Search results

This paper aims to explore the ideas that social legitimacy (acceptance by the public within a country) serves as a hedge against political risk and that the perceived social value of Multinational Enterprises (MNEs’) products or services improves firms’ social legitimacy and so resilience to political shock.

Drawing from a unique data concerning global construction activity and taking advantage of the Arab Spring as an exogenous, political shock, this paper teases out the relative effects of pre-shock experience and product/service emphasis.

The authors find that construction firms that worked on a higher proportion of socially beneficial projects – such as water infrastructure, transportation and telecommunications – recovered more quickly from political shock than did those that worked on projects primarily for manufacturing interests or the oil industry. The authors also find that deep experience in a country had no bearing on a firm’s ability to recover from political shock.

The findings suggest that market behaviors that enhance social legitimacy also enhance MNEs’ ability to survive in volatile political settings. These insights add to the political risk and nonmarket strategy literatures the idea that market strategies that are attentive to nonmarket strategic goals are an important addition to the toolkit for managing political risk. More specifically, when it comes to surviving political shock, pre-shock emphasis on socially beneficial products seems to create a social legitimacy buffer that enhances resilience more than do deep country experience and associated social and political ties with the political elite.

The purpose of this study is to assess the effect of institutional distance on national innovation systems.

This study uses social network analysis to analyze the connectivity between national systems of innovation. A regulative distance index is constructed by coding the European Commission progress reports and using weights to account for relevance to research and innovation.

Reductions in institutional distance (proxied by regulative distance) increase international innovation connectivity between national systems of innovation. More importantly, it leads to increase in both the complexity and resilience of innovation connectivity between countries.

This study provides fresh evidence on the pathways through which institutions affect international business systems. Policy harmonization has strong effects on firm-level corporate strategy.

The international strategies of multinational enterprises are increasingly augmented by insights on, and approaches to, external stakeholders and nonmarket dynamics. The rise of populism and increased geopolitical uncertainty have accelerated these efforts, particularly for business leaders anticipating and engaging external agents, events, and issues that challenge the strategic objectives of their enterprises.

In this paper we explain why the increased preponderance of populism and geopolitical uncertainty are concurrently posing an existential threat to the post-Cold War global economy predicated on free trade and (relatively) open borders and, consequently, challenging the structures and strategies of international business.

We provide an overview of the four papers in our special issue and consider how each advances insights on how multinational enterprises effectively navigate the nonmarket uncertainties of the contemporary global economy. We then advance four important areas for international business research on multinational nonmarket strategies: (i) resilience and legitimacy; (ii), diversification; (iii), market and nonmarket strategy integration; and (iv), institutional arbitrage.

We anticipate that nonmarket strategy scholars can build on these themes to assess how nonmarket strategies can better enable multinational enterprises to survive and thrive in an age of heightened global risk and uncertainty.

This paper and the related special issue provides novel theoretical insights by drawing attention to the relatively under-researched realm of multinational enterprise nonmarket strategy, particularly in populist contexts and during periods of geopolitical uncertainty. Importantly, we identify four promising domains – resilience and legitimacy, diversification, the integration of market and nonmarket strategy, and institutional arbitrage – for international business scholars investigating nonmarket strategy to consider. We anticipate that our paper, as well as other papers in this special issue, contribute further momentum to this burgeoning area of research.