Search results

Introduction: This chapter examines the impact of Financial Technology (Fintech) on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) goals to promote a sustainable financial system. Digital payment platforms, blockchain applications, and AI-powered analytics have revolutionised the financial landscape in recent years. These advancements have made integrating ESG principles into investment decisions and business practices easier.

Purpose: The main aim of this chapter is to analyse the connections and possibilities that Fintech offers to achieve ESG goals. Understanding how Fintech can facilitate sustainable finance practices is crucial for promoting investment in Fintech.

Methodology: A series of indexes have been examined, including the Global FinTech Index (GFI) in Global and Regional Rank, the Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index, and performing the Green Growth Index, the Green Economic Opportunity Index, the Global Green Finance Index (GGFI), and the Financial Inclusion Index.

Findings: Through comparative analysis, it can be concluded that the countries with the highest rankings are Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, and Germany. Sweden ranks highly in the GFI. These results show that these countries rank highly in achieving ESG objectives. Balkan countries, specifically Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro, have the weakest results compared to other countries. Policymakers can benefit from the study’s findings to design better regulations and frameworks that promote responsible fintech practices and foster sustainable finance.

Practical Implications: Regulators and agencies responsible for measuring fintech and ESG should strive to align the indexes associated with these two domains as closely as possible. In addition, businesses can utilise the findings of this study to increase awareness about the diverse solutions that fintech offers to achieve the objectives of ESG.

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic is the most severe threat we have faced since World War II. So far, there have been about 5 million recorded cases, with over 300,000 fatalities globally. The epidemic is also wreaking havoc on the corporate world. People are losing their jobs and money, and no one knows when normalcy will return. So, addressing the VUCA Leadership Strategies Model is important to get more insight into this topic.

Need for the Study: According to the International Labor Organization, the pandemic might cost 195 million jobs. Even when the immediate impacts wear off, the long-term economic impact will reverberate for years. All four volatile, unpredictable, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) characteristics apply to the issues we confront due to the coronavirus.

Methodology: Changes caused by COVID-19 occur daily, and are unpredictable, dramatic, and quick. No one can predict precisely when the epidemic will end or when a treatment or immunisation will be available. The pandemic impacts many parts of society, including health care, business, the economy, and social life. There is no ‘best practice’ that enterprises may utilise to tackle the pandemic’s issues. The VUCA leadership strategy models will be discussed and compared in this research study.

Findings: In this moment of transition, leaders must adhere to their fundamental values, core purpose, and ambition for big, hairy, and audacious goals.

Practical Implications: In this chapter, VUCA leadership strategy models will be discussed in detail for pre- and post-pandemic scenarios and their impact on different sectors, which will be very important for researchers in the same field.

“First principles” of international business (IB) thinking should be applied systematically when assessing the functioning of internationally operating firms. The most important first principle is that entrepreneurially oriented firms seek to create, deliver and capture economic value through cross-border linkages. Such linkages invariably require complementary resources from a variety of parties with idiosyncratic vulnerabilities to be meshed. Starting from first principles allows bringing to light evidence-based insight. For instance, most companies are not global and even the world’s largest firms rarely change the location of key strategic functions. International new ventures (INVs), emerging economy multinational enterprises (MNEs) and family firms face unique vulnerabilities but also command resources that can be used to create value across borders. The quest for “optimal” international diversification appears to be a futile academic exercise, and in emerging economies with institutional voids, relational networks – and more broadly, informal institutions – are unlikely to function as scalable substitutes for formal institutions. In global value chains (GVCs), many lead firms and their partners have been able to craft governance mechanisms that reduce bounded rationality and bounded reliability challenges, and it is also critical for them to use governance as a tool to create entrepreneurial space. Finally, many of the world’s largest companies have been on successful trajectories toward reducing their climate change footprint for a few decades. But these firm-specific trajectories are fraught with challenges and cannot just be imposed via unilateral, macro-level targets decided upon by individuals and institutions lacking a clear understanding of innovation and capital expenditure processes in business.

This chapter analyzes the efficiency levels of a circular economy (CE) with an emphasis on transaction costs. It examines the governance aspect of CE activities in comparison to the predominant linear value creation. Extant CE research in business studies tends to be descriptive and lacks a theoretical foundation, particularly in understanding CE management. Transaction cost theory explains efficiency in economic organizing, lending itself to the study of arrangements that maximize resource efficiency at continued economic virtue. The conceptualization proposes that CE transaction costs are greater than those within the linear economy (LE), primarily due to the uncertainties about reciprocal dependencies, looping material complexities, exchanging novel information, and increased contracting efforts. Geographically bounded and institutionally homogeneous CE initiatives may curb these rising costs. By bringing efficiency concerns into CE analysis, the chapter demonstrates the applicability of transaction cost theory and highlights CE relevance to international business by pointing out spatial choice implications.