companies coming from countries at different levels of economic or political development differ in their global strategies? How do early globalizers from emerging countries differ from late globalizers as their home country conditions have changed quickly over time? How does the change in the home country (economic growth, pro-market reforms, pro-market reversals, political change, etc.) affect the global expansion of firms?
  • 2. How do the home country and its relationships with particular host countries affect the international expansion of firms? How do changes in relationships among home and host countries (economic integration, political conflict, increased immigration, etc.) alter firm internationalization? 
  • 3. How does the level of development of the country affect the innovativeness and types of innovations that firms create and use in their global expansion? How do innovations for the base of the pyramid in the home country become global innovations? What adaptations are made to these to use abroad and how are they transferred?
  • 4. What can one learn from EMNCs about the process by which firms become multinationals? How does this process vary across different home countries, and how does it compare with the process by which earlier generations of MNCs emerged out of Japan, South Korea, the United States, or Western Europe?
  • 5. How do firms develop resources and capabilities to deal with the particular economic, geographic, political and social conditions of their home countries and use these abroad? How are these resources and capabilities transferred and adapted to other countries? How do EMNCs adapt and modify their strategies developed in the home country to address differing conditions of countries that are more or less developed than their home country?
  • 6. What is the role of the government in the international expansion of firms? Under what conditions does it facilitate internationalization? Under which conditions does it hinder it? How do state-owned firms differ from private firms when it comes to internationalization? How do these patterns vary across countries?
  • 7. How do EMNCs establish home-host country technological, organizational and operational links? How do they differ from AMNCs in organizing and managing such links? What are some effective mechanisms through which EMNCs orchestrate home-host country links? How do they integrate their acquired foreign strategic assets with their home base operations, and then use this stronger home base to reverberate to and further nurture international operations?

Submission Process:

Between January 1 and 31, 2017, authors should submit their manuscripts online via the Journal of World Business submission system: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-world-business. To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that authors select ‘SI: MNC Home Country’ 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 https://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.
We will organize a workshop designed to facilitate the development of papers that will be held at Northeastern University in June of 2017. The workshop will be sponsored by the Center for Emerging Markets at Northeastern University and the Center for International Business Education and Research at the University of Miami. Authors of manuscripts that have progressed through the revision process will be invited to it. Presentation at the workshop is neither a requirement for nor a promise of final acceptance of the paper in the Special Issue.
Questions about the Special Issue may be directed to the guest editors: Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, Northeastern University (a.cuervocazurra@neu.edu); Yadong Luo, University of Miami (yadong@miami.edu); Ravi Ramamurti, Northeastern University (r.ramamurti@neu.edu) and JWB Supervising Editor Siah Hwee Ang, Victoria University of Wellington (SiahHwee.Ang@vuw.ac.nz).

References:

Aharoni, Y. (2014). Theoretical debates on multinationals from emerging economies. In A. Cuervo-Cazurra & R. Ramamurti (Eds.), Understanding multinationals from emerging markets (pp. 15-30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Aulakh, P. S. (2007). Emerging multinationals from developing economies: motivations, paths, and performance. Journal of International Management, 13, 338-355.

Barkema, H. G., Bell, J., & Pennings, J. M. (1996). Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 151-166.

Chung, C. C., & Beamish, P. W. (2005). The impact of institutional reforms on characteristics and survival of foreign subsidiaries in emerging economies. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 35-62.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Genc, M. (2008). Transforming disadvantages into advantages: Developing country MNEs in the least developed countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 957-979

Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2006). Who cares about corruption? Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 803-822.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2012). How the analysis of developing country multinational companies helps advance theory: Solving the Goldilocks debate. Global Strategy Journal, 2, 153-167.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Ramamurti, R. (2014). Understanding multinationals from emerging markets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

del Sol, P., & Kogan, J. (2007). Regional competitive advantage based on pioneering economic reforms: The case of Chilean FDI. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 901-927.

Delios, A., & Henisz, W. J. (2003). Political hazards, experience and sequential entry strategies: The international expansion of Japanese firms, 1980-1998. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1153-64.

Dunning, J. H. (1998). Location and the multinational enterprise: A neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29, 45-66.

Dunning, J.H., Kim, C., & Park, D. (2008). Old wine in new bottles: a comparison of emerging-market TNCs today and developed-country TNCs thirty years ago. In K. Sauvant (Ed.), The Rise of Transnational Corporations from Emerging Markets: Threat or Opportunity? (pp. 158-180). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Gammeltoft, P., Barnard, H., & Madhok, A. (2010). Emerging multinationals, emerging theory: macro- and micro-level perspectives. Journal of International Management, 16, 95-101.

Garcia-Canal, E., & Guillen, M. F. (2008). Risk and the strategy of foreign location choice in regulated industries. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1097-1115

Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters. Harvard Business Review, 79 (8), 137-147.

Godley, A. (2014). What does history add to EMNC research? In A. Cuervo-Cazurra & R. Ramamurti (Eds.), Understanding multinationals from emerging markets (pp. 31-49). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Govindarajan, V., & Ramamurti, R. (2011). Reverse innovation, emerging markets, and global strategy. Global Strategy Journal, 1, 191-205.

Holburn, G. L. F., & Zelner, B. A. (2010). Political capabilities, policy risk and international investment strategy: Evidence from the global electric power industry. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1290-1315.

Hoskisson, R., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I. & Peng, M. W. (2013). Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 1295-1321.

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, 23-32.

Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. (2007). International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 481-498.

Luo, Y. & Shenkar, O. (2011). Toward a perspective of cultural friction in international business. Journal of International Management, 17, 1-14.

Luo, Y., & Wang, S. L. (2012). Foreign direct investment strategies by developing country multinationals: A diagnostic model for home country effects. Global Strategy Journal, 2, 244-261.

Meyer, K., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S., & Peng, M. W. (2009). Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 61-80.

Ramamurti, R. (2009). What have we learned about emerging market multinationals? In R. Ramamurti & J. V. Singh (Eds.) Emerging multinationals in emerging markets (pp. 399-426). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ramamurti, R. (2012). What is really different about emerging market multinationals? Global Strategy Journal, 2, 41-47.

Ramamurti, R., & Singh, J. V. (Eds.). (2009). Emerging multinationals from emerging markets. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rugman, A.M. (2010). Do we need a new theory to explain emerging market MNEs? In K. P. Sauvant, W. A. Maschek & G. A. McAllister (Eds.), Foreign direct investments from emerging markets: The challenges ahead. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sauvant, K. P. (Ed.). (2008). The rise of transnational corporations from emerging markets: Threat or opportunity? Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Wilkins, M. (1986). Japanese multinational enterprises before 1914. Business History Review, 60, 199-232.

Williamson, P., Ramamurti, R., Fleury, A., & Fleury, M. T. (Eds.). (2013). Competitive advantages of emerging country multinationals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

CfP. Global Value Chains, International Trade, and Markets: The Role of Emerging Economies


Special issue call for papers from International Journal of Emerging Markets

Visit: http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/call_for_papers.htm?id=6656

Global Value Chains, International Trade, and Markets: The Role of Emerging Economies
Special issue Call for Papers for the International Journal of Emerging Markets (IJoEM)


Global supply chains are continually evolving and transforming the way, emerging world economies do business with their developed counterparts. Developing nations are joining forces with developed nations through these rapidly transforming global value chains (GVCs) without investing in building their own; thus saving time, money and gaining access to technological innovations. Today, developing countries are exerting greater influence globally, economically and politically, given the power of GVCs. Through international organizations, such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), GVCs lead the way for shaping international trade, governance, production, employment, growth, development and competitiveness. Global economy is entering a "major inflection point", whereby GVCs are becoming increasingly predominant in both emerging and industrialized countries, and emerging economies have become a major engine of growth for global businesses and international trade.

In this special issue of the IJoEM, we invite submissions focused on supply chains as value chains in emerging (versus developed) economies, international trade, and interrelationships amongst logistics, supply chain management and global trade. We welcome submissions that offer important conceptual and empirical insights into the nature and processes of value chains, GVCs, GVC approaches and frameworks in different world economies, channel development and management, geographical collaborations, and global supply (value) chains. Of interest are papers that examine the impact of cross-cultural issues, characteristics, and challenges with regard to GVCs; institutional, political and regulatory factors on supply chain management issues; and the effects of institutional changes on IB discipline and supply chain processes with regard to emerging world economies.

Potential Topics of Interest (among others)
We welcome papers within the broadly defined subject theme area from all the major disciplines in business and management studies, including: strategy, international business, organizational behavior and cross-cultural management, marketing, operations and decision sciences, finance and accounting, international trade and business economics. Potential topics include, but are not limited to:
• Global supply (value) chains in developed vs emerging markets
• The role of institutions in promoting or constraining GVCs in emerging markets
• Factors impacting the geographic clustering of internationalization efforts for GVCs worldwide (developed as well as emerging economies)
• The impact of technology, innovation, institutions, industrialization, internationalization and governance on GVCs with regard to developing and developed economies
• The effect of internationalization on GVCs within a company, country or geographic region
• Cross-cultural collaboration and managerial mindset needed in GVC efforts
• Theoretical and Empirical contributions to the field of GVCs, institutions, international trade, and emerging markets

Deadlines, Submission Guidelines and Editors' Information
The special issue will feature the best papers from the Academy of International Business Southeast (AIB-SE) chapter meeting to be held in November 2016 (2016 AIB-SE Conference CFP: http://www.aibse.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-CfP-AIBSE-April-.pdf and Conference Submission System: http://meetings.aib.msu.edu/us-se/2016/) as well as submissions in response to the general call for papers. Based on editorial review, top rated papers will be invited to go through additional peer review to be considered for publication. Manuscripts for the special issue should be submitted through the IJoEM website: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijoem.

The deadline for submissions is February 15, 2017.
For general submission guidelines, see: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=ijoem
For additional information on the 2016 AIB-SE Conference, see: http://www.aibse.org/2016-annual-conference



Dr. Anshu Arora (Special Issue Editor)
Associate Professor - Marketing
Director of Global Logistics & International
Business Education and Research Center
Savannah State University, Georgia, USA
aroraa@savannahstate.edu
Phone: (912) 358-3387


Dr. Nicole Hartley (Special Issue Editor)
Lecturer - Marketing
University of Queensland Business School
University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia
n.hartley@business.uq.edu.au
Phone: +61 7 3346 8022

Friday, January 15, 2016

Call for book chapters: Climate change and the 2030 corporate agenda for sustainable development

Call for book chapters


Book series title: Advances in Sustainability and Environmental Justice
ISSN: 2051-5030

 
This edited volume will explore the meaning of the Paris Climate Agreement 2015 for business; it also will analyse its challenges and implications, and it will establish required actions by the private sector in order to reducing global warming and mitigating climate change effects.

This book aims to bring together evidence-based, conceptual and theoretical contributions from a diverse set of geographical locations, and disciplinary backgrounds (international business, strategy, management, economics, marketing, psychology, sociology, legal studies, and anthropology) on the meanings, implications, opportunities and challenges for business around the planet in relation to climate change.

On December 2015, a universal agreement by 195 nations that seriously emphasises the urgency to “address the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels” (United Nations & Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2015: 2). At the agreement is also recognise the “urgent need to enhance the provision of finance, technology and capacity-building support by developed country Parties, in a predictable manner, to enable enhanced pre-2020 action by developing country Parties” (Idem). The some of the implications for Business are the inclusion of “major reductions in the cost of future mitigation and adaptation efforts”(ídem); and the promotion of “universal access to sustainable energy in developing countries, in particular in Africa, through the enhanced deployment of renewable energy” (ídem); the promotion of “regional and international cooperation in order to mobilize stronger and more ambitious climate action by all Parties and non-Party stakeholders, including civil society, the private sector, financial institutions, cities and other subnational authorities, local communities and indigenous peoples” (ídem).

What is the meaning of the Paris climate agreement for business?

Recommended topics include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • The meaning of the Paris climate agreement for Business
  • The Post-2015 sustainable business agenda
  • Sustainability and competitiveness
  • Specific case studies on business addressing global warming
  • The Business case for climate change
  • Internationalisation of Business and climate change
  • Tax greenhouse emissions
  • International business and environmental sustainability
  • Fossil fuels prices and global warming
  • Climate refugees and corporate actions
  • Corporate agenda and the thirteen SDG 13
  • Transferring political will into Business actions
  • The agenda for COP 22
  •  Green bonds
  • PRME and climate change
  • Environmental corporate initiatives and the UN Global Compact
  • GRI Compass
  • Climate finance
  • Monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV)
  • Technology transfer for sustainable energy
  • B Corps

Important dates:

  • Submission deadline for chapter proposals (title and 300-500 words abstract): February 1st, 2016 (to: mgonza40@eafit.edu.co and to liam_leonard@yahoo.com)
  • Notification of acceptance/rejection of chapter proposals: February 15th, 2016
  • Deadline for full chapter: April 30th, 2016
  • Notification of acceptance/rejection of chapter proposals: 15th of May, 2016
  • Deadline for submission of final chapters: 15th July 2016
  • It is expected the volume to be published at the end of 2016
Accepted chapters will be compiled in a book titled “Climate change and the 2030 corporate agenda for sustainable development”, and it will be published by Emerald Books within the Advances in Sustainability and Environmental Justice serie (indexed in Scopus)

Book Co-editors and further details:


Reference:

United Nations & Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015) The adoption of the Paris Agreement. Available online at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

New call for chapters. Progress in International Business Research (PIBR)


Call for Chapters:
PIBR Volume #11


Book Series Title: Progress in International Business Research (PIBR)


Volume #11: “The challenge of/for BRIC Multinationals”

Publisher: Emerald

For Volume #11 of the PIBR book series, we invite two types of contributions:
·      Research papers on emerging market – particularly BRIC – multinationals;
·      Teaching cases that address managerial dilemmas related to the internationalization of BRIC firms.

This Call for Chapters is intended to provide prospective authors for a volume on BRIC multinationals to come up with relevant ideas. The Call first describes why the issue of BRIC multinationals defines a specific angle in international business research. Secondly, the Call specifies the content of the special issue that we plan for the Progress in International Business Research (PIBR) book series (published by Emerald). Thirdly, this Call elaborates possible themes and the way these could be tackled in the form of teaching-oriented case studies. You are warmly invited and welcome to contribute!

General Introduction: Why BRIC multinationals are special?


The recent emergence of a number of high-profile multinational enterprises (MNEs) from emerging markets has triggered considerable research and debate on how to understand and appraise this phenomenon (Sauvant, 2011). The challenge for empirical research includes the question of whether the strategies and motives for the internationalization of these MNEs can be considered fundamentally different from the strategies of firms from developed countries (Luo and Tung 2007), or whether their ownership advantages are fundamentally different from those of developed country MNEs (Mathews 2002; Luo and Tung 2007; Buckley et al. 2007; Li 2007). Increasingly described as “springboarding” (Luo and Tung 2007), the internationalization strategies of emerging market firms are characterized by their high-risk, aggressive, and “boom-and-bust” or radical nature, while targeting many customers in many foreign markets at once, in a strategy of entrepreneurial venturing (Yiu et al. 2007). Comparing developed country MNEs of the 1960s, with emerging market MNEs in the 2000s, Dunning, Kim, and Park (2008) identified a number of additional differences. These include forms of entry (alliances); motivation (asset augmentation); managerial approach (regional and geocentric); role of home governments (more active than in the past); regional destination; institutional triggers of internationalization rather than traditional motives related to neoclassical models; and the lack of firm-specific ownership advantages (177).

One of the problems with these observations is that the category of ‘emerging market multinationals’ does not distinguish between different types of emerging markets. Although the empirical research is dominated by Chinese, Indian and – to a lesser extent – Brazilian multinationals, the theoretical literature nevertheless tends to adopt the more neutral term of emerging markets. But to what extent can the multinationals from these very specific country backgrounds be considered representative for a wider group of multinationals? Can China be compared, for instance, to Malaysia or Thailand? 

Taking these questions into account asks for the extent to which countries-of-origin matter in general for the study of MNEs. Moreover, with regard to the special case of BRIC countries and BRIC multinationals, a further dimension should be taken into account: the size of the home country as well as in particular the political weight in the international arena that this brings with it. To what extent can these domestic institutions be considered ‘normal” for explaining the internationalization strategies of BRIC multinationals as compared to emerging market multinationals in general? Another dimension related to these questions is the circumstance that whereas the classical developed country multinationals developed more or less parallel to their home countries economic development and political power, the BRIC multinationals still develop in relatively weakly developed countries, however with considerable political power and aspirations. Do these circumstances, therefore, imply that perhaps theoretical lines for ‘emerging market multinationals’ need not be redrawn, but that new approaches to explain the new breed of multinationals from BRIC countries need to be designed? If so what does that mean for the study of international business. Most modern IB theorists have either denied that there is need for new approaches, or have slightly modified their approach, not to explain for emerging market multinational specifically, but rather to include some of the characteristics of globalization in general. But to what extent does this underestimates the ‘uniqueness’ of the BRIC multinationals? Because the BRIC countries – in comparison to most other developing countries – have occupied a stronger bargaining position vis-à-vis developed countries’ multinationals, does this change their entry conditions and ultimately the way foreign multinationals (can) contribute to domestic development? And the flip-side of this argument: most BRIC countries only started to ‘allow’ their domestic companies to move abroad, thus creating substantial Outward Foreign Direct Investment flows. Many of these moves were accompanied by institutional arrangements, like Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). Depending on the ownership of these companies, their international expansion was part of national strategies and policy agendas. Compared to the outwards internationalization strategies of ‘western’ multinationals, this also provides a distinctive characteristic of BRIC multinationals: their links with the foreign ambitions of their home governments.

PIBR #11 – Research papers

This volume searches for a number of idiosyncratic elements in internationalization strategies of BRIC MNEs and, therefore, in particular in their relationship with home country policies:

1   The theoretical challenge: do we need different or more specific theories of EMNEs to assess the phenomenon of BRIC multinationals?
2   The empirical challenge: what marks the changing position of BRIC countries in the world economy: including institutional differences and commonalities in outward orientation and participation and shaping of international institutions (such as the BRICs bank complementing Bretton Woods institutes).
3   The managerial challenge: coming of age of a new breed of multinationals: what distinguishes BRIC multinationals from other multinationals? To what extent is the diplomatic agenda aligned with the corporate agenda? 
4   The policy making challenge: impact of outward Foreign Direct Investment on the home market: What impact have MNEs from BRIC countries on their domestic economy and the political constellations

PIBR #11 – Teaching cases


Educational ambitions

This volume emphasizes the unique characteristics of BRIC multinationals. We will actively solicit state-of-the art contributions, including systematic literature reviews – preferably by PhD students. Furthermore, the volume is intended to be used in an educational setting. For this, more extensive teaching cases as well as short cases (included as boxed in the book) are request that illustrate the above ambitions of the book: 
  • Examples of how the size of the home market influences the international strategies of companies 
  • Examples of how the international strategy of a company is linked to national political priorities 
  • Examples of companies that successfully combined a Bilateral Investment Treaty (or any other form of diplomatic support) with a foreign investment 
  • Examples of negative or positive responses by host governments to the entry of BRIC multinationals 
  • Examples of the risks and opportunities of ‘springboarding’ strategies of BRIC multinationals 
  • Examples of in particular the regional implementation of internationalization strategies by BRIC multinationals 

The teaching case format



1. The special focus of BRIC cases


The BRIC countries are a ‘special breed’ in the internationalization strategies of firms, because of a number of reasons: (1) big home market, that is rapidly developing, (2) but that remains not very well developed yet with sizable institutional voids and great ‘ issues’ at home, (3) at the same time these countries have sizable political weight in the international arena (member of security council, in international treaties etc.) that makes them incomparable to most other developing countries, which (4) therefore creates a different ‘risk mitigation’ strategy for the companies originating in the BRIC countries (Outward Foreign Direct Investment), and (5) at the same time creates a better bargaining position of these companies vis-à-vis incoming companies in their home turf (Inward Foreign Direct Investment), and explains also why (6) some of these companies have internationalized so rapidly (springboarding) due to a mix of domestic and foreign influences that in the case of BRIC multinationals really make a difference (strategic tipping points; for instance the political support to take over competitors in the home market and/or to invest abroad as part of geo-political strategic motivations).


2. Theoretical discussion


This distinguishes them from traditional multinationals (general theory on multinationals) and from ‘emerging market multinationals’ (general theory on latecomer multinationals). The discussion whether we need ’new theory’ or can continue to base our studies on ‘old’ theories therefore seems a bit off-the-case. See, for example, van Tulder (2010), who argues that it is more important to re-address classical approaches to IB (the political economic) next to recent insights that look at the motivations to go abroad in a more holistic manner: such as the ‘resource bundling’ perspective and different ways of looking at stakeholder engagement and new angles to the ‘liability of foreignness’.

VAN TULDER, Rob (2010). Toward a Renewed Stages Theory for BRIC Multinational Enterprises? A Home Country Bargaining Approach. In SAUVANT, Karl, McALLISTER, Geraldine, and MASCHEK, Wolfgang (eds.), Foreign Investments from Emerging Markets.

3. The case format

Taking the above considerations into account the teaching case should roughly follow the following characteristics:
   [a] discuss a BRIC multinational, with controlling ownership in the BRIC country (can be anything)
   [b] depart from a managerial problem: what should the manager do?
   [c] take a bargaining and stakeholder perspective: how to deal with stakeholders at home and abroad (or how is action induced by stakeholder action at home)?
   [d] look at risk mitigation factors (that are typical for BRIC countries; bilateral treaties between the home and the host countries: BITs, DTTs, regional treaties and the like)
   [e] consider the institutional distance that the company has to overcome and the managerial problems it facing because of that
   [f] try to specify in which stage of internationalization this company is and what that entails for the management problem
   [g] NOTE: the core of the case can be any management problem in specific (R&D, take-over yes/no, marketing, license to operate, entry decision, independence of the subsidiary) as long as you are able to define the role that is played by the large home country basis (i.e. the BRIC nature) 

Deadlines:

  • January 31st 2016: Deadline for expression of interest/short abstracts. 
  • April 15th 2016: Submission of manuscripts June 30th 2016: Final version of the volume
  • November 2016: EIBA conference in Vienna

Submit your contribution to mgonza40@eafit.edu.co; and jorgemtc@iag.puc-rio.br 

Teaching cases must not exceed 25 pages (double-spaced), including tables, figures, references, and the respective teaching notes. Manuscripts submitted must not have been published, accepted for publication, or be currently under consideration elsewhere. Teaching cases must contain (1) the text of the teaching case itself, where the managerial dilemma is presented and information about the company and the context is shown; (2) teaching notes, which must present the learning objectives, issues for discussion, examples of appropriate analysis and of suggestions for in-class dynamics; and, ideally, also (3) a discussion of experiences in using the case in class.


Further information:

Rob van Tulder
Professor of International Business-Society Management
Department of Business-Society Management
Rotterdam School of Management (RSM)
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands