Search results

The international strategies of multinational enterprises are increasingly augmented by insights on, and approaches to, external stakeholders and nonmarket dynamics. The rise of populism and increased geopolitical uncertainty have accelerated these efforts, particularly for business leaders anticipating and engaging external agents, events, and issues that challenge the strategic objectives of their enterprises.

In this paper we explain why the increased preponderance of populism and geopolitical uncertainty are concurrently posing an existential threat to the post-Cold War global economy predicated on free trade and (relatively) open borders and, consequently, challenging the structures and strategies of international business.

We provide an overview of the four papers in our special issue and consider how each advances insights on how multinational enterprises effectively navigate the nonmarket uncertainties of the contemporary global economy. We then advance four important areas for international business research on multinational nonmarket strategies: (i) resilience and legitimacy; (ii), diversification; (iii), market and nonmarket strategy integration; and (iv), institutional arbitrage.

We anticipate that nonmarket strategy scholars can build on these themes to assess how nonmarket strategies can better enable multinational enterprises to survive and thrive in an age of heightened global risk and uncertainty.

This paper and the related special issue provides novel theoretical insights by drawing attention to the relatively under-researched realm of multinational enterprise nonmarket strategy, particularly in populist contexts and during periods of geopolitical uncertainty. Importantly, we identify four promising domains – resilience and legitimacy, diversification, the integration of market and nonmarket strategy, and institutional arbitrage – for international business scholars investigating nonmarket strategy to consider. We anticipate that our paper, as well as other papers in this special issue, contribute further momentum to this burgeoning area of research.

This paper aims to explore the ideas that social legitimacy (acceptance by the public within a country) serves as a hedge against political risk and that the perceived social value of Multinational Enterprises (MNEs’) products or services improves firms’ social legitimacy and so resilience to political shock.

Drawing from a unique data concerning global construction activity and taking advantage of the Arab Spring as an exogenous, political shock, this paper teases out the relative effects of pre-shock experience and product/service emphasis.

The authors find that construction firms that worked on a higher proportion of socially beneficial projects – such as water infrastructure, transportation and telecommunications – recovered more quickly from political shock than did those that worked on projects primarily for manufacturing interests or the oil industry. The authors also find that deep experience in a country had no bearing on a firm’s ability to recover from political shock.

The findings suggest that market behaviors that enhance social legitimacy also enhance MNEs’ ability to survive in volatile political settings. These insights add to the political risk and nonmarket strategy literatures the idea that market strategies that are attentive to nonmarket strategic goals are an important addition to the toolkit for managing political risk. More specifically, when it comes to surviving political shock, pre-shock emphasis on socially beneficial products seems to create a social legitimacy buffer that enhances resilience more than do deep country experience and associated social and political ties with the political elite.

Research on the political connections of multinational enterprises’ (MNEs’) subsidiaries in emerging host countries has been growing. The purpose of this paper is to integrate institutional and resource dependence theories to argue that MNEs-subsidiaries are likely to develop fewer formal (i.e. board-level) political connections when operating in welfare-state monarchies as compared to in host countries with developmental-state democratic systems. Furthermore, this paper argues that MNE-subsidiaries develop formal political connections to a greater extent in industries where religion influences the development of products and services considerably. Finally, the extent of developing formal political connections varies by the scale of the MNEs’ investment (or subsidiary density) in the host market.

The paper tests its hypotheses on a sample of foreign-owned subsidiaries operating in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The data was collected by combining information from Bureau Van Dijk’s Orbis database with company websites and other secondary sources. The final sample consisted of 156 observations – 70 MNEs-subsidiaries operating in Saudi Arabia, and 86 in Egypt.

The findings confirm that foreign subsidiaries are likely to develop fewer formal political connections in a welfare-state monarchy as compared to in a developmental-state democratic system. Furthermore, formal political connections are more significant in industries that are impacted by the influence of religion – such as the financial industry in Arab countries. Finally, the extent of using political connections varies by the scale of the MNEs’ investment in the host market – that is, with a greater scale of investment (or higher subsidiary density), formal political connections are greater.

The paper contributes theoretically by explaining that a combination of institutional heterogeneity and its associated resource dependence conditions between MNEs and host governments influence MNE-subsidiaries' political connections. The paper tests its hypotheses in an emerging Arab context, which is characterized by both autocratic and semi-democratic political settings, and which makes the integration of institutional and resource dependence theories useful in explaining how MNE-subsidiaries navigate local complexities in this region.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

Increase in populism is fueling anti-globalization sentiments and negatively impacting on the investment, expansion and location plans of many multinational enterprises. By focusing on social legitimacy, resilience and institutional arbitrage, such organizations can develop appropriate nonmarket strategies to help alleviate risk and better adapt to the changing business environment.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers’ hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

Scholars have underscored the importance of organizational authenticity, but it is unclear how it influences the links among market strategy, and nonmarket strategy (NMS) and firm performance. This study addresses this gap in the literature.

A survey of 294 managers in firms based in the United States investigates configurations among competitive strategy (e.g. cost leadership or differentiation), political and social nonmarket strategy (NMS), authenticity, and firm performance.

Cost leaders tend to engage in political nonmarket strategy (PNMS), but the interaction does not necessarily improve firm performance. Differentiators are more likely to pursue social nonmarket strategy (SNMS) and perform better, but neither market-nonmarket strategy configuration is inherently optimal.

The results support market-nonmarket strategy configurations but do not prescribe optimal combinations. However, the sample is cross-sector and employs self-reports for firm performance.

Political and social authenticity can enhance firm performance, but nonmarket activity can compromise a firm’s ability to be politically and socially authentic. Authenticity can drive performance, but a firm’s nonmarket activity can compromise its ability to be politically and socially authentic. Firms should view a prospective loss in authenticity as a potential cost of nonmarket activity.

This paper investigates how a firm’s emphasis on market (competitive) strategies, political and social nonmarket strategies, and political and social authenticity impact financial and non-financial performance. It also tests the veracity of two market-nonmarket configurations, cost leadership with political NMS and differentiation with social NMS.

Wars, and violent conflicts generally, can generate significant institutional dynamics and new legitimacy pressures for multinational enterprises (MNEs). The purpose of this paper is to understand the nature or source of institutional pressures facing MNEs in war and to examine how MNEs respond and navigate these institutional pressures.

This is a conceptual paper.

Through the theoretical lens of institutional theory and drawing on insights from the devastating Russian–Ukrainian war in Europe, the study provides a framework that explains the nature of institutional pressures impacting MNEs in a major war conflict and how MNEs respond to these pressures. Central to the framework is the impact of formal and informal institutions on MNEs during war. As a result of regulatory and social pressures, MNEs have to make important strategic decisions either to protect their legitimacy or to defend their economic objectives against institutional demands.

As the paper situates the pressures of war for MNEs in a formal and informal institutional context, this offers a new approach to understanding the costs and pressures of war on MNEs.

This paper aims to respond to the response pieces by Burmester (2024) and by Dindial and Voss (2024) to the original paper on “Taming wicked problems through international business policy: recommendations for addressing modern slavery”. Beyond engaging with the issues raised by Burmester (2024) and Dindial and Voss (2024), the follow-up helps further clarify the key difference between so-called “grand challenges” and “wicked problems” for both international business (IB) policymaking and multinational enterprise (MNE) research.

In response to Burmester (2024), the paper juxtaposes key literature on grand challenges and wicked problems to show the theoretical value of applying a wicked problem lens to modern slavery. In engaging with some of the issues raised by Dindial and Voss (2024), this paper further builds on the most current review papers on navigating control and coordination issues within MNEs and the literature on global value chains (GVCs).

The paper operationalises the field of IB policy of relevance to modern slavery research and proposes an augmented conceptual model of MNEs’ control and coordination mechanisms to address modern slavery under conditions of distributed responsibility in their GVCs.

This paper problematizes the grand challenges’ label imposed on modern slavery and leverages a wicked problem theoretical toolkit that can help better guide modern slavery’s global and multi-level governance nexus. The proposed augmented conceptual model also provides a significant attempt to address some of the key theoretical gaps in GVC and MNE control−coordination literature.

This study, a perspective piece, aims to argue that one particular slice of political institutional operations – the conduct of international relations – offers a clue to the possible risks that businesses face from geopolitics.

The authors examine the various facets of international relations and diplomacy, including the processes and arenas, to show the relevance of statecraft for firms looking to minimize political risk.

By understanding the role of diplomacy and statecraft as a process, firms can better prepare themselves for events that have far-reaching ramifications. This is very different than minimizing risk from inherent geopolitical tensions and allows for a more flexible approach to understanding risk levels in the global arena.

International business scholarship has focused on institutions and their effects on firms and has recently begun to re-examine the role of geopolitics and political risk on firm performance and decisions. However, the current literature continues to have a superficial understanding of institutional processes and their impact on business, especially when it comes to the daily workings of political institutions.

While the liberalization of economies within the transition paradigm is viewed to take place primarily on a macroeconomic (primary) level, this paper switches emphasis to the secondary and tertiary level of post-transition. While macroeconomic reforms may provide the playing field, secondary reforms level the playing field and tertiary reforms develop the capabilities necessary for firms and individuals within firms to compete in the landscape of liberalized economies. It is necessary to examine the transformations on three levels. First, the development of public policy and institutions aimed at regulating certain industries or firms. Second, the explicit market strategies of firms operating in the industries that shape market structure and inform public policy. Third, the nonmarket strategies of firms aimed at influencing the form and substance of public policy. Drawing on research in three related areas: institutional voids (IVs), the role of market and nonmarket strategies of firms, respectively, this paper examines the current state of transition in CEE/FSU countries. The main conclusions of the paper are first, transition and post-transition has been and continues to be profoundly impacted by the liberalizing influences of multinational firms. Second, this causation from the strategies and tactics of multinational firms to the extent of transition also helps to explain the degree of modernization of economies in a given transition economy. Third, it is important to distinguish between local and foreign firms on the transition process. Foreign firms are more likely to pursue liberalization agendas when it strengthens their competitive advantage over local firms. Conversely, local firms – especially those who rely on the capacity to navigate institutional voids – may be opposed to liberalization, as liberalization would threaten their sources of competitive advantage.

Prior studies of competitive dynamics in emerging economies restricted their attention to how the multinational enterprise (MNE) initiates actions against the domestic firm in the market environment with no regard for the home-host relations. By contrast, this study aims to investigate how the domestic firm challenges the MNE in the non-market environment when there is home–host political hostility.

The authors conducted a case study of non-market rivalry between an MNE from the Taiwan region and a domestic firm on the Chinese mainland in the period 2004–2008.

Riding the home–host political hostility, the domestic firm mounted political tactics against the MNE on two fronts. It lobbied the government for identity-targeted policy changes, which demanded state-funded clients buy only from domestic suppliers. It also unethically spread identity-targeted political rumors to vilify the MNE in the local society. The MNE defended itself against the unfavorable policy by engaging in identity work of restructuring its distribution channels to conceal its “foreign” (non-domestic) identity. To fight off the rumors, it built a corporate citizen identity by identity work of aligning corporate social responsibility and research and development with local policy priorities.

The authors broaden the concept of competitive aggressiveness to include non-market actions, particularly unethical ones targeting a rival’s identity. The authors contribute to identity work scholarship by pinpointing an unrecognized phenomenon – high-effort identity work, used by the MNE as a defensive response. The emergent findings develop a moral perspective on non-market rivalry.