Journal of International Business Studies最新文献

Multinational corporations and their global suppliers are increasingly expected to employ sustainability practices throughout their supply chains. As such, the global scope of corporate sustainability – including the notion of ‘full-chain responsibility’ – is a concern for firms, governments, NGOs, and other stakeholders. We evaluate the state-of-the-art of sustainability research on multinational firms and global supply chains, bringing together insights from two literatures that have examined this topic: international business and supply chain management. The articles in the Special Issue advance the research frontier by highlighting both macro impacts of legal and societal pressures as well as micro-processes of bargaining power, managerial sensemaking, and transparency to inform the relationships between global firms and their suppliers. Collectively, the research included in this Special Issue reflects a notable shift in focus from the former (macro) to the latter (micro). We elaborate on the benefits of incorporating additional notions such as power, opportunism, and negotiation in global supply chain research against the background of cross-country variation in legal and societal pressures. This would allow a more in-depth understanding of the dynamic relationships between multinational corporations, their multi-tier supplier networks, and other stakeholders that jointly shape the sustainability agenda.

Multinational enterprises (MNEs) are increasingly called upon to address sustainability issues along their supply chains. We advance prior literature on this topic by building on the argument that comprehending individual-level sensemaking is the foundational step for understanding the design and execution of corporate sustainability strategy. Hence, we undertook a qualitative study of one European agri-food MNE and captured how internal and external stakeholders along two entire supply chain segments, reaching into India and Ethiopia, respectively, make sense of farmer livelihoods as one particular sustainability issue. Using Weick’s stages of sensemaking as our theoretical lens, we find a high degree of diversity in interpretations regarding (1) the nature of the sustainability challenge, (2) the MNE’s motives for addressing it, and (3) the potential solutions to it. However, consistent patterns emerge for the three sensemaking stages in relation to the individual’s position in the supply chain. As a result of our analysis, we develop a conceptual model that elucidates differences in sensemaking of sustainability challenges by actors at different positions along global supply chains. Building on our findings, we offer a detailed explanation of how individual sensemaking influences collective sensemaking and, in turn, the direction and effectiveness of corporate strategy on sustainability.

Existing research has underscored that the lack of supplier visibility poses a primary obstacle for multinational corporations (MNCs) to tackle human rights violations within their global supply chains (GSC). To address this challenge, MNCs are increasingly adopting the concept of “smart disclosure” to enhance supplier visibility. However, its conceptualization, operationalization, and efficacy in reducing human rights violations, remain unclear. Filling this gap, we first draw on research about attributes of digital technologies and information disclosure to define and operationalize smart disclosure in the context of GSC. We then draw on insights from institutional theory to theorize that smart disclosure – as a visibility-enhancing mechanism – enables MNCs to fulfill the role of “institutional carriers” and effectively impose institutional pressures on suppliers, fostering an environment where suppliers’ adherence to human rights standards is desired, supported, and rewarded. We further propose that this effect is stronger for suppliers with higher centrality in GSC networks and those in countries with greater civil society development. We found support for our arguments by analyzing 8527 observations at the MNC-supplier-year level in the global apparel industry from 2014 to 2020.

In addition to cultural and demographic diversity, temporal diversity is increasingly recognized as a crucial factor affecting the dynamics and performance of global virtual teams (GVTs). However, research on temporal diversity tends to analyze the effects of only one source of timing differences at a time: either only time-zone differences or only chronotype differences among the team members. Such a single-focus approach is limiting, and could lead to biased conclusions. We provide a conceptual model that shows how analyzing only one source of temporal diversity at a time can produce an incomplete and even misleading picture. Based on the analysis of different temporal activation patternings, namely the arrangements of timing when team members can fully engage in project-related tasks, we demonstrate how the interplay between time zones and chronotypes can exacerbate or mitigate temporal diversity, resulting in temporal patterns that could be more or less advantageous for a GVT, depending on the team characteristics and nature of its task. We discuss the implications of failing to simultaneously consider both sources of temporal differences when analyzing timing differences among GVT members and provide a guide for future research and practice for handling the issue of temporal diversity more effectively.

Universal banking powers are permissions for a nation’s banks to provide financial services beyond “plain vanilla” banking activities. Some nations restrict banking activities to only services such as loans and deposits, while others permit commercial banks to also engage in investment banking, insurance underwriting, and/or real estate investment activities. Despite the research and policy importance of this issue, the literature essentially neglects how these powers affect the primary role of banks in creating liquidity for society. We formulate two competing hypotheses as to whether more universal banking powers increase versus decrease domestic bank liquidity creation based on theories of risk absorption, relationship banking, and scope economies/diseconomies. We test which hypothesis empirically dominates using data from 85 nations over 15 years. The data strongly support the hypothesis that universal powers boost domestic bank liquidity creation. These findings are robust to addressing endogeneity, controlling for bank regulations, macroeconomic conditions, and institutional variables, and conducting subsample analyses. We also test for international arbitrage – whether the foreign subsidiaries of banks from more restrictive countries create more liquidity in host countries with fewer restrictions – and find support for this arbitrage. Collectively, these results provide important research and policy implications.

Family-owned MNEs (FMNEs) face unique challenges for their newly established foreign subsidiaries due to the information asymmetry and divergent demands between the controlling families and external stakeholders. Despite the significant theoretical and managerial implications, there has been a notable research gap in understanding how FMNEs strategically disclose information to overcome these challenges. Drawing from literature on firms’ stakeholder management and responses to institutional pressure, we propose that FMNEs seek a compensating approach to reconcile various stakeholders’ divergent needs, mitigate information asymmetry, and enhance legitimacy. The compensating approach encompasses both the content and amount of information disclosed. Specifically, FMNEs selectively conceal information sensitive to socioemotional wealth (SEW) to protect the core interests of the controlling families. Simultaneously, they voluntarily disclose more information to signal professionalization to external stakeholders, alleviating concerns associated with higher family involvement. We further argue that transparency pressure in FMNEs’ home context amplifies their utilization of compensating information disclosure. Our arguments are generally supported by analyzing 850 newly established foreign subsidiaries from both FMNEs and non-FMNEs between 2010 and 2017.

Over the last decade, the green shoots of a new economic order have emerged as decentralized technologies challenge traditional financial systems. Decentralized finance (DeFi) holds the potential to transform international business (IB) by offering accessible financial services across borders, disrupting traditional intermediaries, and promoting financial inclusion. While traditional fintech has challenged banks, DeFi operates outside legacy systems, leveraging blockchain technology and smart contracting to introduce a new range of products and services that provide first-movers with an upper hand to both expand their business across the globe as well realize cost savings on existing business. Despite offering advantages like efficiency, transparency, and security, DeFi faces regulatory uncertainties and scalability, adoption, and stability concerns. Our study explores how DeFi can seamlessly integrate into the IB space while addressing these challenges. In addition to offering insights for investors, multinational firms, and regulators, we also lay the groundwork for future IB research in the fintech domain. As the DeFi innovation unfolds, understanding and harnessing its potential can empower stakeholders to engage responsibly and effectively in this transformative landscape.

We contend that the Uppsala internationalisation process (IP) Model offers the basis, yet unrealised, for a process theory of growth of the internationalising firm. From the Model’s origins, particularly in Penrosean theory, we develop this potential by offering a theory extension that explicates the organisational changes within the firm required to sustain international growth. This repositioning distinguishes us from previous attempts to amend, supplant or extend the IP Model. In developing the theory extension, we specify how we remain faithful to the IP Model’s behavioural assumption ground. We provide a model of the internationalising firm that posits non-linear growth paths. This is due to the challenges of synchronising the external opportunity seeking of the firm as it expands internationally with the internal capacity building required to realise these opportunities. Introducing to the IB field this asynchronicity problem, an absence of temporal concurrence, we show its potential in explaining organisational changes and discontinuities in the internationalising firm’s development as it seeks to grow. By extending the IP Model to offer a theory of growth of the internationalising firm, we provide the basis for further process scholarship on this topic that addresses contemporary concerns and developments.

The international bond market is the largest component of the international capital markets. Previous research shows that the liability of foreignness (LOF) imposes significant costs on international debt contracting. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of foreign institutional shareholders (FISs) on the costs of international debt contracting. While the presence of FISs could lead to a reduction in LOF-related costs, it can also lead to an increase in the costs arising from agency conflicts between shareholders and bondholders. We examine the impact of FISs on the prevalence of restrictive bond covenants using a sample of 956 Yankee bonds from 26 countries over the period 2001–2019. We find a significantly negative relationship between FIS ownership and bond covenants. This inverse relationship is strongest for U.S. institutional ownership, and for covenants designed to mitigate opportunistic behavior such as claim dilution and wealth transfers. We also show that the inverse relationship between U.S. institutional ownership and bond covenants is moderated by variables related to corporate governance, information asymmetry, and agency costs of debt. Additional analyses show that U.S. institutional ownership has a significant pricing effect on Yankee bond investors by lowering an issuer’s cost of borrowing.

A well-established body of international business research examines how the institutional environment influences corporate decisions. We add to this literature by investigating the unexplored link between family, a fundamental institution in human society, and corporate tax decisions. Applying theories on social norms and the evolution of moral boundaries, we argue that the strength of family ties in a society increases corporate tax avoidance by narrowing the scope of moral responsibilities. We confirm this argument by conducting regression analyses using a large sample of firms from 44 countries. In addition, the positive effect of family ties on tax avoidance is attenuated for firms in countries with inclusive political institutions and is amplified for family firms. Using a sample of U.S. companies, we also find that firms avoid more taxes when they are located in states with stronger family ties and when their CEOs are from countries with stronger family ties, indicating that both the social norms that surround firms and those that are embedded in the origin countries of the managers affect firm tax decisions. Our study implies that the institution of family provides a valuable perspective to understand the international differences in corporate behaviors.