Search results

This paper responds to calls for a new raison d’être in the field cross-cultural management (CCM) and culture-sensitive studies of international business (IB) more broadly. It argues that one way of addressing the crisis of confidence in the field is to develop a line of inquiry focussed on corporate-driven cultural globalization. This paper also proposes a theoretical approach informed by international political economy (IPE) and postcolonial theory and outlines a research agenda for future work on cultural globalization.

The paper is a desk-based analysis that draws on relevant research in the wider social sciences to insert cultural globalization into the CCM/IB field’s intellectual project.

The paper finds the field of CCM and culture-sensitive IB studies more broadly to be almost exclusively focussed on studying the impact of cultural differences. Surprisingly, little attention has been devoted to the phenomenon of corporate-driven cultural globalization.

The paper redirects the field and presents a research agenda, calling for studies on the role of four related actors in cultural globalization: MNEs, global professional service firms, business schools and CCM/IB researchers themselves.

CCM/IB scholars may be able to reorient themselves towards the phenomenon of cultural globalization and, in so doing, also seize an opportunity to contribute to important debates about it in the wider social sciences.

The paper suggests possibilities for renewal by redirecting CCM/IB towards the study of cultural globalization and by encouraging the field to develop a postcolonial sensibility in future research on the phenomenon.

The purpose of this paper is to encourage scholars of international business (IB) to engage with the “decolonizing the university” project and reflect on what decolonizing might mean for IB research and education. The paper also argues that it is particularly important for IB scholars to join the decolonizing project given that the field’s main object of study – the multinational enterprise – has been central to colonialism.

An essay style is adopted to introduce the decolonizing project to IB and to explain why and how this scholarly field might benefit from engaging with it. As part of that, the paper calls upon IB scholars to work on decolonizing the field and to do so by not only interrogating its knowledge claims but also broadening the scope of its research so it can address the theme of neo-colonialism.

The paper reveals the conspicuous absence of IB scholars from the decolonizing project and situates such absence within a long-standing indifference within IB to the issue of colonialism.

In learning about and engaging with the decolonizing project, IB scholars will be able to not only enrich IB theory and education but also help to tackle one of the grand challenges facing the modern world society, namely, social inequality and injustice rooted in colonialism.

It is hoped that this paper will stimulate reflection on IB’s absence from the decolonizing project and assist scholars in developing an understanding of the project’s rationale and underlying literature. It is also hoped that the paper will open dialogue within IB about how this field might be decolonized and help scholars engage meaningfully with other disciplines as they do so.

This viewpoint aims to contribute to understanding corporate power in two key respects. First, it provides insight into the ways in which transnational corporations continue to operate as vehicles for neo-colonial projects, which are underpinned by exploitation and racial hierarchies. Second, it highlights the significance of investigative journalism in providing a crucial empirical resource for both activists engaged in holding power to account and scholars engaged in critical research into corporate power and civil society activism.

This viewpoint combines an interview with an investigative journalist and the academic commentary provided by the authors in response to the interview.

This viewpoint highlights contemporary mutations in the concentration of corporate power, along three broad themes: the growth of transnational institutions critical to enabling and supporting abuses of transnational corporate power and neo-colonialism; the emergence of corporate-run political territories secured by private security organisations; and the corporate attack on progressive politics. It also analyses the important role of investigative journalism in advancing knowledge of transnational corporate power as well as its role in holding such power to account and the urgent need for new forms of independent journalism to support union activism, whistleblowing and other forms of democratic activism.

This viewpoint engages with an alternative tradition of social critique and the critique of corporate power, which has been underrepresented in the field of international business.

This study highlights the significance of investigative journalism in providing a crucial empirical resource for both activists engaged in holding power to account and scholars engaged in critical research into corporate power and civil society activism.

These implications entail developing a critique of transnational corporate power and neo-colonialism, enriching democtratic oversight and journalism, and supporting freedom of expression and democratic activism.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, minimal research has explored the critical role of investigative journalism in uncovering and holding transnational corporate power accountable. This paper therefore offers a highly original contribution by addressing this significant yet underexamined area.

The field of international business (IB) formally welcomes and frequently calls for case study research, but the proportion of case study papers appearing in IB journals remains very small. This paper aims to support efforts to redress this imbalance by addressing an overlooked yet critical issue: the (mis)use of tenses when theorizing from case study findings. The authors reveal a pervasive use of the present tense and argue that this leads to decontextualization and, in turn, over-generalization. The paper also suggests ways in which this problem may be avoided in the future, thereby improving the credibility and status of case-based research and helping to de-marginalise it within IB.

A qualitative content analysis was applied to all (2,627) papers published between 2011 and 2021 in four leading IB journals. In total, 171 case study papers were identified over these 11 years, and a deeper content analysis was then performed to measure the extent of decontextualization/over-generalization implied by the inappropriate use of the present tense in the discussion and theorisation of research findings.

This study found that, out of 171 case study papers identified, 141 (82.5%) provided at least two instances of over-generalization as implied by the misuse of the present tense. However, some of these papers were found to feature statements that could be claimed to mitigate such inappropriate generalization. These mitigating factors included the repeated use of adverbial phrases denoting context and the use of a “propositional style” that clearly distinguished contextual findings from speculative, decontextualized generalizations. Nevertheless, 71 of the 171 (41.5%) papers still demonstrated inappropriate generalization, even after allowing for mitigating factors.

This study reveals a problematic writing practice and one which has arguably significantly contributed to the “decontextualization” problem critiqued in IB and management studies more broadly. The study also offers further insights into how decontextualization might be avoided, arguing that this problem would be significantly reduced if tenses were used appropriately in discussing and theorizing case study findings. Additionally, the study highlights the continued marginalization of qualitative research methods in IB and reinforces calls to address it.

This viewpoint takes up the Covid-19 pandemic as a trigger for a research agenda around societally engaged international business (IB) research.

The paper is organized as a viewpoint. First, it provides an overview of Covid-19 research in business and management and IB in particular. Second, it introduces a societally engaged IB perspective, around poverty and human rights as well as trade.

The paper offers an annotated introduction to the paper contributions of the special issue with three clusters, “re-reading the crisis”, “crisis protectionism” and “firm strategies during the pandemic”.

The paper points to future research opportunities in terms of crisis management and societally engaged IB research.

The Covid-19 crisis poses new questions for research on international business and its related disciplines. In particular, the political, economic and societal disruption which the pandemic has caused highlights the importance of addressing broader societal issues such as climate change, poverty and inequality through a purposeful and forward-looking research agenda.

The paper and the special issue are some of the first combined research outputs on the Covid-19 pandemic in international business.

The purpose of this paper is to draw critical accounting research to ground the study of globalising of professional service firms (GPSFs) more firmly in the history and actuality of imperialism. In so doing, the paper also helps in forging a stronger connection between accounting scholarship and interdisciplinary GPSF-focused debates in the wider field of management and organisation studies (MOS).

This is a desk-based study, analysing the globalisation of professional service firms through the lens of imperialism via an exploration of relevant research on the accounting profession.

The analysis sheds light on the link between GPSFs and contemporary imperialism. In particular, it shows how the organisation of GPSFs (re)produces core-periphery relations in the modern world economy and how this is facilitated and reinforced by universalisation efforts on the part of the firms’ core offices. The paper also highlights the role of local professionals in both enabling and resisting GPSF domination.

One main implication of this paper is that the organisational nature and societal impact of GPSFs (and the professions more generally) are further illuminated. The paper deepens understanding of GPSFs’ role in (re)producing global inequalities and colonial-style power relations in a supposedly post-imperial world and calls for a reconceptualisation of these firms as agents of imperialism. In so doing, the paper also opens new avenues for future research on the organisation of GPSFs and on their impact on societies worldwide.

This is the first attempt to draw together critical accounting studies of globalisation with research GPSFs in the generalist field of MOS. In so doing, it contributes to a cross-fertilisation of the two fields and helps in making the former more central to ongoing debates in the latter. The paper also contributes to the emerging body of post-colonial theorising in MOS by shedding light on the crucial role of professional service firms in (re)producing imperialism in the modern world economy.

This paper aims to discuss the context- and power-sensitive approach to the study of multinationals that has emerged in the last decade, argues for the need to supplement it by a clearer focus on the wider geopolitical context in which multinationals operate and outlines the implications for the development of IB research in this area.

The paper provides a summary overview of context- and power-sensitive studies of multinationals before proposing a research agenda for the next decade. In particular, it argues for the need to combine the institutionalist angle taken by context/power analyses with post-colonial theory as a means of bringing geopolitics into the study of multinationals, a task that CPoIB is well positioned to accomplish.

The paper identifies a lack of “criticality” in context/power research and, in particular, a lack of attention to the neo-imperial character of multinationals with specific regards to their management and organisation.

The implications of this paper are that the nature of contemporary multinationals is further illuminated, especially their role in (re-)producing (neo-)imperial relations in a supposedly post-colonial world. Further, the paper suggests an agenda for future research on the relationship between imperialism and multinationals.

The value of the paper is in drawing together more closely the study of multinationals as organizational structures and political systems with the history of imperialism and contemporary post-colonial theorising.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of national institutional contexts on a multinational's project to develop a transnational talent management system.

The study combines a comparative analysis of British and French conceptions of management with qualitative empirical data drawn from interviews, observation and documents collected in France and the UK.

The concept of “talent management”, as understood by UK managers, could not simply be reproduced in the French setting where the idea of managing talent took on a different meaning. The attempt to do so through a UK‐instituted programme ignored this difference and resulted in the complete failure of the headquarters' project to develop a transnational talent management system.

Theoretical implications include the importance of an institutionally sensitive approach to the study of talent management within multinationals. A limitation of the study is that it is based on a single case study.

The paper is a case study of a cross‐national talent management programme from a comparative institutionalist perspective rather than that of mainstream international management. It highlights the conflicts and tensions involved in implementing management systems uniformly across national borders. The paper's Anglo‐French focus also contributes a comparative angle that is relatively rare in institutionalist studies of MNCs (multinational companies). Finally, the paper sheds light on the newly emerging and yet under‐researched concept of “talent management”, connecting this idea with existing debates on multinationals and institutional change and reproduction.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the contextual and linguistic challenges that French business schools face when preparing for international accreditation and to shed light on the different ways in which experts facilitate these accreditation processes, particularly with respect to how they capitalize on their contextual and linguistic boundary-spanning competences.

The authors interviewed 12 key players at four business schools in France engaged in international accreditations and in three specific categories: senior management, tenured faculty and administrative staff. The interview-based case study design used semi-structured questions and an insider researcher approach to study an underexplored sector of analysis.

The findings suggest that French business schools have been particularly impacted by the colonizing effects of English as the mandatory language of the international accreditation bodies espousing a basically Anglophone higher education philosophy. Consequently, schools engage external experts for their contextual and linguistic boundary-spanning expertise to facilitate accreditation processes.

The authors contribute to language-sensitive research through a critical perspective on marginalization within French business schools due to the use of English as the mandatory lingua franca of international accreditation processes and due to the underlying higher-education philosophy from the Anglophone academic sphere within these processes. As a result, French business schools resort to external experts to mediate their knowledge and competency gaps.