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

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) 

NOTE: At the EIBA 2015 conference in Rio de Janeiro (www.eiba2015.org), a special session around the prospective teaching cases on BRIC multinationals will be organized.

Deadlines:

·      April 30^th 2015: First submission of papers (to the EIBA 2015 Rio conference, www.eiba2015.org)

·      December 2015: Pre-selection of papers/chapters

·      March 15^th 2016: Second submission of improved papers

·      May 15^th 2016: Final submission of papers

·      November 2016: Publication of the book

Submit your contribution via the link: http://eiba2015.iag.puc-rio.br/?page_id=446

Teaching cases shall be submitted as competitive papers (as per the guidelines above) to Track 14 of the EIBA 2015 conference and 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.

ATTENTION – Special Issue of ARLA: While PIBR Volume #11 is interested in cases about BRIC multinationals, Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Adminsitración (ARLA) (http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=arla) will be publishing a special issue composed of the best teaching cases (submitted to the EIBA 2015 conference) that address internationalization challenges of Latin American firms (excluding Brazilian firms, which are within the scope of PIBR Volume #11).

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 conference Papers. AIB 2014

Academy of International Business

AIB 2014 Annual Meeting
Vancouver, Canada
June 23-26, 2014

For the full version of the Call for Papers, please visit http://aib.msu.edu/events/2014/CallforPapers.asp }
Call for Papers

Theme: Local Contexts in Global Business

Submission Deadline: Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Program Chair: Klaus Meyer, China Europe International Business School ( AIB2014@ceibs.edu )

Globalization is increasing opportunities for business to create value by bridging across different local contexts. At the same time, these local contexts retain their distinct characteristics in terms of, for example, culture, regulations, resources and human capital. Increasing interactions across nations, however, does not necessarily lead to convergence: Local communities retain their distinctiveness. In fact, for many, local identity may even become more important in response to the anonymous forces of globalization. On the other hand, some communities, such as our host city Vancouver, thrive on the interaction of people from a diversity of backgrounds, and become hubs of global business. Communities also build on local values, which can themselves become global. Vancouver, the home of Greenpeace, aspires to be the world's greenest city and the home to companies producing green technologies.

The tension between the globalizing and localizing forces in our societies create major challenges for businesses. For example, how do firms and individuals engage with the dual demands of acting both local and global? How do companies exploit the diversity of the world economy to gain competitive advantage in a variety of local markets? How do global (or regional) MNEs manage to deliver locally relevant products and services? How do MNE operations in multiple localities shape global innovation processes? How do local concerns about social or environmental issues in communities of place and indigenous societies get heard in a world of global business? How are global concerns, such as global warming, violent conflicts, and financial crises, reflected in local decisions by businesses?

This tension also creates profound challenges for how we do research in the field of international business. For example, how do we incorporate aspects of local context in our theorizing? How can we make highly abstract theories relevant for different local contexts? How can we derive relevant theoretical insights from single context studies? How can we ensure our measurements of abstract constructs are valid in different cultural contexts?
Paper and Panel Submissions

Paper and panel submissions for AIB 2014 need to be categorized into one of thirteen topical and two special tracks. Each paper or panel proposal must be submitted to only one track. Please select the track closest to your proposal from the list below. All single country studies must focus on IB-relevant topics such as MNCs, international institutions, trade, global value chains, etc.

1. People and Careers in Cross-Cultural Business
Track chair: Davina Vora, State University of New York at New Paltz, USA ( 2014track1@aib.msu.edu )

2. Entrepreneurship, SMEs, and Born Globals
Track chair: Shameen Prashantham, Nottingham University Business School China ( 2014track2@aib.msu.edu )

3. Organization, Management and Human Resources of the MNE
Track chair: Dana Minbaeva, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark ( 2014track3@aib.msu.edu )

4. Marketing and Consumers in IB
Track chair: Janet Y. Murray, University of Missouri-St. Louis, USA ( 2014track4@aib.msu.edu )

5. Global Value Chains and the Geography of IB
Track chair: Vikas Kumar, University of Sydney, Australia ( 2014track5@aib.msu.edu )

6. Innovation and Knowledge Management
Track chair: Felipe Monteiro, INSEAD, France ( 2014track6@aib.msu.edu )

7. Competition and Collaboration in IB
Track chair: Aya Chacar, Florida International University, USA ( 2014track7@aib.msu.edu )

8. Global Strategy, M&As and Competitiveness
Track chair: Jordan Siegel, Harvard Business School, USA ( 2014track8@aib.msu.edu )

9. Home Economies and the MNE
Track chair: Pavida Pananond, Thammasat University, Thailand ( 2014track9@aib.msu.edu )

10. Theories of the MNE and of FDI
Track chair: Gabriel Benito, BI Norwegian Business School, Norway ( 2014track10@aib.msu.edu )

11. Stakeholders, Responsible Leadership and Governance
Track chair: Sheila Puffer, Northeastern University, USA ( 2014track11@aib.msu.edu )

12. The Institutional and Political Environment of IB
Track chair: Pei Sun, Fudan University, China ( 2014track12@aib.msu.edu )

13. International Finance and Economics
Track chair: Lars Oxelheim, Lund University, Sweden ( 2014track13@aib.msu.edu )

14. Research Methodology in IB (Special Track)
Track chair: Timothy Devinney, University of Leeds, UK ( 2014track14@aib.msu.edu )

15. Teaching IB (Special Track)
Track chair: Andreas Schotter, Ivey Business School, Canada ( 2014track15@aib.msu.edu )


We will be accepting two types of submissions - papers and panels. Paper and panel submissions need to be categorized into one of the thirteen topical tracks or into one of the two special tracks described above. Each paper or panel proposal must be submitted to only one track. For the special tracks on teaching and research methods, please contact the track chairs to discuss the preferred format of the sessions.

All submissions will be handled through the AIB online submission system. All manuscripts and proposals must be submitted by January 15, 2014. Please refer to the detailed submission instructions page for additional information on how to prepare and submit your submission. For up-to-date information about the conference and related events, please check the conference website at http://aib.msu.edu/events/2014/. Any questions regarding this call for papers should be addressed to the track chairs or the Program Chair, Klaus Meyer.

Klaus Meyer
Program Chair, AIB 2014 Annual Meeting
China Europe International Business School, Shanghai
AIB2014@ceibs.edu