Search results

The New Development Paradigm (NDP) integrates the theoretical and empirical views on development that have gained prominence since the mid‐1990s. In particular the multifaceted nature of development objectives‐including social and ecological development next to economic growth‐and the critical role of institutions in the development process characterize the NDP. This new perspective has important consequences for understanding the role of Multinational Enterprises in fostering development. This paper addresses these implications and delineates a research agenda that pays systematic attention to the wide variety of direct and indirect, active and passive ways in which MNEs can (and do) affect sustainable development

The domestic institutional context has emerged as a key determinant of firms' environmental disclosure, but studies have hardly addressed the extent to which exposure to foreign institutional contexts plays a role in the occurrence and contents of non‐financial disclosure, which are crucial aspects for understanding multinationals' accountability. The aim of this paper is to investigate the relationship between internationalization (both degree and spread) and environmental disclosure.

It is hypothesized that both home and host country institutional pressures affect the relationship between internationalization and environmental disclosure, and that these effects are more prominent in environmentally‐sensitive sectors. The proposed relationships are tested using data from the Fortune Global 250.

Results show a significantly negative relationship between the degree of internationalization and environmental disclosure, which is only partly mitigated by environmental governance and institutional quality in home and host countries. The relationship is only positive for firms in high‐sensitivity sectors from high‐standard countries. Findings are particularly strong for the degree of internationalization; and non‐significant for dispersion/spread.

This article moves beyond the predominant focus on country‐of‐origin effects by adding exposure to foreign institutional contexts, for which it develops a new indicator. It renews attention to non‐financial disclosure, a topic underexposed in the IB literature. Viewed from a broader IB perspective, this article provides an empirical illustration of the effect of home and host institutions on firm strategy, and of the use of different metrics to assess internationalization with divergent results for degree versus spread, as well as for sales versus assets, pointing to areas for further research.

Recent research on the internationalization–performance (IP) relationship has suggested that many of the different results can be explained by the role of moderating factors. This paper explores the hitherto underemphasized role of strategic fit between organizational structure on the one hand and industry pressures towards integration and responsiveness on the other hand. We suggest a new way of measuring organizational structure (and consequently strategic fit), based on archival data rather than questionnaires, and include these measures in our regression analysis on a sample of 332 Fortune companies.We find that strategic fit positively affects performance and moderates the shape, size and direction of the internationalization–performance relationship.

International business theory suggests that multinational enterprises (MNEs) seek to internalise resources embedded in local firms to complement their own through inter-organisational relationships, yet little is known about whether and how these business linkages differ between foreign (F)MNEs and domestic (D)MNEs. This paper aims to explore the linkage differential between DMNEs and FMNEs operating in the same single-country contexts and to examine whether foreignness, regional origin and technological capability make a difference.

This study is based on a unique firm-level data set of 292 MNEs located in five advanced, small open economies (SMOPECs). This study analyses the benefit received – in the form of technical and organisational resources and knowledge – by DMNEs and FMNEs via backward, forward and collaborative linkages with local business partners.

Our research finds FMNEs benefit less from linkages than DMNEs; and FMNEs originating from outside the region especially so. However, the results also show technological capability mitigates this difference and is thus a game changer for FMNEs from outside the region.

This paper differentiates between FMNEs and DMNEs in their propensity to benefit from resources received from different local partners and explores the influence of regional origin and technological capability. Despite the advanced and internationally oriented nature of SMOPECs, DMNEs still gain more benefit, suggesting either liabilities of foreignness and outsidership persist, or FMNEs do not desire, need or nurture local linkages.