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:

• Liam Leonard, (California State University, Fullerton and University of West Virginia; United States). liam_leonard@yahoo.com
• Maria Alejandra Gonzalez-Perez, Universidad EAFIT, Colombia mgonza40@eafit.edu.co 

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

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

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”

Editors: Rob van Tulder, Alain Verbeke, Jorge Carneiro, Maria Alejandra Gonzalez-Perez

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

Email: rtulder@rsm.nl

Call for chapters. Special issue: New Wine in Old Bottles? The Role of Emerging Markets Multinationals in advancing IB Theory and Research.

International Journal of Emerging Markets

Call for Papers for Special Issue on

New Wine in Old Bottles? The Role of Emerging Markets Multinationals in advancing IB Theory and Research.


Special Issue Editors:

• Bersant Hobdari (Copenhagen Business School)
• Lourdes Casanova (Cornell University)
• Peter Hertenstein (University of Cambridge)

In many respects, multinationals are a defining invention of Western economies. But like much else, they are no longer the preserve of the West. The emerging economies are producing business giants of their own at a staggering rate. While these businesses share the scale and ambition of their developed-world counterparts, their processes and patterns of growth are often dissimilar to those of their competitors in the developed world. They are success stories that are changing the narrative rules as they go along.

As emerging market countries gain in stature, their companies are taking center stage. Emerging market companies accounted for over 40 percent of world exports and around a quarter of outward foreign direct investment investments flows (UNCTAD, 2012; Contractor, 2013). These emerging market companies will continue to be critical competitors in their home markets while increasingly making outbound investments into other emerging and developed economies. Working to serve customers of limited means, the emerging market leaders often produce innovative designs that reduce manufacturing costs and sometimes disrupt entire industries. 

The state of the literature is divided in between those who claim that emerging market multinationals are similar to their Western counterparts and those who claim that these multinationals are a new phenomenon requiring new theories and frameworks. Arguments in support of new theoretical models in which EMNEs can contribute to IB theory can be divided into two streams. Ramamurti (2009), on the one side of the argument stresses the role of country of origin and other contextual factors in shaping emerging market multinationals internationalization strategies. In this respect, there is a need for empirically grounded research to discover ownership-specific advantages of emerging market multinationals, which either help or hinder internationalization process (Ramamurti, 2012). On the other side of the debate, others, like Dunning, Kim, and Park (2008) and Williamson and Zeng (2009), give reasons to believe that emerging market multinationals do not behave differently because of their origin, but because of fundamental changes in the world economy. As a consequence, emerging market multinationals would act similar to young multinationals from developed countries. In between these opposing views, Cuervo-Cazurra (2012) argues that the behavior of emerging market multinationals can be explained by extending and modifying the existing models rather than building new ones. Gammeltoft et. al. (2010) stress the role of macro and micro perspectives when analyzing the dynamics of emerging market multinationals. 

Consequently, we are soliciting empirical and theoretical work addressing these complex relationships between various forms of contextual heterogeneities and emerging market multinationals. This special issue provides an opportunity to bring together the research of scholars from a diverse range of disciplinary traditions such as economics, sociology and political science. As such, the following list of potential research questions is merely illustrative of the broad range of studies that could fit in the special issue:

• · Are emerging market multinationals different from similar-aged developing market multinationals?
• · Does the change in global economic conditions call for a radical change in the behavior of multinationals?
• · What opportunities do fine sliced global value chains open for entry and upgrading of emerging market multinationals in the global economy?
• · Can emerging market multinationals help broaden the concept of ownership advantages beyond the traditional definition including technology and brand value?
• · Does availability of finance and existence of internal capital markets shape the response of emerging market multinationals to the financial crisis?
• · Do emerging market multinationals use CRS and sustainability initiatives as sources competitive advantage? 
• · Are there contextual elements that make emerging market multinationals truly unique?
• · How does corporate governance affect internationalization strategies of emerging market multinationals?
• · What are the dynamics of the interrelationship between institutional change and corporate strategy?
• · Do emerging market multinationals possess institutional capabilities that can be transferred across borders?

Deadlines, Submission Guidelines and Co-Editor Information

Submissions to the Special Issue must be submitted through the IJoEM website. The deadline for submissions is March 1, 2016. For general submission guidelines, see http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=ijoem. No late submissions will be accepted. We have a marked preference for submissions which debate with, extend, and/or refute the indicative literature cited below. Please indicate that your submission is to be reviewed for the Special Issue on Emerging Economy Multinationals.

Papers will be blind peer-reviewed. We will make initial editorial decisions by June, 2016. Authors invited to revise and resubmit their work will be invited to present the papers at the IJoEM special issue workshop to be held at the 5th conference on “Emerging Economy Multinationals” at Copenhagen Business School in Copenhagen, Denmark during September/October 2016.

The papers accepted and presented at the workshop will be considered for publication in a special issue of the IJoEM. Presentation at the workshop does not necessarily guarantee publication in the special issue. The combination of a workshop and a special issue nevertheless follows a highly successful template to bring out the full potential of authors and papers. For questions about the special issue, please contact Bersant Hobdari, Guest Editor, at bh.int@cbs.dk.

Indicative Contemporary Literature

• Aharoni, Y. 2014. "To understand EMNEs a dynamic IB contingency theory is called for." International Journal of Emerging Markets 9(3): 377 – 385.
• Buckley, P. J. 2014. “Forty years of internationalisation theory and the multinational enterprise.” Multinational Business Review 22 (3): 227-245.
• Contractor, F. J. 2013. “Punching above their weight.” International Journal of Emerging Market 8(4): 304-328.
• Cuervo-Cazurra A. and 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. 2012. “Extending theory by analyzing developing country multinational companies: Solving the Goldilocks debate.” Global Strategy Journal 2: 153-147.
• Cuervo-Cazurra A. and Ramamurti, R. (eds). 2014. Understanding multinaitonals from emerging markets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
• Dunning J. H., Kim C., and Park D. 2008 , “Old wine in new bottles: a comparison of emerging-market TNCs today and developed-country TNCs thirty years ago”, in The Rise of Transnational Corporations from Emerging Markets: Threat or Opportunity?, Sauvant K. (ed), Edward Elgar: Northampton, MA.
• Gammeltoft, P., J.P. Pradhan and A. Goldstein (2010), ‘Emerging multinationals: home and host country determinants and outcomes’, International Journal of Emerging Markets, 5(3/4): 254-265.
• Gammeltoft, P., H. Barnard and A. Madhok (2010), ‘Emerging Multinationals, Emerging Theory: Macro- and Micro-Level Perspectives’, Journal of International Management, 16(2): 95-101.
• Gammeltoft, Peter, Filatotchev, Igor and Hobdari, Bersant. 2012. “Emerging Multinational Companies and Strategic Fit: A Contingency Framework and Future Research Agenda.” European Management Journal, 30(3): 175-188.
• Narula, Rajneesh, (2012). Do we need different frameworks to explain infant MNEs from developing countries? Global Strategy Journal 2(3), 188-204. 
• Ramamurti, R. 2012. “What is really different about emerging market multinationals?” Global Strategy Journal 2: 41-47.
• Ramamurti, R. 2009. “What have we learned about emerging-market MNEs?” In Emerging Multinationals in Emerging Markets, Ramamurti R, Singh JV (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.: 399–426.
• UNCTAD. 2012. World Investment Report 2012: Towards a New Generation of Investment Policies. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development; Geneva, Switzerland.
• Williamson P and Zeng M. 2009, “Chinese multinationals: emerging through new global gateways”, in Emerging Multinationals in Emerging Markets, Ramamurti R. and Singh J. (eds), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K.

Call for Papers: Annals in Social Responsibility

Annals in Social Responsibility

Co-Editors: Timothy M Devinney (Leeds) & Marc Orlitzky (South Australia)

Annals in Social Responsibility is a new journal published once annually. We are currently seeking proposals for manuscripts to be included in the second volume or to be published in subsequent editions.

Journal Description & What Do We Publish?

Annals in Social Responsibility (ASR) publishes articles covering the significant developments in the area of Social Responsibility. ASR is a multi-disciplinary journal that publishes work arising from traditions in management, operations & supply chain management, marketing, economics, accounting & finance, sociology, psychology, political science, law, philosophy and other social and physical sciences that relate to the role that individuals, groups and institutions play in understanding of responsibilities and roles in society. Topics covered in the journal include major theoretical and methodological developments as well as current research in the aforementioned disciplines. Articles typically pertain to issues of corporate social responsibility, environmental and organizational sustainability, economic, corporate, social and political development, corporate, institutional and societal governance, property rights, social institutions and NGOs, and global issues of peace, conflict and human rights. Articles published appeal to a broad intellectual audience in their respective fields.

To be accepted for publication a paper must make a significant contribution to advancing knowledge about social responsibility through new theoretical insights, managerial application, methodology/data—or some combination thereof.

ASR has a particular interest in publishing the following types of manuscripts:

• 1. Comprehensive, state-of-the-art literature reviews that integrate diverse research streams and identify promising directions for future investigations
• 2. Analytical essays that offer new conceptual models or theoretical perspectives and use these frameworks as a foundation for developing research propositions
• 3. Empirical articles that report results from exploratory or hypothesis-testing studies based on quantitative and/or qualitative methodologies
• 4. Methodological papers that refine existing methodologies or develop new ones for investigating particular issues or topics central to the fields of inquiry listed above.

ASR Editorial Review Board

Herman Aguinis (Indiana, USA) – Human Resources, Modelling
Ruth Aguilera (Illinois, USA) – Governance, Intl Business
Pat Auger (Melbourne, AUSTRALIA) – Marketing, Modelling
Pratima Bansal (Ivey-UWO, CANADA) – Management, Sustainability
Michael Barnett (Rutgers, USA) – Management, Sustainability
Russell Belk (York, CANADA) – Marketing, Consumer Behaviour
Gordon Clark (Oxford, UK) – Earth Sciences, Sustainability
Jonathan Doh (Villanova, USA) – Politics, NGOs, Intl Business
Giana Eckhardt (London, Royal Holloway, UK) – Marketing, Consumer Behaviour
Jeffrey Harrison (Richmond, USA) – Strategy, Law
Stuart Hart (Cornell, USA) – Management, Innovation
Michael Hiscox (Harvard, USA) – Politics, Intl Relations
Ans Kolk (Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS) – NGOs, Development, Intl Business
Ted London (Michigan, USA) – NGOs, Development, Intl Business
Jeffrey Malpas (Tasmania, AUSTRALIA) – Ethics, Philosophy
Anita McGahan (Toronto, CANADA) – Strategy, Management
Joachim Schwalbach (Humboldt U-Berlin, GERMANY)
Donald Siegel (SUNY Albany, USA) – Strategy, Management, Governance
N. Craig Smith (Insead, FRANCE) – Strategy, Marketing
Tom Sorrell (Warwick, UK) – Philosophy, Politics
David Vogel (Berkeley, USA) – Economics, Politics
Richard Wilk (Indiana, USA) – Culture, Anthropology
Cynthia Williams (York, CANADA) – Law, Governance
Maurizio Zollo (Bocconi, ITALY) – Strategy, Sustainability

Submission Process

ASR does not accept article submissions without the initial submission of a proposal. The objective of the proposal process is to be efficient in the processing of articles. We want to know "what" you are going to say, "to whom" you are going to say it, "why" what you are saying is important, and "how" you are going to convince your audience of the veracity of your argument. This allows the editorial team to provide author(s) with information that facilitates the review process, while allowing us to be proactive in working with authors.

Proposals should be no longer than 5 pages single-spaced with standard 1-inch margins and in a 12-point font. The proposal must include the following information with the following headings.

The idea: The specific important and innovative idea that is going to be the focus of the article. This should not be long-winded literal description but be a clear and concise statement of the big/new idea that is at the core of what you are doing.

To whom is the article speaking: While ASR is clearly speaking to other scholars interested in issues of social responsibility, it is important to frame your paper in a specific topical and disciplinary area in the first instance. Hence, you need to outline who might be the primary audience for your article. For instance, is it the legal community, anthropologists, or marketing scholars (i.e., to what extent is it disciplinary?)? Is it those interested in human rights, CSR performance, or social innovation (i.e., to what extent is it phenomenon or topic based?)?

The importance of the idea: Why is your paper important? This needs to be understood as you address how you are going to take your specific knowledge and frame it in a way that resonates with your audience. In other words, why is it important to your readership and not just to you?

How are you going to justify, defend and communicate your idea: What is the theoretical and/or empirical evidence the article will be presenting in order to convince your audience of the veracity and importance of your idea? If you have specific data sources, outline what these are. If you are building a theoretical argument, then outline how you are going to logically justify and defend that argument. If your paper is empirical, provide a brief overview of your methods (e.g., experimental design, econometric model, statistical testing, etc.).

More information is available at: http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/asr.htm and submissions are done via manuscript central.

Volume 1 of the journal can be seen here: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/toc/asr/1/1

You can read an editorial discussing the philosophy of the journal here: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/ASR-06-2015-0005

Over time we will be holding a series of workshops on topics of specific interest. We plan to hold these workshops in conjunction with conferences plus also independently.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the editors.


Timothy M. Devinney

University Leadership Chair and Professor of International Business, Pro Dean of Research & Innovation
Leeds University Business School
Maurice Keyworth Building
University of Leeds | Leeds | LS2 9JT | UK

CfP: Case Study Research in Mergers and Acquisitions

Case Study Research in Mergers and Acquisitions

Special issue call for papers from Management Research

Guest Editors

• Dr. En Xie, Associate Professor in Strategy and International Business Xi'an Jiaotong University, School of Management, Xi'an, China 
• Dr. Narendar V. Rao , Professor in Finance and Management, Northeastern Illinois University (NEIU), Chicago, USA 
• Dr. K. Srinivasa Reddy , Postdoc in International Management (Ph.D. from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee, Uttarakhand,  India). 

Backdrop of the Theme

A special issue of the Management Research Journal will focus on the most under examined temporal issue in the literature, that is, case study research in mergers and acquisitions.

The term, merger or acquisition, is defined, evaluated and used differently in different disciplines. For instance, economic researchers postulated that merger is the form of market for corporate control that arises due to economic, regulatory, or technology shocks. Likewise, finance scholars exhibited that acquisition is a choice of investment and accounting professionals described that merger is a combination or amalgamation of two or more balance sheets. While, strategy

scholars defined that merger/acquisition (M&A) is an inorganic growth and aggressive strategic alternative, which helps a business enterprise in achieving accelerated growth than that of reaching organic growth. Historically, M&A concept is originally evolved in the western part and thereafter, has gradually, engulfed rest of the world due to liberalization, economic integration and globalization. Conversely, the existing literature has been dominated by finance and accounting discipline, followed by economics, organizations and strategic management, international business, law and sociology (Haleblian et al., 2009; Piekkari et al., 2009; Bengtsson and Larsson, 2012).

By and large, M&A is an interdisciplinary stream that allows all kinds of technical and non- technical scholars to draw conclusions and explore new perspectives. Based on methodological perspective, it is found that extant findings drew largely through quantitative or empirical methods. This is due to the availability of numerical data (stock price, accounting information), access and empirical fit. At the same time, management scholars have paid less attention to qualitative research in M&A stream. While, a number of issues refer to the use of qualitative methods in business management have been discussed in the academy meetings and leading journal editorials (Birkinshaw et al., 2011). For instance, Haleblian et al. (2009) found that only three per cent of articles have used case method in M&A research out of 167 articles published during 1992-2007 period.

On the other hand, case study research is the modest qualitative method in social sciences. Thus, case studies, case surveys, analytical cases, research cases and longitudinal cases are defined as qualitative case research design, which is a powerful ideographic tool for conducting non- empirical research, yet largely under practiced in M&A stream (Bengtsson and Larsson, 2012; Reddy, 2015; Stake, 1995). 

Conceptually, case method is “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clear evident, and it relies on multiple sources of evidence” (Yin, 1994, p. 13). Similarly, Woodside (2010) defined as “an inquiry that focuses on describing, understanding, predicting, and/or controlling the individual” (i.e. process, animal, person, household, organization, group, industry, culture, or nationality). Hence, it has distinct merit to other qualitative methods. Case researchers use case method to answer “why and how” as well as to build new theory and suggest testable propositions based on in-depth case analysis that subject to single case or multiple cases (Eisenhardt, 1989; Hoon, 2013).

In the recent past, scholars have noticed that the revisiting, testing, reinforcing and building new theoretical constructs is essential (fairly lacked) in M&A stream, which could help to explore new knowledge and improve existing literature (Drauz, 2013; Geppert et al., 2013; Reddy et al., 2014). Taking things forward:

• How does a negotiation happen and complete in M&A dialogue? (Weber and Tarba, 2012) 
• How does acquirer’s prior acquisition experience influence the continuing acquisition plans? 
• What motivates business enterprises to participate in M&A deals? 
• Why does a local or international deal become delay or fail? 
• What are the deal-specific factors affecting deal completion? 
• What are the firm- and industry-specific factors motivating firms to involve in local and international deals? 
• What are the most crucial country-specific determinants influencing the cross-border deal negotiations? 
• What role does print and electronic media play in M&A dialogue? 
• What should be an ideal deal structure? 
• Do toehold, non-compete agreement, cash payment, stock payment, proxy contest, economic status of participating nations and dual listing norms influence the negotiations in local and overseas settings? 
• What role does M&A advisory firms play in local and international deals? 
• How does the acquirer plan, implement and supervise post-merger integration stage? (Dauber, 2012) 
• What are the difficulties in cross-border merger integration strategy? 
• How does the acquirer overcome cultural issues in post-merger integration stage? 
• What role does human resource play in post-merger stage?

This special edition welcomes original submissions from all management streams that should be conducting in-depth case analysis or case research, with theory testing/ development in M&A subject. Further, case researchers are suggested to pursue and present important elements in case research design include data technique, sampling cases, sampling place, sampling period, triangulation, case study protocol, and quality and rigor (Yin, 1994; Hoon, 2013; Poulis et al., 2013).

With this note, guest editors wish to invite papers, but are not restricted to the following research themes:

•  Characteristics of acquirer and target firms 
•  Motives of local vs. cross-border acquisitions in developed economies 
•  Motives of local vs. cross-border acquisitions in emerging economies 
•  Motives of emerging market firms participating in cross-border M&As 
•  M&A dialogue – initiation stage 
•  M&A dialogue – negotiation stage 
•  M&A dialogue – integration stage 
•  Deal-specific characteristics in local and international settings 
•  Delay in negotiations ... broken deal 
•  Delay in negotiations ... successful deal 
•  Successful vs. unsuccessful deals in local and overseas environment 
•  The first international acquisition experience 
•  Pior acquisition experience in deal completion 
•  Dating-before-marriage: Alliance-merger model 
•  Prior alliance/joint venture and acquisition 
•  International diversification through merger/acquisition 
•  Takeover battle – target firm, acquirer vs. proxy 
•  Takeover battle – target firm, acquirer vs. rival bidding
•  Private equity funding and successful acquisition 
•  Post-merger integration – change management 
•  Human resource role in the post-acquisition stage 
•  Marketing integration after merger/acquisition 
•  CEO reaction to complete vs. incomplete deals in local and overseas settings 
•  Diversified business groups and acquisition experience 
•  Single or Multiple case method 
•  Longitudinal case study and analysis 
•  Theory testing; and theory building research 
•  Sector/industry-specific case study and analysis 
•  Improved/extended version of teaching cases with analysis 

Submission and Publication Information

• Submission of First Draft via Online System: 20 January 2016 
• Initial decision: Within 10 days from the submission date
• First round review comments returned to authors: 10 May 2016
• Resubmission of first round selected papers: 10 July 2016
• Final decision: 20 August 2016 
• Number of papers: 4 to 6 papers
• Expected publication: Last issue of 2016/First issue of 2017 

Submission guidelines

The papers should discuss research and practical implications within the special issue theme. Indeed, we are especially looking for papers that shed light on case study settings. Prospective authors should submit their papers in a structured format that includes abstract, introduction, literature review, research design, discussions and conclusions. While, authors are suggested to present their Abstract in the Emerald style headings – Purpose, Design/Method, Findings, Research limitations, Practical implications, Originality/Value and Keywords, and Citation and References.

Please feel free to contact us for any queries relating to manuscript preparation, submission and review process.
Submit your manuscript online at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/mrjiam
Submissions Editor: Dr. K.S. Reddy (cssrinivasareddy@live.com)

References

• Bengtsson, L. and Larsson, R. (2012), “Researching mergers & acquisitions with the case study method: Idiographic understanding of longitudinal integration processes”, In: Y. Weber (eds), Handbook for Mergers and Acquisitions Research, pp. 172-202. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. 
• Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M.Y. and Tung, R.L. (2011), “From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research”, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 42 no. 5, pp. 573-81. 
• Dauber, D. (2012), “Opposing positions in M&A research: culture, integration and performance”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, vol. 19 no. 3, pp. 375-98. 
• Drauz, R. (2013), “In search of a Chinese internationalization theory: A study of 12 automobile manufacturers”, Chinese Management Studies, vol. 7 no. 2, pp. 281-309. 
• Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 14 no. 4, pp. 532-50. 
• Geppert, M., Dörrenbächer, C., Gammelgaard, J. and Taplin, I. (2013), “Managerial risk-taking in international acquisitions in the brewery industry: institutional and ownership influences compared”, British Journal of Management, vol. 24 no. 3, pp. 316-32. 
• Haleblian, J., Devers, C.E., McNamara, G., Carpenter, M.A. and Davison, R.B. (2009), “Taking stock of what we know about mergers and acquisitions: a review and research agenda”, Journal of Management, vol. 35 no. 3, pp. 469-502. 
• Hoon, C. (2013), “Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies: an approach to theory building”, Organizational Research Methods, vol. 16 no. 4, pp. 522-56. 
• Piekkari, R., Welch, C. and Paavilainen, E. (2009), “The case study as disciplinary convention: evidence from international business journals”, Organizational Research Methods, vol. 12 no. 3, pp. 567-89. 
• Poulis, K., Poulis, E. and Plakoyiannaki, E. (2013), “The role of context in case study selection: an international business perspective”, International Business Review, vol. 22 no. 1, pp. 304-14. 
• Reddy, K.S. (2015), “Beating the Odds! Build theory from emerging markets phenomenon and the emergence of case study research–A “Test-Tube” typology”, Cogent Business & Management, vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 1-25. 
• Reddy, K.S., Nangia, V.K. and Agrawal, R. (2014), “Farmers Fox theory: Does a country’s weak regulatory system benefit both the acquirer and the target firm? Evidence from Vodafone- Hutchison deal”, International Strategic Management Review, vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 56-67. 
• Stake, R.E. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, Sage, London. 
• Weber, Y. and Tarba, S.Y. (2012), “Mergers and acquisitions process: The use of corporate culture analysis”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 288- 303. 
• Woodside, A.G. (2010), Case Study Research: Theory, Methods and Practice, Emerald, Bingley, UK. 
• Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd Ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

CfP: Social and Economic Inequality: Origins, Consequences, and Implications for Business and Society

Social and Economic Inequality: Origins, Consequences, and Implications for Business and Society

Special Issue Call for Papers Journal of Management Studies

Special Issue Editors:

• Garry Bruton (Texas Christian University), 
• Roy Suddaby (University of Victoria/Newcastle University Business School), and 
• Jim Walsh (University of Michigan

Social and economic inequality is a major societal concern for those in mature and emerging economies alike. Nations across the political spectrum - from the United States, to Europe, to India, to China, to South Africa - increasingly seek to address the divide between those at the top and the bottom of their societies. The fact that the 85 richest people in the world have as many assets as the world’s poorest 3.5 billion people brings today’s social and economic divisions into stark relief. Much of this inequality is rooted in the quotidian and often invisible practices of the world’s dominant social institutions. Business is not a passive observer in this setting.

Business is a key institutional player, one that may contribute to the phenomenon and certainly one that is impacted by it. Social and economic inequality both challenges business-as-usual and offers opportunities for profit. The opportunities can be seen in the rapid growth of temporary employment agencies, in short-term lending operations that now exist around the world and broadly, in the “race to the bottom” hypothesis that catches such attention. Whether such realized opportunities are good for humanity is an open question. 

The goal of this special issue is to examine the nature of social and economic inequality, as well as its origins and consequences. To be sure, some may also offer ideas for change. We welcome considered solutions to any problems we identify. That said, we do not hold any preconceived assumptions that inequality is to be viewed negatively (or positively). Such a view would unnecessarily limit the range of issues we can examine here. We will say, however, that these issues are central to our understanding and conduct of business. Our hope is that by viewing structural inequality as part of, and not separate from, the business research agenda, our work will generate a better understanding of how these problems and opportunities affect business and society.

This special issue of the Journal of Management Studies seeks a wide range of papers that draw on diverse institutional settings, theories, and approaches to understand the different aspects of social and economic inequality. The questions asked can include - but are not limited to - the following:

• · What are the historical and institutional sources of structural inequality?
• · How do we explain the persistence of structural inequality? How is it legitimated? What forms of institutional work normalize it? How might it be changed?
• · What role (if any) does higher education play in the generation of, or accommodation to, such inequality?
• · Do the consequences of social and economic inequality differ in different institutional settings? What are the implications of these differences?
• · How do corporations respond to those possible worldwide differences in inequality? Can corporations profit from social and economic inequality? If so, how?
• · How are corporations negatively impacted by the presence of social and economic inequality?
• · At a more micro level, what is the impact of social and economic inequality on individuals, perhaps especially as they seek employment or work in a firm?
• · How might society address social and economic inequality?
• · What role will entrepreneurship play in our future?
• · What role can management research and education play in making a better world?

Again, these ideas are suggestive, not definitive. We welcome any manuscript that creatively addresses social and economic inequality. Such papers can include both theory development and empirical investigation. An empirical investigation can be either qualitative or quantitative. We encourage a rich range of submissions from authors who reside in a wide variety of nations.

The authors who receive a “revise and resubmit” editorial decision will be invited to attend a special conference in November 2016. We will gather as a group to learn from each other and to improve our work. While conference participation is not required, it is encouraged. The conference will take place at the Peter B. Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

While the JMS’s daily operations are housed in the UK, please submit your papers for this special issue to Lisa O’Brien at l.obrien@tcu.edu(between March 15 and April 15, 2016 and in accordance with JMS’ style guide). Please note in the subject line that your submission is a special issue submission. In the meanwhile, feel free to reach out to Garry Bruton (g.bruton@tcu.edu), Roy Suddaby (rsuddaby@uvic.ca) or Jim Walsh (jpwalsh@umich.edu) with any questions about the special issue. See http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-6486/homepage/ForAuthors.html for the Journal of Management Studies’ author guidelines.

CfP: The Evolution of International Business Theories

Call for Papers:

The Evolution of International Business Theories: Internalization vs. Externalization

• Deadline for Submissions: April 1, 2016
• (Submissions open: March 1, 2016)

Guest Co-editors:

Pervez N. Ghauri
Professor
Birmingham Business School
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
Email: p.ghauri@bham.ac.uk

Byung Il Park
Professor
College of Business
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
Imun-dong, Seoul, 130-791, South Korea
Email: leedspark@hufs.ac.kr

The Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences welcomes submissions to a special issue on “The Evolution of International Business Theories: Internalization vs. Externalization.

About the Topic:

International business scholars have long been raising the question of why multinational enterprises (MNEs) choose foreign direct investment (FDI) in spite of the presence of liabilities of foreignness, and these discussions, which attempt to solve this query, are still on-going. Internalization theory (e.g., Buckley & Casson, 1976; 1999; Rugman & Verbeke, 1995) argues that under imperfect business environments in intermediate product markets, firms confine transactions within corporations by shifting assets between subsidiaries across borders rather than in open markets. In addition, because knowledge has public good characteristics, internalization is required for MNEs to prevent other firms from copying proprietary knowledge and to protect knowledge reservoirs.

In contrast, John Dunning (e.g., 1993; 2000) integrates motivations pushing firms to go abroad (i.e., ownership-specific advantages) and factors pulling firms to invest (i.e., location-specific advantages) with internalization (emphasis added) to illustrate the growth of MNEs and the spread of FDI. This eclectic paradigm suggests that if firms enjoy competitive advantages by possessing strong organizational assets (e.g., trademarks, production techniques, entrepreneurial skills, and returns to scale) and discover appropriate locations to undertake value adding activities without an internalization advantage, they tend to be engaged in licensing rather than FDI. According to his explanations, sufficient conditions for FDI are met only in the case where transaction costs in the free market are higher than internal costs, thus shedding light on the importance of internalization.

However, the scholarly debates described above overlook the crucial fact that no one firm possesses enough resources and competitiveness to efficiently compete with other firms. According to the resource-dependence perspective (e.g., Pfeffer, & Salancik, 1978), firms often seek complementary resources from foreign organizations and even competitors operating in overseas markets and try to obtain strategic assets that compensate for their organizational shortcomings from external environments. In other words, firms try to offset their weaknesses through co-opetition with other firms in international joint ventures and try to remedy knowledge imbalances against other firms through international mergers and acquisitions. These dialogues clearly indicate that conventional international business theories and extant literature have focused on the internalization motivation for FDI, and thus we do not yet know enough about why some MNEs externalize their activities in foreign markets. 

A reason for the presence of the research gap is most likely because current academic experiments mainly focus on FDI from developed to developing and emerging countries, which is a fragmental area of international business territory. In this regard, we believe that this is the time to combine internalization motivation with an externalization concept in order to encompass various directions of foreign investments, redress the asymmetric stance observing the phenomenon, and extend our understanding on FDI. Thus, the aim of this special issue is to bring together theoretical and empirical advancements that contribute to the evolution of international business theories and that merge externalization ideas into the internalization perspective to present a precise overview of MNE activities. We seek both theoretical and empirical papers that may address, but are not limited to, the following list of research questions:

• Does the internalization theory fully explain the reality? Which additional ingredients may add extra value to the theory?
• How can we achieve an evolution of international business theories? Is there any possibility to develop internalization theory into IE paradigm (i.e., internalization + externalization perspectives)? 
• What are key determinants influencing MNEs’ internalization and externalization motivations, respectively?
• Do different motivations (i.e., internalization vs. externalization) influence MNEs’ behaviors and responses (e.g., subsidiary control or corporate social responsibility activities) in foreign markets?
• Why is the investment into conventionally advanced economies by emerging market MNEs becoming a new trend in the global arena? What potential theory can explain this phenomenon? 
• How can recent increases in externalization activities by MNEs be harmonized with internalization theory? 
• Why do MNEs pursue co-opetition with competitors? 
• How do subsidiaries established from developing/emerging markets MNEs in the North (i.e., developed economies) become creative miniatures and transmit own assets to parent firms in the South (i.e., developing and emerging economies)?

Journal Submission guidelines:

Consideration will be given to theoretical and empirical papers for this special issue. The format of papers should not exceed 40 pages including references, tables, and figures. All papers should conform to American Psychological Association (APA format) guidelines. Submission guidelines can be found at: http://cjas-rcsa.ca/authors/how-to-submit/

Please submit your manuscripts through the Manuscript Central online system http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjas1 and specify that your submission is for the special issue on The Evolution of International Business Theories: Internalization vs. Externalization. Please do not submit to the special issue any earlier than March 1st, 2016.

All submitted papers to CJAS will undergo a “double-blind” peer review. If a topic of an article does not fit with the special issue, the author(s) will be contacted to determine if the paper should be forwarded to the review process for a regular CJAS issue. Both French and English papers will be accepted for review.

The guest editors are seeking reviewers for this issue and are soliciting nominations and volunteers to participate as reviewers. Please contact the guest editors to volunteer or nominate a reviewer.


More Information:

To obtain additional information, please contact the guest editors:

• Pervez N. Ghauri, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom (p.ghauri@bham.ac.uk)
• Byung Il Park, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, South Korea (leedspark@hufs.ac.kr)

References

• Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. (1976). The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan
• Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. (1999). A theory of international operations. In: Buckley, P. J. and Ghauri, P. N. (eds.), The internationalization of the firm. London: International Thomson Business Press, 55-60.
• Dunning, J. H. (1993). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.
• Dunning, J. H. (2000). The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theo
• Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
• Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (1995). Transnational networks and global competition: An organizing framework. Research in Global Strategic Management, 5, 3-23.
• CJAS is an ISI-listed journal (search ISSN - 0825-0383) published by Wiley. Papers accepted for publication will be accessible electronically from the Wiley Online Library Platform, as well as appear in the print copy of the journal. For more information about CJAS, visit our website at http://www.cjas-rcsa.ca

Call for papers: Collaboration across Boundaries: New Perspectives on Global Virtual Teams

Journal of International Management

CALL FOR PAPERS

Collaboration across Boundaries: New Perspectives on Global Virtual Teams

• Submission Deadline: (March 8, 2016)
• Guest Editors: Alfredo Jimenez, Dirk Boehe, Vasyl Taras, Dan Caprar

Information and communication technologies drive globalization and have radically changed the organization of work structures within organizations. The organizations have responded by progressively shifting from traditional collocated teams to global virtual teams (GVTs) (Webster and Wong, 2008; Zakaria, 2008). The effective use of GVTs has become an indispensable prerequisite to implementing global strategies of Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) and independent firms working together in international networks (Lovelace et al., 2005). Several authors report that more than 60% of managers work regularly in virtual teams (de Lisser, 1999; Kanawattanachai and Yoo, 2002; Hertel, Geister, and Kondradt, 2005).

Global virtual teams can be defined as “temporary, culturally diverse, geographically dispersed, and electronically communicating work group[s]” (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999). GVTs are not constrained by traditional geographic and time boundaries and can offer many advantages if properly managed. As Duckworth (2008) points out, through GVTs MNEs can economize on travel, immigration, expat relocation costs and save time. GVTs help improve efficiency by seamlessly distributing workload across different time zones. Importantly, the different backgrounds, local networks and knowledge resources of locally embedded team members create new opportunities to leverage complementarities, creativity and innovation.

However, to live up to their full potential, MNEs need to address crucial challenges of GVTs, such as time-zone differences (Sutanto, Kankanhalli and Tan, 2011), work styles (Liu, Magjuka and Lee, 2008), communication via low-context and low-media-richness channels across cultures (Butler and Zander, 2008) and leadership as well as technological-related issues hindering effective communication (Flammia, Cleary and Slattery, 2010).

This new phenomenon entails several important repercussions for management theories regarding the boundaries of the firm, principal-agent relationships, organizational learning, appropriability and social networks, among others. The growing importance of GVTs is also affecting the contents of the business curriculum, as many universities and business schools are implementing activities to teach and train students how to effectively work in this type of teams and how to cope with challenges mentioned above (Taras et al. 2013). As the crucial role of GVTs is only expected to grow more in the years to come, we encourage scholars to examine GVTs from different theoretical perspectives and empirical approaches in order to achieve implications relevant both for academics and practitioners.

This Special Issue aims to attract contributions that offer a fine-grained analysis of the distinct aspects that affect the behavior and performance of GVTs. Specifically, how can MNEs benefit from the several potential advantages that a smart management of this kind of team may provide? How can MNEs avoid the common pitfalls of GVTs? We welcome theoretical, empirical, methodological and case studies submissions addressing, but not limited to, the following issues:

• Advantages and disadvantages of GVTs vis à vis traditional collocated teams. 
• Determinants and characteristics of successful GVTs. 
• Knowledge-creation, dissemination and leakages in GVTs. 
• Open collaboration and GVT-headquarters relationships. 
• The process of creation and development of GVTs over time. 
• Differences in GVTs composition and performance across industries. 
• Leadership and team-dynamics in GVTs. 
• Improving inter-personal communication, team cohesion and trust among GVT members. 
• The impact of cross-cultural differences among GVT members on the team performance. 
• Language-related issues in GVTs. 
• Information and communication technologies and GVTs. 
• The multifaceted role of distance (geographical, institutional, psychic, cultural, etc) in GVTs. 
• Training employees and students how to effectively work in a GVT. 
• The relationship between the use of GVTs and firm performance. 
• GVTs and employee satisfaction. 
• Reducing shirking and cheating in GVTs 
• Trends in the use of GVT around the world – who makes use of them, who does not, and why? 
• The role of GVTs in global business strategy. 

Submission information

The deadline for manuscript submission is March 8, 2016. Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with Journal of International Management’s Style Guide for Authors: http://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-international-management/1075-4253/guide-for-authors and submitted through the Journal’s submission website.

To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that authors select ‘SI: Global Virtual Teams’ when they reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process.

Please direct any questions regarding the Special Issue to Alfredo Jimenez (ajimenez@ubu.es), Dirk Boehe (dirk.boehe@adelaide.edu.au), Vasyl Taras (v_taras@uncg.edu), and Dan Caprar (dan.caprar@unsw.edu.au).

References

• Butler, C., Zander, L. 2008. The business of teaching and learning through multicultural teams. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 19(2), 192-218. 
• de Lisser, E. 1999. Update on Small Business: Firms with Virtual Environments Appeal to Workers. Wall Street Journal, October 5, 1999.
• Duckworth, H. 2008. How TRW automotive helps global virtual teams perform at the top of their game. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 28, 6-16.
• Flammia, M., Cleary, Y., Slattery, D. M. 2010. Leadership roles, socioemotional communication strategies, and technology use of Irish and US students in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication, 53(2), 89-101. 
• Hertel, G., S. Geister., U. Kondradt. 2005. Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 65-95.
• Jarvenpaa, S.L., Leidner, D.E. 1999 Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams, Organization Science 10, 791–815.
• Kanawattanachai, P., Yoo, Y. 2002. Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 187-213.
• Liu, X., Magjuka, R.J., Lee, s. 2008. An examination of the relationship among structure, trust, and conflict management styles in virtual teams. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 77-93.
• Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., Weingart, L. R. 2001. Maximizing cross-functional new Product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 479-493.
• Sutanto, J., Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y. 2011. Deriving IT-mediated task coordination portfolios for global virtual teams. IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication, 54(2), 133-151.
• Taras, V., Caprar, D., Rottig, D., Sarala, R., Zakaria, N., Zhao, F., Jimenez, A., Wankel, C., Lei, W.S., Minor, M., Bryła, P., Ordenana, X., Bode, A., Schuster, A., Vaiginiene, E., Froese, F., Bathula, H., Yajnik, N., Baldegger R., Huang V., 2013. A global classroom? Evaluating the effectiveness of global virtual collaboration as a teaching tool in management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(3), 414-435.
• Webster, J., Wong, W. 2008. Comparing traditional and virtual group forms: Identity, communication and trust in naturally occurring project teams. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 41-62. 
• Zakaria, N. 2008. Using computer mediated communication as a tool to facilitate intercultural collaboration of global virtual teams. In M. Pagani (ed.) Encyclopedia of Multimedia Technology and Networking, (1115-1123), 2. New York: Information Science Reference.

About the Guest Editors

Dr. Alfredo Jiménez is Assistant Professor at the University of Burgos (Spain). His research interests are focused on the process and the determinants of success in the internationalization strategy of firms including political risk, cultural and psychic distance and corruption. In addition, he is also working on a research line devoted to virtual team and multi-cultural team management and dynamics. He has previously published several papers in several international relevant journals, including Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of World Business, Management International Review International Business Review and European Journal of International Management. He has also been a visiting scholar in different institutions in Australia, Norway, Italy, Germany, Ecuador and Mexico.

Dr. Dirk Boehe is Senior Lecturer at the University of Adelaide Business School (Australia). His research interests focus on multinational corporations, corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in emerging markets. His scholarly articles have appeared in The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of International Management, Journal of Small Business Management, Management International Review, Journal of World Business, World Development, Business and Society, Studies in Higher Education, among others. Before joining the University of Adelaide, he held full-time positions at Brazilian business schools. Before joining academia, Dirk gained professional experience in related areas such as market research, foreign trade and international consulting projects in Colombia, England, Germany and Venezuela.

Dr. Vasyl Taras is Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (United States). He has published several papers on culture and global virtual teams in leading International Business and Psychology journals such as Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of World Business, Journal of International Management, Academy of Management Learning and Education, International Journal of Human Resource Management and Management International Review. He is also Associate Editor of the International Journal of Cross Cultural Management and Editorial Review Board Member of Journal of International Business, Journal of International Management and Management Research Review. He has recently co-edited a book about Experiential Learning and has plenty of experience as a business consultant.

Dr. Dan Caprar is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Management of the UNSW Australia Business School. His research, teaching, and consulting work are in the area of cross-cultural management, leadership, and self-development. Dan has published several papers on culture and global virtual teams in top journals including Journal of International Business Studies, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Journal of Business Ethics, Personnel Psychology, and the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. In addition, his work on the culture of MNC local employees, published in the Journal of International Business Studies, was the runner-up for the Academy of Management HR Division Scholarly Achievement Award in 2011. Dan is currently a member of the Editorial Board for the Journal of International Business Studies and a Regional Associate Editor for the International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management.

Call for papers. Special issue on AACSB

Organization Management Journal Special Issue

Call For Submissions

Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) Accreditation Current Issues

This special issue of OMJ will focus on current issues in Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accreditation. The AACSB Accreditation Standards challenge post-secondary educators to pursue excellence and continuous improvement throughout their business programs. AACSB Accreditation is known, worldwide, as the longest standing, most recognized form of specialized/professional accreditation an educational institution and its business programs can earn.

This special issue represents an opportunity for affirmative dialog about the role of accreditation in management education in developing a new generation of leaders capable of managing the complex challenges faced by business schools and their stakeholders in the 21st century. This focus is especially salient given the ongoing debates about the influence and relevance of business education in delivering a quality education to prepare their students for productive jobs in business. We believe it is important for faculty and administrators to (1) understand the 2013 AACSB standards, the evolution of the standards, and their relationship to quality business education programs; (2) share knowledge about their curriculum, policies, practices, and experiences implemented to acquire or maintain AACSB accreditation; and (3) critically interrogate the opportunities and challenges associated with AACSB accreditation.

Integrating AACSB into the business and management curriculum and administration requires distributing emerging knowledge and best practices which in turn can promote collective inquiry into associated philosophical, conceptual, empirical and pragmatic issues. Key topics may include but are not limited to:

• · 2013 AACSB Standards
• · Assurance of Learning (AoL)
• · Enhancing and Measuring Impact - AACSB accreditation standards
• · The Future of Accreditation and Management Education

These key issues might be addressed at the following levels of analysis:

• • Course Level. What are course designs that successfully integrate AACSB standards? Which experiential exercises promote students’ learning with respect to the AACSB standards? What professional development activities support the ability to deliver AACSB standards to students?
• • Institution Level. What curriculum configurations support AACSB standards? What political and/or intellectual challenges did individuals face in advocating for AACSB standards’ adoption at their institutions and how were these overcome? Is there a distinction among AACSB standards that can or should be taught at the undergraduate, master’s, and continuing executive education levels?
• • Discipline Level. Are there teaching and learning and assessment strategies better suited for various content areas? How does AACSB accreditation provide options to integrate intellectual content within and across disciplines? How do changes in cultural or nation state environments influence AACSB accreditation? What current educational assumptions or practices does AACSB accreditation force educators to question and challenge?

Conceptual, empirical, and practice-focused papers are welcome. Authors are encouraged to contact the guest co-editors regarding paper development sessions at various 2015 and 2016 professional conferences. Individuals knowledgeable about AACSB standards and practices are encouraged to volunteer as reviewers to the issue by contacting any of the issue co-editors below.

The deadline for submissions is March 28, 2016. Information on submissions formatting and submission can be found at the journal homepage, www.tandfonline.com/uomj. Submissions should be original, not published in any other source, and no more than 35 pages long, including references, figures, tables, appendices, etc. Submit electronic submissions, Word or RTF files only through the journal homepage link at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/omj . Under submission type, select Special Issue: AACSB. Prospective authors as well as potential reviewers are encouraged to contact one of the guest co-editors.

Kathleen J. Barnes
University of New Haven
kathleenjbarnes@gmail.com

George Smith
University of South Carolina Beaufort
geosmith3@gmail.com

Sarah Vaughan
La Rochelle Business School (Groupe Sup de Co LaRochelle)
vaughans@esc-larochelle.fr