Search results

In Paris, in 2015, 195 countries agreed to limit the emission of CO₂. The German Energiewende is an example of the types of regulatory changes that countries will need to enact to meet their Paris commitments. The Energiewende saw the German Government forcefully shift the energy base from non-renewable to renewable sources to reduce CO₂ emissions, and the effect of this was to reduce the market value of some German energy firms by as much as 70%. This paper aims to consider the strategic options available to energy incumbents facing the sort of regulatory challenges implied by the Paris agreement.

This paper is a literature review and a thought experiment, in which, 12 fields of strategy research are reviewed, and using the insights obtained from these fields, four strategic options are proposed for the energy incumbents, namely, “fight,” “flight,” “fit” and “follow.” Each strategy is introduced and evaluated, and, by looking at examples from other industries, the viability of that strategy for the energy industry is concluded.

Of the four strategies identified – that is, fight (lobbying), flight (internationalization or diversification), follow (imitation) or fit (adopt a core competencies perspective that re-imagines the firm) – it was concluded that only the last is feasible. The present review, and the application of the discussion to the energy industry, suggests that “fight” is viable only in the short term as a delaying strategy; “flight” is a value-destroying strategy, and, therefore not a real option for the energy industry; “follow” will lead the energy incumbents to lose their current positions of power; and only “fit” will allow the energy incumbents to remain viable in the long term.

All research has its limitations. The main limitation of this research is the fact that this study is a thought experiment based on a literature review. The suggested strategies are forward-looking, but are based on historical examples, and are intended to guide the energy incumbents, even when they are based on non-energy examples. The reader should view this paper in that light.

The practical implication of this research is that, of the 12 fields of strategy that it reviews, there is only one feasible strategy for the energy incumbents looking to survive the sorts of regulatory challenges implied by the Energiewende and the Paris agreement. The research suggests that many/most/all of the energy incumbents will, at first, choose a “fight” strategy, but in the long term only those that choose for a “fit” strategy will survive the sort of disruptions implied by these regulatory changes.

The social implications of this research are that many/most/all firms in the affected industry will go through a predictable process, of first resisting the change, before eventually supporting it; that “flight” is not a viable strategy; and that radical innovation rarely comes from incumbents. Policymakers should be aware of these facts when not only working with incumbents to develop the regulations necessary to meet the Paris climate commitments but also looking at the impacts of regulation and when trying to “pick winners.”

The paper reviews the existing literature, and the review is not new. The application to a specific industry and the advice gleaned from this for managers and policymakers is new and of high value.

This paper aims to study how multinational enterprises (MNEs) can best integrate legitimacy concerns into their new product-launching strategy to successfully introduce high-value hi-tech innovations in emerging countries.

Theoretical constructs on the role and process of legitimacy construction for the introduction of a new product are built upon the existing literature. Then they are validated and refined through the formulation and analysis of case studies of the launch of genetically modified cotton seeds by Monsanto in India and a HIV/AIDS drug cocktail by Merck in Brazil.

Legitimacy construction can serve MNEs to face challenges successfully while launching high-value hi-tech products in emerging countries. Challenges to MNEs are likely to be founded on a combination of four types of uncertainties: technological, commercial, organizational and societal. Expected challengers are public agencies and actors representing civil society. An MNE can prepare itself through legitimacy construction along three dimensions: redesign of technology, revision of marketing strategy and non-market investments. To implement the aforesaid, MNEs can engage in outreach in the form of strategic patience, market transaction, business collaboration, compromise and/or confrontation with diverse carefully chosen stakeholders.

The authors limited ourselves to tracing only the formal interactions of MNEs, while it is well-known that many informal and backdoor activities can also accompany their growth in emerging economies.

Legitimacy construction can help MNEs face challenges successfully while launching high-value hi-tech products in emerging countries. This calls for an evaluation of the systemic uncertainties followed by the formulation of a strategy for legitimacy construction and implementation through outreach to diverse systemic actors. Strategic patience can yield positive returns. Market transactions can serve as economic anchors. Collaboration can be pursued with parties who can share the costs of legitimization construction and/or reduce technological and marketing uncertainties. Confrontation should be the last choice. Compromise is the most probable but not the only outreach strategy possible after a confrontation.

Legitimacy implies product acceptance not only from the targeted consumer but also other societal stakeholders concerned with the safety and equity of the consumption in the emerging country, especially when regulations are not well-defined and/or implemented. The two kinds of societal stakeholders which are likely to monitor MNEs are public agencies and civil society groups. Public agencies will be concerned about the quantity, quality, technology or price of the innovation to be introduced. Civil society and NGOs may help the MNE act as citizen watchdogs for the environment and vulnerable communities.

Theoretical constructs have been developed in this paper on the sources of challenges in new product introduction, the types of challengers and the components of the firm’s legitimacy construction strategy and its implementation through an outreach strategy.

The purpose of this paper is to bridge the disciplinary divide between international finance and international business (IB) to realign academic research with business reality in which strategy and finance align to determine firms’ success or failures.

The authors discuss theoretical differences between the fields of international finance and IB strategy that caused the fields to develop in isolation with little fertilization across disciplines. The authors review scarce interdisciplinary contributions between the fields. Finally, the authors identify complementarities that suggest fruitful avenues for future research.

The authors find a persistent disconnect between finance and strategy/IB literature that can be explained by fundamentally different aims and assumptions about the markets. While finance theory seeks to explain typical effects under functioning markets, strategy and IB theories focus inherently on exceptional effects and market inefficiencies.

The fundamental theoretical differences that isolate finance and strategy/IB create avenues for interdisciplinary research that harness the complementarities of the two disciplines. These include strategic aspects of capital structure, internal capital market inefficiencies, corporate governance, capital market liability of foreignness and institutional aspects of financial management.

With this paper, the authors not only bring academic researchers in finance and strategy closer to corporate practice. The theoretical discussion also challenges the functional blind spots of practitioners and encourages more holistic decision-making.

Challenging market functioning and recognizing market inefficiencies using strategy and IB foundations connects financial economics with non-market topics such as environment, society and governance or impact investing.

The value and originality of the paper come from the qualitative, epistemological approach to study and analyse the divide between international finance and strategy/IB scholarship.

This study aims to investigate how different academic fields within and outside of international business (IB) engage with the topics of social value creation in the context of multinational enterprises (MNEs). The aim is to take stock of the main themes and offer suggestions for future research avenues.

The paper undertakes a scoping review. The authors use the Web of Science database to identify relevant articles. The database search yielded 466 articles. The NVivo software was used to code and identify key thematic areas.

The matrix analysis performed in NVivo yielded 15 main thematic areas spanning 37 research fields. However, further analysis revealed that 89 per cent of the articles originated from 13 fields. Furthermore, while IB journals represent the second-largest field home to publications related to the social value creation of MNEs, they only account for 12 per cent of the sample.

The paper responds to prior calls to reduce disciplinary silos through the performing of a thematic analysis across a multitude of research fields.