Ahoy There! Toward Greater Congruence and
Synergy Between International Business and
Business Ethics Theory and Research
Jonathan Doh, Bryan W. Husted,
Dirk Matten, and Michael Santoro
ABSTRACT: The literatures of business ethics and international business have generally
had httle influence on each other. Nevertheless, the decline in the power of nation states, the
emergence of non-governmental organizations, the proliferation of self-regulatory bodies,
and the changing responsibilities, roles, and structure of multinational corporations make
constructive engagement between these two disciplines imperative. This changing institutional landscape creates many areas of common concern. In this article, we describe the
changing institutional context of global business and suggest ways in which both business
ethics and international business may inform each other more fruitfully.
Ships that pass in the night, and speak each other in passing;
Only a signal shown and a distant voice in the darkness;
So on the ocean of life we pass and speak one another.
Only a look and a voice; then darkness again and a silence.
—Henry Wads worth Longfellow, Tales of a Wayside Inn
INTRODUCTION
A LTHOUGH A GREAT MANY BUSINESS ETHICS ISSUES deal with interzxnational business and multinational enterprises, surprisingly the two disciplines
of business ethics (BE) and international business or international management (IB)
rarely speak to each other. When they do, they speak in different languages. In a
review of the international management literature (which overlaps substantially with
the IB field), Egri and Ralston (2008) found that fewer than seven percent of the
articles published between 1998 and 2007 addressed questions of ethics, social and
environmental responsibility, and corporate govemance. Only 2.6% of the articles
published dealt directly with ethics, an overwhelming proportion of which focused
on corruption. Although it is difficult to determine the extent to which IB informs
BE research, an analysis of the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) found that in
2008, Business Ethics Quarterly (BEQ) cited only two articles from the Journal of
International Business Studies (JIBS), the leading IB journal, and no articles from
the Journal of World Business (JWB) or International Business Review (IBR), two
other prominent IB journals listed with SSCI. The Journal of Business Ethics (JBE)
©2010 Business Ethics Quarterly 20:3 (July 2010); ISSN I052-150X
pp. 481-502
482
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
cited 94 articles from JIBS, 19 from JWB, and five articles from the IBR for the
same year; however it should be kept in mind that JBE publishes over ten times as
many issues and pages as BEQ.'
This lack of communication among the disciplines creates a number of problems
and missed opportunities. First, there is a significant misalignment between the
subject matter of ethics scholarship and IB scholarship. While BE scholars write
about child and "sweatshop" labor in Pakistan and the role of business in promoting
peace in the war-torn countries of Africa, intemational business researchers focus
on multinational entry mode, intemational joint ventures, and knowledge transfer,
although there is increasing attention in some IB outlets to ethical and social issues.
Second, even when the same subjects are being addressed, there is a lack of congruence and compatibility in theoretical approaches. IB scholars frame their work
in perspectives such as the "knowledge-based view of the firm" and the "eclectic
paradigm," while BE researchers use a variety of philosophical and social-scientific
approaches which usually are founded on wholly different theoretical premises, such
as Kantian ethics or micro-organizational behavior. In short, it seems as though these
disciplines are akin to Longfellow's ships passing in the night: "Only a look and a
voice; then darkness again and a silence."
Despite the lack of integration to date, there are reasons to hope for greater collaboration in future research. To begin with, IB and BE face common challenges
within business studies. Both are broad and inclusive fields that are diffuse and
lack central organizing principles, other than "Intemational" in the case of IB and
"Ethical" in the case of BE (see, as an overview, Rugman & Brewer, 2001; Brenkert & Beauchamp, 2009). Both until recently have struggled for legitimacy within
the larger field of business scholarship. In the past some have questioned whether
IB constituted a separate field of study because nearly all business issues have an
intemational dimension anyway; hence, IB is ubiquitous (Janavaras, 1975). The
philosophical basis of much BEQ research sometimes leads to its being dismissed
by more empirically oriented researchers in business studies. For example, in
Hambrick and Chen's (2008) analysis of the emergence of the business policy and
strategy (BPS) division of the Academy of Management and strategy as a field, they
observe that neither the intemational management nor social issues in management
(the two divisions of the Academy most closely analogous to the IB and BE fields)
have risen to first-tier status in the management discipline. Both BE and IB borrow heavily from and draw extensively on core philosophical and social science
fields—economics, sociology and political science in the case of IB, and political
philosophy philosophical ethics, and social psychology in the case of BE, although
BE scholars have certainly incorporated social science approaches and topics in
their research with increasing frequency. This tendency to "borrow and integrate"
from foundational disciplines is a common feature—and a potential source of opportunity for exploring closer connections and potential integration of topics and
themes across these two vital areas of business research.
In this article, we describe how these literatures may constmctively engage
each other. We begin by reviewing the changing institutional context of global
business, including a discussion of the phenomenon of globalization itself and its
TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY
483
many implications. We identify several broad trends that mark this institutional
transformation—the decline in power of nation states, the emergence of non-governmental organizations, the proliferation of self-regulatory bodies, and the changing
responsibilities, roles, and structure of MNCs — all within a broader discussion
of globalization and its efficacy. We then identify areas of common concem for
BE and IB raised by this changing institutional landscape, and we suggest ways in
which IB research might help to inform how BE scholars approach these issues.
Although our primary objective is to identify areas where IB and its disciplinary
antecedents may usefully inform BE research, we also explore how BE scholars
can contribute to IB research.
THE CHANGING INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF GLOBAL BUSINESS
Globalization has changed the very nature of business in the twenty-first century.
Driven by advances in information technology and communication, growth in
cross-border trade and investment, global capital flows, immigration and emigration
and many other forces, globalization has profoundly affected—and been affected
by—business conduct. These forces have transformed the way we thitik about the
nation state, global govemance, and cultural differences among and within groups
and societies. Recognizing that there are myriad antecedents to and consequences
of globalization, here we identify several specific institutional trends important to
business operating globally. These examples are not exhaustive; rather they are
identified as archetypes of the kinds of institutional changes that affect business
and are important to both IB and BE scholars.
Perhaps the most far reaching institutional change in recent decades has been
the steady decline in the political power of the nation state that has accompanied
globalization (Beck, 2000). In particular, nation states are increasingly powerless
to control the activities of MNCs (Chandler & Mazlish, 2005). The free flow of
capital, services, and goods that characterizes the economic aspects of globalization has enabled MNCs to nimbly structure their intemationai operations to take
advantage of the weak, uncoordinated regulatory powers of declining nation-states
(Dunning, 2003).
A related institutional trend is changes in the nature of citizenship, identity, and
cultural affiliation that have caused individuals and populations to affiliate less with
the nation state where they happen to reside, and more with their class, tribe, or other
personal or professional classification. Increases in mobility across countries—for
example as a result of the deeper integration of the European Union—has direct
implications for individuals and their attachments- or lack therefore—to a particular
culture or community.
An additional broad institutional trend has been the transformation of the responsibilities, roles, and structure of MNCs themselves. Operating in a "regulatory gap"
where states can no longer effectively control them, it has been argued that MNCs
have become political actors in the sense that they inevitably become involved, for
better or worse, in the making of public policy (Ruggie, 2004; Scherer, Palazzo &
Matten, 2009). MNCs even have assumed many of the same public functions and
484
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
responsibilities—e.g., public health, labor rights, and security—that once were
solely the province of nation states In late 2009, for example, there were more U.S.
citizens in Iraq working for private security companies and related services than were
serving in the armed services (Elms & Phillips, 2009). Pharmaceutical companies
are not only providing HIV/AIDS drugs in sub-Saharan Africa, they are in many
instances constructing the distribution systems and taking charge of administering
the drugs (Doh, 2009). Chinese multinationals are providing basic infrastructure
and services in many African countries (Michel & Beuret, 2009).
The emergence of new actors on the international stage—especially the rise of
the non-governmental organization (NGO)—constitutes another important institutional trend in global business. Sometimes called pressure groups (to the political
scientists), social movement organizations (in sociology) or nonprofits (in public
administration), these organizations have emerged as partners in multi-stakeholder
organizations such as the Fair Labor Association, as gadflies such as Greenpeace,
or as consultancies providing compliance and monitoring services such as Accountability, the NGO has emerged as an important element of the international business
environment (Yaziji & Doh, 2009).
A fourth broad—and related—institutional development has been the proliferation of self-regulatory organizations. The Marine Stewardship Council and the
Forest Stewardship Council are but two examples of a wide array of independent,
non-governmental certification systems intended to promote ethically responsible
business practices (See Doh & Guay, 2004). In the labor rights area, multi-stakeholder
organizations such the Ethical Trading Initiative, the Fair Labor Association and
Social Accountability 8000 have similarly attempted to fill the regulatory void by
creating a private system of self-regulation. From diamonds to oil and coffee to rugs,
there is hardly an industry that doesn't have some form of private self-regulatory
certification of responsible business practices. This flurry of self-regulatory instruments and regimes shows no sign of diminishing, with the U.N. Global Compact—to
date signed by over 5,000 businesses—as just one prominent example (Rasche &
Kell, 2010). Waddock (2008) reviews the emerging institutional infrastructure of
global CSR, documenting and classifying the myriad codes and standards which
have arisen over the past decade.
More broadly, the overall impact of globalization, and the specific institutional
changes outlined here, have created cleavages among countries and societies and
resulted in sharply different perspectives about the efficacy and benefits of globalization itself. Indeed, a vast popular and academic literature has emerged about
globalization, and these discussions and debates have informed—and been informed
by—scholarly analysis, including that of BE and IB researchers (Barber & Schulz,
1996; Friedman, 1999; Graham, 2000; Soros, 2002; Stiglitz, 2002). In particular.
Singer's (2002) succinct analysis of several specific critiques of globalization using a practical consequentiahst perspective offers a useful primer for some of these
debates and how they might be addressed through ethical reasoning.
In the following section we outline areas currently of common concern for business ethicists and IB researchers raised by the changing institutional structure of
global business. We will also suggest ways that IB research can help to inform how
TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY
485
BE scholars approach these issues and also highlight in some cases how BE scholars
can make contributions to the IB field.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE CHANGING INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT EOR
GLOBAL BUSINESS ON BUSINESS ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS SCHOLARSHIP
IB and BE scholars are engaged in active research investigations that leverage the
institutional phenomenon described above, within the context of their respective
conceptual and theoretical traditions. Here we outline those areas and propose how
questions raised by these phenomenon can be addressed through expanding the scope
of established traditions and integrating insights from one tradition to the other.
MNC Legitimacy and Accountability in a Globalized World
Both BE and IB scholars have had longstanding concerns about the responsibilities
of MNCs operating within developing countries where relatively low standards in
areas such as the environment and human rights persist. From Coca Cola in South
Africa, to Shell Oil in Nigeria, to Google in China, this has been a subject of significant scrutiny and scholarship in the BE and IB disciplines (Donaldson, 1996;
Vemon, 1971). However, in recent decades, these kinds of concerns have reached
greater urgency and frequency because nation states are increasingly powerless to
control the activities of MNCs. The case of China has been somewhat anomalous in
that serious and pervasive human rights issues for MNCs have presented themselves
not only from weak governmental enforcement systems as in the case of labor rights,
but also from all too effective and vigorous state interventions such as in the case of
internet censorship (Santoro, 2010). The system of MNC accountability and regulation resulting from these broad trends in institutional transformation—consisting
as it does of voluntary, weakly enforced, non-hierarchical mechanisms among
various non-state actors, including the self-regulatory efforts of MNCs themselves
as well as non-govemmental organizations—presents problems of both legitimacy
and accountability that are of concem to both IB scholars and business ethicists
(Bemstein & Cashore, 2007). The China example is broadly illustrative of the kinds
of questions that are of mutual concem to both BE and IB scholars. How credible
and effective are voluntary and multi-stakeholder efforts such as the Fair Labor
Association and the Ethical Trading Initiative in protecting labor rights? How and
by what ethical standards can Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft be held accountable
for their complicity in intemet censorship (Santoro 2010)?
In thinking about how to bring greater accountability and legitimacy to MNCs
in a globalized world, BE scholars can look to several research streams that IB researchers have been mining for some time. Institutional theory has provided a broad
and rich conceptual backdrop for exploration of how management and organizations adjust and adapt to the broad social and political environment in which they
operate. There are at least two relevant variants of this research: the institutional
(sometimes called "neo-institutional") theory perspective derived from work by
North American sociologists (e.g., DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Oliver, 1991 ; Tolbert
486
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
& Zucker, 1983) and the national business systems approach (e.g., Whitley, 1999)
or varieties of capitalism approach (e.g.. Hall & Soskice, 2001), often dubbed "European institutionalism."
In the IB literature, these two perspectives have gained considerable traction,
especially the former, with a number of special issues in the leading IB journals
devoted to this topic over the past decade (see Henisz & Swaminathan, 2008, for an
overview and introduction to a JIBS special issue on the topic). The latter perspective
has been less present in the IB literature, with some notable exceptions (Jackson
& Deeg, 2008; Redding, 2005). Each of these two related streams could enrich
the exploration of ethics and corporate responsibility in the international context.
American institutionalism elucidates how companies increasingly face a similar set
of ethical expectations as the result of pressures from the (globalized) organizational
field of businesses, such as consumers, NGOs and global civil society. European
institutionalism highlights the relevance of national institutions in shaping different ethical expectations and different ethical dilemmas for international business
operating in different countries globally (Matten & Moon, 2008)
A related research stream has developed around questions of global govemance
and the emergence of non-state market-driven (NSMD) regulations (Cashore, 2002).
The proliferation of transnational social and environmental standards developed by
non-state govemance systems potentially poses a challenge to established national
govemmental and global inter-govemmental institutions (Bemstein & Cashore,
2007). Most of this research has emanated from political science and intemational
relations; IB scholars have been somewhat slow to incorporate these "meta" level
perspectives in their research. Nonetheless, this broad perspective on global governance could feasibly enrich BE research concemed with issues of the legitimacy and
accountability of the MNC in a globalized world (Scherer et al, 2009). Conversely,
BE scholars have much to offer in informing current debates about the very nature of
global govemance, including issues of institutional adequacy and representativeness,
justice, transparency, and the role of non-state actors (Santoro 2010). For example,
there is much to be gained from applying and expanding the idea of stakeholder
theory in a globalized worid (Elms & Phillips 2009; Goodstein & Wicks, 2007).
And in the case of China, a focus on human rights can help to illuminate questions
about the impact and sustainability of China's rise as a global economic and political power (Santoro, 2009).
One of the more interesting "second stage" developments of economic globalization has been the emergence of multinational enterprises/rom emerging economies,
many of which have not received the same level of stakeholder pressure over their
social and environmental conduct. Chinese oil and gas companies, for example,
have been very active in Africa as a result of that country's rapidly growing energy
needs, and have been quite willing to do business with countries that Westem firms
have been pressured to avoid (Michel & Beuret, 2009). This kind of global activity
from MNCs based in nations with weak regulatory systems raises many questions
about comparative accountability among MNCs globally, and the potential competitive effects of one set of MNCs adhering to relatively higher standards and another
maintaining lower ones. Other emerging market MNCs are moving toward developed
TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY
487
world standards and practices, and, at the same, responding to consumer needs of
developing countries in a manner that many developed country MNCs overlook, as
in the case of Tata's $2500 Nano "people's car" that offers affordably and (reasonably) safe transportation for the masses.
Some IB scholars, particularly those who focus on issues of global political
economy, have applied a particular variant of critical management studies to issues
of global political economic and intemational business production relationships.
This approach has drawn on the work of Antonio Gramsci to explore power and
inñuence in global production chains. In IB research this neo-Gramscian perspective on hegemony is represented in Levy (2008), who offers a critical framework
on intemational management that views global production networks as integrated
economic, political, and discursive systems in which market and political power are
intertwined. He applies this framework to contested political and social issues, such
as "sweatshops" and incomes for coffee growers. Once again, such a perspective
may be leveraged in intemationally oriented BE research to explicate how crossnational systems of ethical or unethical behavior become intertwined and mutually
reinforcing. This perspective might also help researchers clarify the normative
questions raised about "sweatshop" labor.
Another later and emerging stream of research of potentially mutual interest to IB
and BE derives from critical management studies (CMS). CMS has, in some ways,
done for management what critical legal studies has tried to do for law, by challenging basic assumptions and criticizing historic perspectives. CMS "has emerged as
a movement that questions the authority and relevance of mainstream thinking and
practice," one which "challenges prevailing relations of domination—patriarchal,
neo-imperialist as well as capitalist—and anticipates the development of altematives to them" (Alvesson, Bridgman & Willmott, 2009: 1). Lately, CMS has focused
extensively on issues related to global govemance and distributive justice between
and within societies (Hanlon, 2008; Kuhn & Deetz, 2008). IB research has been slow
to embrace the perspectives of CMS. Specifically, Banerjee (2003, 2009), drawing
from post colonial and cultural studies, has explored crucial aspects of the impact
of MNCs on the basic entitlements of indigenous people. This work highlights the
political nature of IB and would be particularly useful for IB research in terms of
enlarging the understanding of the complexity of factors and processes with regard
to why and how firms intemationalize successfully or not.
Cross-Cultural Values and Norms
John Dunning (2009) observes that differences in social values create enormous
institutional distance between MNCs and govemments, domestic firms, and local
NGOs. Such "distance" constitutes a significant obstacle to effective intemational
collaboration. Yet, globalization has, in part, lessened—or at least transformed the
nature—of some of these differences.
The problem of cross cultural values has been an important topic in intemational business ethics research. Indeed, the example of integrative social contracts
theory (ISCT) as specified by Donaldson and Dunfee (1994) aptly illustrates how
488
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
IB and BE tnight potentially enrich each other. ISCT, which has been one of the
more influential ideas in the field of BE in the past decade, posits the existence of
"hypemorms," which Donaldson and Dunfee define as "principles so fundamental
that, by definition, they serve to evaluate lower order norms, reaching to the root
of what is ethical for humanity. They represent norms by which all others are to be
judged." However, the debate over what constitutes a hypemorm has impeded the
application of ISCT in real-world empirical settings, with some notable exceptions
(Bailey & Spicer, 2007).
This debate about hypemorms can profit from consideration of the growing IB
literature on convergence, divergence, and crossvergence across cultures as developed by David Ralston (2008) and his colleagues. The crossvergence perspective
was advanced as a way to better understand the evolution of managerial values
around the world (Ralston, 2008). Tom Dunfee himself (2006), one of the architects
of ISCT, called for further study by BE scholars specifically on convergence as it
relates to the identification of hypemorms, as well as on the evolution of lower
order "authentic norms" in local communities, another key concept in ISCT. The
work of IB scholars on crossvergence, which provides insight into the evolution and
hybridization of values, directly addresses some of the most fundamental issues on
the ISCT research agenda.
The crossvergence hypothesis is a response to a long-standing debate in the IB
hterature with respect to the nature of the formation and evolution of individual-level
values. Convergence theory argued that the spread of similar technologies and the
adoption of free-market capitalism around the world would drive individual-level
values to more similar values, especially increasingly individualistic work values
(Kerr, Dunlop, Harbison, & Myers, 1960; Webber, 1969). In contrast, unique sociocultural influences would resist change and thus sustain continued divergence
among individual-level values (Lincoln, Olson, & Hanada, 1978; Meyer, BoliBennett, & Chase-Dunn, 1975; Webber, 1969). In response to this dichotomy, the
crossvergence perspective postulates that socio-cultural influences, which are unique
to specific societies, together with business ideology, which transcends specific
cultures, drive the formation of new values, so that we observe neither a convergence nor divergence of values, but rather crossvergence—a kind of hybridization
of values (Ralston, 2008).
The implications of this work have rarely been recognized in the BE literature
(see Donaldson, 2001, and Dunn & Shome, 2009, as important exceptions). Some
research indicates that different psychological processes like moral reasoning and
attitude formation are affected differentially by globalization (Husted, Dozier, McMahon, & Kattan, 1996). Given that values do evolve over time, Ralston (2008)
emphasizes the necessity of longitudinal research. For example, Ralston and
colleagues (Ralston, Pounder, Lo, Wong, Egd, & Stauffer, 2006) compared data
collected in 1989 and in 2001 and found evidence of values evolution strongly
consistent with a pattem of crossvergence. Still there exists a wealth of resources
from cross-cultural psychology awaiting exploitation by BE researchers interested
in cross-cultural ethics (Husted & Allen, 2008; Triandis, 1995).
TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY
489
BE also has much potentially to contribute to IB research on cross cultural values.
In his seminal analysis of the field. Child (2000) has argued that the cross-national
study of organizations suffers from a dichotomy of what he terms "low context"
and "high context" approaches. Low-context approaches put forces of economic
universalism, technology and psychological universalism at the center of explaining
international business activity, which is seen as inevitably moving towards increasingly convergent and uniform organizational structures in MNCs. High-context
approaches, on the other hand, see cultural and institutional factors as the dominant
drivers which lead to organizations that are deeply adapted to national and regional
specifics. One could argue that most of the issues BE scholars have been interested
in fall into the realm of high context approaches, stressing the importance of institutional and cultural specifics of the international business environment. Recent
examples from the pages of BEQ include Hiss's account of the idiosyncrasies of
CSR in Germany (Hiss, 2009) or Smith, Simpson, and Huang's study of the social
and cultural context of bribery (Smith, Simpson, & Huang, 2007). While Child's
analysis still holds some water with regard to IB research in general, this lack of
focus on context has been addressed over the last ten years and the institutional
context has now become one of the most prominent thrusts in IB research (see
Kostova & Roth, 2002; Kostova, Roth, & Dacin, 2008). Nevertheless, IB research
on international issues could be enriched by BE perspectives such as ISCT. A core
concern of such BE scholarship has long been to navigate the Charybdis of "low
context" universalism and the Scylla of "high context" relativism. For example,
BE scholars have asked whether Google should practice a "high context" corporate policy and censor its search results in China, or whether it should it follow a
"low context" entry into the Chinese market by refusing to do so (Santoro 2009).
Moreover, considering the two fields as business management subdisciplines, there
are other ways in which BE could inform research in IB. For example, scholarship
in the latter field, perhaps in its effort to emulate strategy research, has tended to
be "values neutral," with some important exceptions (see Dunning, 2003). Given
the events of the past several years which have called into question some basic assumptions about the neoclassical economic model, the appropriateness and limits
of U.S.-style capitalism, and the shifting views about the efficacy of the state and
its important role as a regulator, IB scholars would do well to consider some of
the broader moral implications of their topics and approaches, considerations BE
scholars have embraced for some time.
Theory Development Related to the Nature of the Multinational Enterprise
A third area of mutual concern to BE and IB is the interaction of ethics and international business strategy. In a globalized context, strategic decisions by firms are at
every tum either guided by ethical considerations or result in ethical consequences.
The theory of the multinational enterprise incorporates a number of related questions.
First, why do MNCs exist? Second, how should they best organize globally?
Regarding the first question, IB scholars have consistently drawn attention to the
fact that MNCs not only import and export, but more importantly, engage in foreign
490
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
direct investment (FDI), sometimes via alliances and joint ventures with other foreign
firms. Hence, the theoretical response to this first question has coalesced around the
ownership, location, and intemalization paradigm, which argues that the decision
to engage in FDI depends on ownership or firm-specific advantages, location or
country-specific advantages, and intemalization advantages from the reduction of
transaction costs through hierarchical or market forms of organization (Dunning,
1980). The location factor is particularly important, but as Dunning (1998) noted
over a decade ago, it had been largely neglected by IB researchers despite the rich
tradition within economic geography, one of IB's foundational fields.
One of the factors that affects location or country-specific advantages is the institutional environment, which obviously includes business ethics (Dunning, 2009).
Donaldson (2001) has discussed the kinds of competitive advantages that ethics
can create for countiies. Institutional differences due to cormption, environmental
regulation, and human rights policies will increasingly have an impact on the entry
mode decision of MNCs (Dunning, 2009). Research indicates that cormption infiuences FDI, especially FDI designed to seek firm resources, rather than new markets
(Brouthers, Gao, & McNicol, 2008).
New kinds of FDI have strong ethical implications. One area here is clean development mechanism investments under the still-to-be-renegotiated Kyoto Protocol,
which link investments by countries and firms in developed countries to projects
which reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. This arena of FDI
has largely been ignored both by IB and BE scholars, despite the observation by
Dunning (2009) that climate change will have an enormous influence on globalization and intemational business and concems by noted philosopher Michael Sandel
(1997) that emissionsti-adingschemes are fundamentally immoral (see also Eykmans
& Kvemdokk, 2009).
In another area, some MNCs have become interested in initiatives at the base of
the pyramid (BOP), which focus on the poorest of the poor as both consumers and
producers in order to create economic value for the firm and benefit for the least
advantaged (Hart & Sharma, 2004; Prahalad, 2006). These initiatives can occur
simply as trading relationships, but more frequently involve equity relationships
of different types (FDI, alliances, etc.). Although a more self-critical approach has
arisen within the IB and strategy literatures regarding the effectiveness of the BOP
literature (Kamani, 2007a), input from BE scholars is sorely wanting (see Hahn,
2009, as an important exception). As Kamani (2007b) has argued, there is a fundamental flaw inherent in much of the BOP thinking as it focuses mostly on tuming
people in least developed countries into consumers rather than providing them with
a meaningful place in production and income generation processes. Given those
and other significant criticisms, BOP investment needs to be linked to public policy
objectives. Dunning (2009) believes that as a result of collaboration between MNCs,
govemment, and the social sector, FDI to the very least developed countries could
increase significantiy.
The second big question surrounding the theory of the multinational enterprise
deals with how the MNC should organize itself to manage activities over diverse
locations. Here the discussion has revolved around a typology of multinational
TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY
491
organizational strategies in which MNCs can be organized as global firms to maximize coordination and economies of scale, as multi-domestic companies to focus
on fiexibility to adapt to local markets and MNCs attempt to unite the advantages
of both by combining economies of scale and responsiveness (Bartlett & Ghoshal,
1989; Prahalad & Doz, 1987; Yip, 1992).
This second question has been treated by some BE researchers as follows. First,
how does MNC strategy and structure affect ethical policy and CSR initiatives?
Integrative social contracts theory is the most creative response to arise from BE
as it attempts to deal with the tension between universal hypemorms and local
authentic norms. Yet ISCT does not confront the possibility of ethical pluralism
within organizational reality. For example, what does ISCT mean in terms of global,
transnational, or multi-domestic MNCs? It would seem tofitbest with transnational
and multi-domestic MNCs as these types of multinational organization tend to be
more sensitive to local contexts and decentralized decision making. It would however
appear less well suited to global MNCs, which seek economies of scale and tend to
mn a globally homogenous set of organizational structures and decision principles
across their operations, regardless of the idiosyncrasies of specific local contexts. In
the context of CSR initiatives, Husted and Allen (2006) describe how global firms
tend to adopt global CSR, while multidomestic firms tend to focus on local CSR.
These tendencies certainly make sense, but are they ethically adequate responses on
the part of MNCs? Do not global companies also need to be good local corporate
citizens (Husted, 2002)?
A further set of questions related to MNC stmcture is the issue of technology
transfer. How do MNCs transmit knowledge from the parent company to the local
subsidiary? A great deal of discussion has surrounded the transfer of manufacturing
practices, for example, but the literature is silent with respect to CSR knowledge
transfer. How should CSR practices developed in the parent company be transferred
to the subsidiary? What kinds of resources and capabilities are needed to facilitate
this transfer? In the technology transfer literature, a great deal of discussion has
surrounded the concept of absorptive capacity as the ability of the subsidiary to
assimilate new knowledge (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Certainly the literature of
technology transfer should be studied carefully to examine the extent to which these
concepts can be applied to the transfer of social knowledge and ethical practice.
These applications have barely been scratched in the BE literature. Meaningful ways
to explore these perspectives could include a closer examination of how MNCs
implement their global standards (e.g., codes of conduct) or study of the drivers of
and barriers to global dissemination of responsible practices within a large MNC.
Business, NGOs, and other Non-State Actors in a Globalized World
A fourth area of mutual concem to BE and IB is the increasing interactions among
corporations and non-state actors, especially NGOs, in the global context. Research
on the role, operation, and strategies of NGOs in the intemational relations and
nonprofit management fields has a rich and extensive record (Florini, 2003; Fox &
Brown, 1998; Lindenberg & Bryant, 2002). In addition, there are several nascent
492
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
efforts that have begun in management research (Dahan, Doh & Guay, 2006; Doh
& Teegen, 2003; Rondinelli & London, 2003; Schepers, 2006; Teegen, Doh, &
Vachani, 2004; Yaziji, 2004; Yaziji and Doh, 2009). These include exploration of
the broader role of NGOs in the process of global management and policy (Doh &
Teegen, 2003; Teegen, Doh, & Vachani, 2004) and practitioner-oriented literature that
provides guidance regarding corporate-NGO interactions, especially cooperative or
collaborative partnerships (Hess, Rogovsky, & Dunfee, 2002; Pearce & Doh, 2005;
Rondinelli & London, 2003; Yaziji, 2004). To date, however, there have been few
systematic efforts within the IB domain to fully explore the constructs and contexts
relevant in understanding the role of NGOs in business, govemment and political
relations, and in society more broadly.
To the extent that this research emphasizes the differing organizational structures, strategies and orientations among business versus NGOs in the intemational
setting, and the interesting challenges presented when NGOs or MNCs from the
developed world enter and operate in developing countries (see Oetzel & Doh,
2009), BE research could integrate some of these cross-sectoral and cross-national
differences to enrich and enhance existing approaches. Perhaps more interestingly,
the challenging relational interactions that result from these differences and that
have been explored in the emergent literature on NGO-corporate interactions globally (see Yaziji & Doh, 2009) could complement BE research by demonstrating the
dynamic nature of cross-sectoral engagement and its implications for comparative
organizational ethics and the evolution of cross-national ethics and CSR by corporations and nonprofits.
The Dialectics of Globalization
The institutional changes we identified at the beginning of the paper as well as our
discussion so far might suggest that the set of challenges for IB and BE research
are rather straightforward and well defined. In fact however, there are some fundamental differences in the two perspectives that could be termed the "dialectics" of
the globalization process itself (Sorge, 2000, 2005). As discussed in the previous
section, globalization itself poses profound questions for business and society, and
this is also tme for the academy, including for IB and BE scholars.
On the one hand, many of the changes we discussed so far are due to new "transnational social spaces" (Pries, 2001) where business, alongside other actors and
institutions, plays a new role, with implications for both IB and BE research. This
often leads to a hyperbolic view of globalization, perhaps most forcefully popularized
by Thomas Friedman's "Flat Earth" hypothesis (Friedman, 2006). At the same time,
however, the very process of globalization has accentuated the importance of local
institutions, actors and cultures, commonly popularized by Samuel Huntington's
"Clash of Civilizations" hypothesis (Huntington, 1998). These dialectics have found
some reflection in both the IB and the BE literature. The most prominent example
in IB is the ongoing contestation about convergence and divergence of business
practices (see, e.g., Geppert, Matten, & Walgenbach, 2006, for an overview) while
the debate and criticism of the above mentioned ISCT approach has generated a
TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY
493
similar debate in the BE literature (see, e.g.. Van Oosterhout, Heugens, & Kaptein,
2006, for an overview). Here we briefly review some of the dialectical aspects of
globalization and their relevance for broader discussions regarding potential complementarities among IB and BE scholarship.
Perhaps the most prominent dialectical phenomenon is the role of national govemments in a globalized world. As we argued so far, global business has outstripped
the ability of govemments to regulate it; nevertheless, govemments are playing
catch up (van Tulder, 2006: 73-91). In the United States, for example, the Alien
Tort Claims Act (Stephens, 2007) and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Weiss,
2009) have been applied to extraterritorial behavior and with increasing vigor. The
European Union has demonstrated a willingness to use its antitmst law in a manner
that forces big companies like Microsoft and Intel to rethink strategies that might
have been workable only under U.S. law (Forelle & Kiviniemi, 2009). This trend is
also evident in other policy fields relevant to IB: the fallout from the global financial
meltdown of 2008 has also spurred intemationai govemmental cooperation. At the
Pittsburgh G-20 meeting of September 2009, meaningful discussions began on the
constmction in the not-too-distant future of a mechanism for regulating intemationai
financial markets (Pittsburgh Summit, 2009).
One of the most conspicuous areas where these dialectics have been studied at the
intersection of the IB and BE literature is the phenomenon of cUmate change (e.g.,
Begg, van der Woerd, & Levy, 2005; Hoffman, 2005; Kolk & Pinkse, 2005; Kolk &
Pinkse, 2007; Stem, 2007). While climate change can be regarded as a truly global
phenomenon, responses have so far been the result of govemmental regulation (such
as Kyoto or the EU Emission Trading System). This included a rather intricate and
active role for business (alongside other actors). Further, the specific reactions of
business firms globally have highlighted the persistent relevance of local political
context of business strategies for addressing a global challenge, even of the most globalised MNCs (Eberlein & Matten, 2009; Levy & Kolk, 2002). This field of inquiry
has contributed significantly to our understanding of global strategizing of MNCs
(from an IB perspective) as well as understanding the complex political context and
role of private business in addressing ethical issues (from a BE perspective).
A new and otmiipresent aspect of the intemationai environment is the threat of
global terrorism. First, this has resulted in new business opportunities for a number
of firms in the fast growing private security industry globally (Elms & Phillips,
2009). On a more dialectical note though, while globalization has in some respects
facilitated global terrorist activities, it also imposes more restrictions on business
and has re-invigorated nation states in their power to restrain the global flow of
goods, services and capital (Jain & Grosse, 2009). The controversy about the sale
of US ports to a Dubai-based holding company in the late 2000s underscored this
resurgent state. These developments raise specific questions about the limits and
risks of global business activities for IB and BE research. Finally, terrorism, and of
even greater salience, intemationai organized crime, have in recent years presented
threats to the financial markets and many products and services (Nordstrom, 2007).
Such threats raise additional research questions regarding the extent, nature and limits
of business responsibility for the wider public good, in particular public security.
494
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
CONCLUSION
In describing some of the areas of mutual concern to IB and BE scholars, we by no
means claim to have been exhaustive. In fact, our hope is that our analysis will spur
thought about other areas of potential synergy. Nevertheless, there are a number of
aspects in which IB and BE can mutually inform each other.
Examined from the potential contribution of IB to BE, we documented how IB
has leveraged and integrated robust and broadly applicable theoretical traditions
from the social sciences—in particularly, institutional theory approaches—that have
strengthened and provided greater rigor and relevance and we have argued that BE
research could benefit from such a strategy. Our point is not that these social science traditions should replace the fundamental moral perspectives at the core of BE
concems. Rather we have tried to show how the varied theoretical approaches in IB
can help to clarify and illuminate questions akeady being posed by BE scholars and
in some cases may suggest wholly new questions that need further moral inquiry.
We have also seen that IB has a strong empirical tradition specific to cross-border
phenomena that has helped to legitimize and validate many of its theoretical and
conceptual understandings of the world and the interactions of stakeholders within
it; to the extent that BE researchers are interested in speaking to a broader social
science audience, such approaches could bolster its broader acceptance and adoption
within business research generally. In other words, to the extent that BE research
tums to more empirical approaches, IB scholarship presents a useful model for rigor
and conceptual clarity.
Conversely, there are numerous ways in which BE could inform research in IB.
Most importantly, BE scholars who approach global issues from a philosophical
perspective can add a much needed moral dimension to IB studies. As we have
noted, scholarship in IB, perhaps in its effort to emulate strategy research, has
tended to be "values neutral," with some important exceptions (see Dunning, 2003).
Given the events of the past several years which have called into question some
basic assumptions about the neoclassical economic model, the appropriateness
and limits of Anglo-Saxon forms of capitalism, and the shifting views about the
efficacy of the state and its important role as a regulator, IB scholars would do well
to consider some of the broader moral imphcations of their topics and approaches,
considerations BE scholars have embraced for some time. BE, by virtue of their
training and orientation in moral discourse, can make an important contribution to
the great debates and controversies of globahzation. In this article we have tried to
show that by engaging with some of the more prominent streams of IB research, BE
scholars can bring their much needed voices to the twenty-first-century discourses
on globalization.
In conclusion, we would suggest afieldof inquiry where IB and BE scholars jointly
could benefit from cooperatively venturing into new fields of empirical analysis
and conceptual advancement. In our discussion above, in particular with regard to
the MNC legitimacy and accountability, or the role of NGOs for global business,
we have identified a field which so far has met hmited attention by both IB and BE
scholars. The relevance of the changing role of business in global govemance, in
TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY
495
particular for a "values free" IB perspective, has been underscored by none other than
GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt (Roberts, 2010). Finding himself drawn into a discussion
on US culture and politics while trying to sell GE products to Chinese President
Jiang Zemin, he commented: "That was the first time I realized that the job was
more than just selling aircraft engines." Leaming this lesson quickly, GE has now
a "quasi diplomatic corps" of more than 200 people globally, to, as Immelt puts it,
"connect the dots for the company in the eyes of the govemments." For large MNCs
such as GE, the realization that they are deeply embedded in the political sphere is
just sound business. While there has been work on "corporate political action" (e.g.,
Hillman, Keim, & Schuler, 2004) in management and IB, Mantere, Pajunen, and
Lamberg (2009) have shown that this literature features a fairly blatant disregard
of its ethical implications and the political nature of firms. Conversely, while we
hinted to some recent work in BE that has tried to address these political dimensions
of corporations, the nature and status of this role is anything but uncontested—as,
for instance, the current controversy on the pages of BEQ earlier this year shows.
Main arenas of contestation include the Westem bias in conceptualizing business
responsibilities (Michaelson, 2010), unresolved questions about the boundaries
between the private and the public sphere as well as the appropriate design of effective and legitimate global regulation (Van Oosterhout, 2010) or, more radically,
questioning the context of corporate power and the potential of reinvigorating democratic leverage in the contemporary institutional context (Banerjee, 2010). While
IB traditionally has drawn especially from economics, psychology and sociology,
BE typically has drawn from philosophy and more recently social psychology, we
suggest that a closer dialogue with the disciplines of political science and intemational relations might be beneficial for both IB and BE scholars. Such a dialogue
may even become a fascinating future avenue of more integrated and collaborative
research in both fields.
NOTE
1. In 2009 JBE published 46 issues and supplements totaling 7298 pages. BEQ was 4 issues totaling
629 pages.
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T., & Willmott, H. 2009. Introduction. In M. Alvesson, T.
Bridgman, & H. Willmott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of critical management
studies: 1-26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bailey, W. J., & Spicer, A. 2007. When does national identity matter? Convergence and
divergence in intemational business ethics. Academy of Management Journal,
50(6): 1462-80.
Banerjee, S. B. 2003. Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the
reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, 24(1): 143-80.
2009. Necrocapitalism. Organization Studies, 30: 1541-63.
496
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
2010. Governing the global corporation: A critical perspective. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 20: 265-74.
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across borders: The transnational solution.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Barber, B., & Schulz, A. (Eds.). 1996. Jihad vs. McWorld: How globalism and tribalism
are reshaping the world. New York: Ballentine.
Beck, U. 2000. What is globalization? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Begg, K., van derWoerd, F., & Levy, D. L. (Eds.). 2005. The business of climate change:
Corporate responses to Kyoto. Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Bemstein, S., & Cashore, B. 2007. Can non-state global govemance be legitimate? An
analytical framework. Äegii/aft'on and Governance, 1: 1-25.
Brenkert, G. S., & Beauchamp, T L. (Eds.). 2009. The Oxford handbook of business
ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brouthers, L. E., Gao, Y., & McNicol, J. P. 2008. Corruption and market attractiveness
influences on different types of FDI. Strategic Management Journal, 29(6): 67380.
Cashore, B. 2002. Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental govemance: How
non-state market-driven (NSMD) govemance systems gain rule-making authority.
Govemance, 15(4): 503-29.
Chandler, A. D., & Mazlish, B. (Eds.). 2005. Leviathans: Multinational corporations and
the new global history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Child, J. 2000. Theorizing about organizations cross-nationally. In J. L. C. Cheng & R. B.
Peterson (Eds.), Advances in international comparative management, 13: 27-75.
Stamford, Conn.: JAI Press.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning
and innovation. Ad/n/nísírañVe Science ÔMarter/y, 35(1): 128-52.
Dahan, N., Doh, J. P, & Guay, T. R. 2006. The role of multinational corporations in
transnational institutional building: A policy-network perspective. Human
Relations, 59: 1571-1600.
DiMaggio, R J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review
48(2): 147-60.
Doh, J. P. 2009. Pharmaceutical companies, intellectual property, and the global AIDS
epidemic. (Case.) In F. Luthans and J. P. Doh, International Management: Culture,
Strategy and behavior (7th ed.): 84-93. New York: McGraw-Hill/lrwin.
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. 2004. Globalization and corporate social responsibility: How
nongovernmental organizations influence labor and environmental codes of conduct.
Management International Review, 44(3), 7-30.
Doh, J. P, & Teegen, H. (Eds.). 2003. Globalization and NGOs: Transforming business,
govemment, and society. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers.
Donaldson, T. 1996. Values in tension: Ethics away from home. Harvard Business Review,
74(5): 48-64.
TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY
497
.. 2001. The ethical wealth of nations. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(3): 2535.
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. 1994. Toward a unified conception of business ethics:
Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 5(2): 25284.
Dunfee, T. W. 2006. A critical perspective of integrative social contracts theory: Recurring
criticisms and next generation research topics. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(3):
303-28.
Dunn, P., & Shome, A. 2009. Cultural crossvergence and social desirahility bias: Ethical
evaluations by Chinese and Canadian business students. Journal of Business
Ethics, 85(4): 527-43.
Dunning, I. H. 1980. Toward an eclectic theory of intemational production. Some empirical
i&sis. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(1): 9-31.
1998. Location and the multinational enterprise: A neglected factor? Journal
of International Business Studies, 29(1): 45-66.
(Ed.). 2003. Making globalization good: The moral challenge of global
capitalism. London: Oxford University Press.
2009. Location and the multinational enterprise: John Dunning's thoughts
on receiving the Journal of Intemational Business Studies 2008 Decade Award.
Journal of International Business Studies, 40: 20-34.
Eberlein, B., & Matten, D. 2009. Business responses to climate change regulation in
Canada and Germany: Lessons for MNCs from Emerging Economies. Journal of
Business Ethics, 86(2): 241-55.
Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. 2008. Corporate responsibility: A review of intemational
management research from 1998 to 2007. Journal of International Management,
14: 319-39.
Elms, H., & Phillips, R. A. 2009. Private security companies and institutional legitimacy:
corporate and stakeholder responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19: 403-32.
Eykmans, J., & Kvemdokk, S. 2009. Moral concerns on international trading permits in
international environmental agreements. Unpublished paper, available at www.
econ.kuleuven.be/CES/discussionpapers/Dps09/Dps0912.pdf.
Elorini, A. 2003. The coming democracy: New rules for running a new world. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press.
Eorelle, C , & Kiviniemi, P. 2009. EU, Microsoft near end in antitrust tussle: Kroes
welcomes software giant's move to give PC users choice of web browsers. Wall
Street Journal (October 8): B9.
Fox, J. A., & Brown, L. D. 1998. The struggle for accountability: The World Bank, NGOs
and grassroots movements. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Friedman, T. L. 1999. The Lexus and the olive tree: Understanding globalization. New
York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
2006. The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century ( 1 st updated
and expanded ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
498
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
Geppert, M., Matten, D., & Walgenbach, P. 2006. Transnational institution building and
the multinational corporation: An emerging field of research. Human Relations,
59(11): 1451-65.
Goodstein, J., & Wicks, A. 2007. Corporate and stakeholder responsibility: Making business
ethics a two-way conversation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17: 375-98.
Graham, E. 2000. Fighting the wrong enemy: Antiglobal activists and multinational
enterprises. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Intemationai Economics.
Hahn, R. 2009. The ethical rational of business for the poor: Integrating the concepts
bottom of the pyramid, sustainable development, and corporate citizenship. Journal
of Business Ethics, 84 (3): 313-24.
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). 2001. Varieties of capitalisms. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hambrick, D. C , & Chen, M.-J. 2008. New academic fields as admittance-seeking social
movements: The case of strategic management," Acodemj' of Management Review,
33(1): 32-54.
Hanlon, G. 2008. Re-thinking corporate social responsibility and the role of the firm—on
the denial of politics. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: 156-72. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hart, S. L., & Sharma, S. 2004. Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination.
Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 7-18.
Henisz, W., & Swaminathan, A. 2008. Institutions and intemationai business. Journal of
International Business Studies, 39: 537-39.
Hess, D., Rogovsky, N., & Dunfee, T. W. 2002. The next wave of corporate community
involvement: Corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 44(2):
110-25.
Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. 2004. Corporate political activity: A review and
research agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6): 837-57.
Hiss, S. 2009. From implicit to explicit corporate social responsibility: Institutional change
as a fight for myths. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19: 433-51.
Hoffman, A. J. 2005. Climate change strategy: The business logic behind voluntary
greenhouse gas reductions. California Management Review, 47(3): 2 1 ^ 6 .
Huntington, S. P. 1998. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Husted, B. W. 2002. Cultural balkanization and hybridization in an era of globalization:
Implications for intemationai business research. In M. Kotabe (Ed.), Emerging
issues in international business research: 81-95. Northampton, Mass.: Elgar
Publishing.
Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. 2006. Corporate social responsibility in the multinational
enterprise: Strategic and institutional approaches. Journal of International
Business Studies, 37(6): 838-49.
TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY
499
2008. Toward a model of cross-cultural business ethics: the impact of
individualism and collectivism on the ethical decision-making process. Journal of
Business Ethics, 82(2): 293-305.
Husted, B. W., Dozier, J. B., McMahon, T. J., & Kattan, M. W. 1996. The impact of crossnational carriers of business ethics on attitudes about questionable practices and
form of moral reasoning. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(2): 391411.
Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2008. Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity
and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business
Studies, 39: 540-61.
Jain, S. C , & Grosse, R. 2009. The impact of terrorism and security measures on
global business transactions: Some international business guidelines. Journal of
Transnational Management, 14(1): 42-73.
Janavaras, B. J. 1975. Graduate education in international business: Quo modol Journal of
International Business Studies, 6(1): 91-98.
Kamani, A. 2007a. The mirage of marketing to the bottom of the pyramid: How the private
sector can help alleviate poverty. California Management Review, 49(4): 90111.
2007b. The misfortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Greener Management
International, 51: 99-110.
Kerr, C , Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F. H., & Myers, C. A. 1960. Industrialism and industrial
Man: The problem of labor and management in economic growth. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. 2005. Business responses to climate change: Identifying emergent
strategies. California Management Review, 47(3): 6-20.
2007. Multinationals' political activities on climate change. Business &
Society, 46(2): 201-28.
Kostova, T, & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of an organizational practice by the subsidiaries of
the MNC: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal,
45:215-33.
Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, T. 2008. Institutional theory in the study of MNCs: A
critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 994-1007.
Kuhn, T., & Deetz, S. 2008. Critical theory and corporate social responsibility: Can/should
we get beyond cynical reasoning? In A. Crane, A. Me Williams, D. Matten, J. Moon,
& D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: 17396. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levy, D. L. 2008. Political contestation in global production networks. Academy of
Management Review, 33: 943-62.
Levy, D. L., & Kolk, A. 2002. Strategic responses to global climate change: Conflicting
pressures on multinationals in the oil industry. Business and Politics, 3(2): 275300.
Lincoln, J. R., Olson, J., & Hanada, M. 1978. Cultural effects of organizational structures:
The case of Japanese firms in the United States. American Sociological Review,
43: 829-47.
500
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
Lindenberg, M. & Bryant, C. 2002. Going global: Transforming relief and development
NGOs. Bloomfield, Conn.: Kumarian Press.
Mantere, S., Pajunen, K., & Lamberg, J.-A. 2009. Vices and virtues of corporate political
activity: The challenge of intemational business. Business & Society, 48(1)- 10532.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. 2008. "Implicit"' and "explicit"' CSR: A conceptual framework
for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of
Management Review, 33(2): 404-24.
Meyer, J. W., Boli-Bennett, J., and Chase-Dunn, C. 1975. Convergence and divergence in
development Annual Review of Sociology, 1: 223^6.
Michaelson, C. 2010. Revisiting the global business ethics question. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 20: 237-52.
Michel, S., & Beuret, M. 2009. China safari: On the trail of Beijing's expansion in Africa.
New York: Nations Books.
Nordstrom, C. 2007. Global outlaws: Crime, money, and power in the contemporary
world. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Oetzel, J. & Doh, J. P. 2009. MNEs and development: A review and reconceptualization.
Journal of World Business, 44: 108-20.
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management
Review, 16: 145-79.
Pearce, J. A., & Doh, J. P 2005 The high impact of collaborative social initiatives. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 46(3): 30-39.
Pittsburgh Summit. 2009. Leader's statement: The Pittsburgh summit: September 24-25,
2009. Available at www.pittsburghsummit.gov/mediacenter/129639.htm.
Prahalad, C. K. 2006. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty
through profits. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Wharton School Publishing.
Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. L. 1987. The multinational mission: Balancing local demands
and global vision. New York: The Free Press.
Pries, L. (Ed.). 2001. A'^eM' transnational social spaces. London: Routledge.
Ralston, D. A. 2008. The crossvergence perspective: Reflections and projections. Journal
of International Business Studies, 39(1): 27-40.
Ralston, D. A., Pounder, J., Lo, C. W. H., Wong, Y. Y, Egri, C. P, & Stauffer, J. 2006.
Stability and change in managerial work values: A longitudinal study of China,
Hong Kong, and the U.S. Management and Organization Review, 2(1): 67-94.
Rasche, A., & Kell, G. 2010. The United Nations global compact: Achievements, trends
and challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Redding, G. 2005. The thick description and comparison of societal systems of capitalism.
Journal of International Business Studies, 36: 123-55.
Roberts, D. 2010. General Electric: Why the world's largest company still has spark. The
Guardian (January 14). Available at www.guardian.co.uk.
Rondinelli, D. A., & London, T. 2003. How corporations and environmental groups
cooperate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. Academy of
Management Executive, 17(1): 61-76.
TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY
501
Ruggie, J. G. 2004. Reconstituting the public domain: issues, actors, and practices.
European Joumal of International Relations, 10(4): 499-531.
Rugman, A. M., & Brewer, T. (Eds.). 2001. The Oxford handbook of international
business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sandel, M. J. 1997. It's immoral to buy the right to pollute. New York Times (December
15):A15.
Santoro, M. A. 2009. China 2020: How western business can—and should—influence
social and political change in the coming decade. Ithaca, N.Y.: Comell University
Press.
2010. Post-Westphalia and its discontents: Business, globalization and human
rights in political and moral perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 285-97.
Schepers. D. H. 2006. The impact of NGO network conflict on the corporate social
responsibility strategies of multinational corporations. Business & Society, 45:
282-99.
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. 2009. Introduction to the special issue:
Globalization as a challenge for business responsibilities. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 19: 327^7.
Singer, P. 2002. One world: The ethics of globalization. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Press.
Smith, N. C , Simpson, S. S., & Huang, C.-Y. 2007. Why managers fail to do the right thing:
An empirical study of unethical and illegal conduct. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17:
633-67.
Sorge, A. 2000. The diabolical dialectics of societal effects. In M. Maurice & A. Sorge
(Eds.), Embedding organizations: Societal analysis of actors, organizations, and
socio-economic content: 37-56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2005. The global and the local: Understanding the dialectics of business
systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Soros, G. 2002. George Soros on globalization. New York: Public Affairs.
Stephens, P. J. 2007. Spinning Sosa: Federal common law, the alien tort statute, and judicial
restraint. Boston University International Law Journal, 25(1): 32-33.
Stem, N. 2007. The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Stiglitz, J. 2002. Globalization and its discontents. New York: Norton.
Teegen, H., Doh, J. P., & Vachani, S. 2004. The importance of nongovemmental organizations
(NGOs) in global govemance and value creation: An intemational business research
agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 463-83.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure
of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reforms. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 23: 22-39.
Triandis, H. C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Van Oosterhout, J. 2010. The role of corporations in shaping the global mies of the game:
In search of new foundations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 253-64.
502
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
Van Oosterhout, J., Heugens, R M. A. R., & Kaptein, M. 2006. The internal morality of
contracting: Advancing the contractualist endeavor in business ethics. Academy of
Management Review, 31(3): 521-39.
van Tulder, R. 2006. International business-society management. London: Routledge.
Vemon, R. 1971. Sovereignty at bay: The multinational spread of U.S. enterprises. New
York: Basic Books.
Waddock, S. 2008. Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3): 87-108.
Webber, R. H. 1969. Convergence or divergence. Columbia Journal of World Business,
4(3): 75-83.
Weiss, D. C. 2009. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, SEC disgorgement of profits, and
the evolving intemational bribery regime: Weighing proportionality, retribution,
and deterrence. Michigan Journal of Intemational Law, 30: 471-514.
Whitley, R. 1999. Divergent capitalisms. The social structuring and change of business
systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yaziji, M. 2004. Tuming gadflies into allies. Harvard Business Review, 82(2): 110-15.
Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. P 2009. NGOs and corporations: Confiict and collaboration.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yip, G. 1992. Total global strategy: Managing for worldwide competitive advantage,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Copyright of Business Ethics Quarterly is the property of Philosophy Documentation Center and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.