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.

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: 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: International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation (IJEI)

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation (IJEI) and Industry and Higher Education

Call for papers:

The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ISSN 1465-7503) is a refereed journal and is published in February, May, August and November. Online access to the electronic edition is provided as a free supplement to subscribers to the printed journal.

Key topics

• Strategic dimensions of growth
• The entrepreneur as manager of a growing company
• Financing company growth
• Internationalization and growth
• The acquisitions process of a growing company
• Teaching entrepreneurship
• Strategic alliances
• New forms of organization
• Women and entrepreneurship
• Entrepreneurial behaviour in large organizations
• Entrepreneurship in developing countries
• Making allies in business
• Ethics, the entrepreneur and the company 

Contents

Each issue of IJEI includes four to six double-blind peer-reviewed papers. Contents and abstracts of the latest issue are available on this Website.

In addition to the selected papers, regular features are:

A case study of around 2,000-3,000 words. Designed for use in the 'classroom', case studies will be supported by questions, provided either by the author or the editor. The case studies will be diverse in coverage and approach. They may, for example: (1) describe a process whereby an entrepreneurial activity has succeeded or failed; (2) outline the stages involved in establishing a new enterprise: innovation, start-up, maturation, growth and decline; or (3) analyse a particular facet of a new enterprise (eg a human resource issue or the financing of the enterprise).
The Internet Review. This section identifies and reviews Websites of interest for those interested in research on entrepreneurship, small firms and innovation in an international context.

Further information: http://www.ippublishing.com/ijei.htm

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 papers: Special Issue on: Internationalisation of Family Business Groups

Call for papers: Special Issue on: "Internationalisation of Family Business Groups"

European Journal of International Management

European J. of International Management

Guest Editors: 

Frank Hoy, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA fhoy@wpi.edu
Jacobo Ramirez and Michael Wendelboe Hansen, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
jra.ikl@cbs.dk
mwh.ikl@cbs.dk
Paloma Miravitlles, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain paloma.miravitlles@ub.edu

Important Dates

• Submission of manuscripts: 11 May, 2015
• Notification to authors: 22 June, 2015
• Final versions due: 16 November, 2015

Special Issue on: "Internationalisation of Family Business Groups"

Internationalisation strategies of family business groups vary across developed and emerging free-market economies (e.g. Etemad 2013; Astrachan 2010). While a growing literature addresses issues related to the internationalisation of family business groups (e.g. Zahra, 2003; Donckels & Fröhlich 1991), there has been less of a research focus on (1) how institutional pressures moderate their internationalisation process, (2) the motivations behind their internationalisation (e.g. Ward 1997), and (3) the specific internationalisation strategies adopted. This special issue is open to theoretical and empirical papers that analyse the link between family business groups and their internationalisation processes.
Different institutional contexts might dictate family business groups’ responses to institutional pressures. Formal (official regulations and laws) and informal (traditions and customs) institutions might challenge the internationalisation of family business groups (e.g. Dickson et al. 2006). It might be argued that in turbulent institutional settings, both challenges and opportunities encourage the internationalisation of family business groups. External challenges may be in developing alliances with partners with local knowledge (e.g. Lu & Beamish, 2001). However, family business groups could also face internal challenges, as their members could have different global visions, mindsets and entrepreneurial personalities (e.g. Hutchinson et al. 2007).

Subject Coverage

Suitable topics include, but are not limited to, the following:

• · Responses by family business groups to political and societal institutional arrangements to gain access to international developed and emerging markets
• · Effects of family management on the intention for internationalisation
• · Effects of family culture and ethnicity on internationalisation
• · Intentional vs. opportunistic impacts on family business practices in international expansion
• · Extension of family network relations into international operations
• · Where and how family groups internationalise
• · Types of strategic alliances that family groups use in their internationalisation strategies
• · Family firm life cycles and internationalisation
• · Sources of financing for implementing family business group internationalisation strategies
• · Roles of governments in family business internationalisation
• · Human resource issues for family businesses in international commerce
• · Supply chain issues faced by family firms in internationalisation
• · Perceptions that international business partners hold of family ownership

Notes for Prospective Authors

Submitted papers should not have been previously published nor be currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. (N.B. Conference papers may only be submitted if the paper has been completely re-written and if appropriate written permissions have been obtained from any copyright holders of the original paper).


All papers are refereed through a peer review process.

All papers must be submitted online before 11 May 2015. To submit a paper, please read our Submitting articles page or at http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/cfp.php?id=2878