Content area
Purpose
This paper aims to address the relationship between critical and mainstream international business (IB) research and discuss the ways forward for the former.
Design/methodology/approachThe paper empirically maps critical IB scholarship by analysing more than 250 academic articles published in critical perspectives on international business (cpoib) from 2005 to 2017. The paper also includes a citation analysis that uncovers how critical IB research is recognized and discussed in mainstream IB studies.
FindingsThe extant critical IB research can be broken into five main topical clusters: positioning critical IB research, postcolonial IB studies, effects of international business activities, financialization and the global financial crisis and “Black IB” and corporate social responsibility. The citation analysis demonstrates that critical IB research is rarely recognized in mainstream IB academic outlets.
Originality/valueThis paper is the first to empirically map critical IB research and to measure its impact on mainstream IB research. Based on these insights, as well as discussions of the more critical voices within mainstream IB studies and the debate over critical performativity in critical management studies, ways of developing critical IB research are examined.
Introduction
International business (IB) has developed as an academic field since the 1960s. Initially inspired by economic thought, contemporary IB research is based on a number of approaches, including economic theory (Caves, 1971; Dunning, 1993), contingency theory (Doz et al., 1981; Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989), cultural theories (Hofstede, 1991) and agency theory (Filatotchev and Wright, 2010; Mustapha, 2014). More recently, institutionalist and critical approaches have added new perspectives and debates to IB. However, an investigation of the impact of critical approaches to IB has been missing thus far. This is somewhat surprising given the growing number of non-mainstream IB contributions that have appeared since the start of the new millennium. In 2005, critical perspectives on international business (cpoib) – the only journal dedicated to the critical study of IB matters – was launched. Moreover, several contemporary IB compendiums recognize critical IB (Ietto-Gillies, 2005; Collison and Morgan, 2009; Dörrenbächer and Geppert, 2017). In addition, a number of mainstream IB authors have emphasized that IB needs to adopt a wider perspective, a perspective that might include critical IB.
In line with the basic assumption of critical management studies, critical IB is defined here as going beyond mainstream IB critiques of theory, methods and research findings by addressing the societal impact of international business activities and the uneven power structures in the world economy. This paper empirically examines critical IB research, the extent of its recognition in the mainstream IB literature and the direction it should take in the future. Based on a comprehensive citation analysis of more than 250 academic articles published in cpoib between 2005 and 2017, this article argues that mainstream IB research has only marginally recognized studies that address international business from a critical perspective and that more work is needed to turn international business into a societally engaged discipline.
What is critical international business research?
Critical thought on the activities of multinational corporations (MNCs) and, more generally, on the global post-war capitalist economy first emanated from economists and political scientists in the fields of international political economy and development (Frank, 1972). This coincided with the secular trends of de-colonialization, increasing global economic integration and claims of a new international economic order, which were evident from the 1950s through the 1970s. At the time, strong criticisms of civil society not only focussed on uneven economic development but also on a number of corporate scandals, which were seen as expressions of uneven power relations between MNCs and national governments, especially governments from developing countries. Despite the fact that one of the founding fathers of IB research, Stephen Hymer, adopted a critical stance on the activities of MNCs (Yamin, 1991), civil society’s concerns about MNCs’ behaviour and the uneven power structures in the world economy did not resonate among IB scholars until well into the new millennium, which then led to the publishing of more critically minded IB papers. An important stimulus in this regard was the establishment and upswing of the so-called critical management school in the 1990s (Alvesson and Willmott, 1992; Fournier and Grey, 2000). Drawing on various roots, including labour-process theory, post-structuralist theory and critical theory, the critical management school brought together scholars concerned with hegemonic structures in the economy that create and perpetuate unequal power relations and inequality. In objecting to the one-sidedness of managerialist research, it supported critical interpretations of managerial action and was differentiated into functional sub-discourses focussed on such areas as critical accounting, critical organization theory and critical IB research.
A first step toward institutionalizing critical thought in the IB field was the launch of cpoib in 2005. In line with Cairns and Roberts (the journal’s founders; 2005), critical IB studies are concerned with the reflexive discussion of the nature and impact of international business activities. As such, they aim to uncover hegemonic structures in MNCs and in the international economy, and to counter the prevalent managerialist logic. The journal invites contributions to a large number of themes (e.g. corporate social responsibility [CSR]; business ethics; consumerism; global inequality and poverty; issues of gender, race and class; environmental issues; and postcolonial and developmental issues), and allows for multi- and interdisciplinary approaches.
In the following, the development of critical IB thought since the launch of cpoib in 2005 is examined[1] in the first attempt to empirically map the core themes of critical IB research and associated papers. To do so, the authors first investigated the 17 special issues published by cpoib from 2005 to 2017 (see Table I). The articles published in the special issues represent almost half of the more than 250 academic articles published by cpoib in this time period. These special issues have typically been followed by publication of a substantial number of theme-related papers in regular issues.
The analysis reveals that five main topical clusters constitute critical IB: positioning critical IB research, postcolonial IB studies, effects of international business activities, financialization and the global financial crisis, and “Black IB” and CSR.
Positioning critical international business research
Given the fact that critical IB research developed relatively late, it is not surprising that a number of contributions focussed on the general positioning and nature of this stream of literature. Critical IB research developed as a counter-reaction to mainstream IB and aimed to address themes omitted by mainstream IB literature. An early special issue entitled “Critical perspectives on international business: What does it mean to be critical in relation to international business?” (issue 2, 2006) solidified the positioning of cpoib (Cairns and Roberts, 2005). This initial attempt to position critical IB research was complemented by two other special issues focussed on the meaning of critical IB from the perspective of a particular country (The Netherlands; issue 3, 2006) or region (Latin America; issue 2/3, 2010). The debate over the definition of critical IB continued in a number of individual papers (Murphy, 2006; Cairns and Roberts, 2007; Roberts and Dörrenbächer, 2012) and in a substantial number of contributions to the tenth anniversary special issue (issue 1/2, 2014). The most recent take on the topic was a programmatic paper by Roberts and Dörrenbächer (2016) entitled “Renewing the call for critical perspectives on international business: towards a second decade of challenging the orthodox”.
Postcolonial international business studies
The second category of critical IB studies focusses on the postcolonial situation. The concept of postcolonial IB was introduced through two highly cited conceptual papers[2] published in volumes 2 and 3 of cpoib (Westwood, 2006; Westwood and Jack, 2007). According to Westwood (2006), postcolonial IB studies challenge the functionalism and presumptions of universalism found in mainstream IB studies, and they call for a deep contextualization that provides authenticity and relevance by accepting and radically reflecting the specific, local, historical, cultural and ideological embeddedness of knowledge production and theorizing in IB research. They also aim to enhance relevance through calls for more genuinely indigenous IB research.
The postcolonial approach to IB and its key role in critical IB research are not only reflected in the special issue on critical IB in Latin America entitled “Critical international management and international critical management: perspectives from Latin America” (issue 2/3, 2010) and the 2008 special issue edited by Banerjee and Prasad (2008, issue 2/3) entitled “Critical reflections on management and organization: A postcolonial perspective” but also in a number of papers published in regular issues (Hartt et al., 2012; Alcadipani and Caldas, 2012; Boussebaa and Morgan, 2014; Alcadipani and Faria, 2014; Alamgir and Cairns, 2014; Thomson and Jones, 2015; Amankwah-Amoah, 2016; Chakraborty et al., 2017; Venkateswaran and Ojha, 2017; Burris, 2017). A recent example of the postcolonial approach to IB is the 2016 special issue edited by Prasad and Durepos (2016, issue 3) entitled “Voices at/from the margins”. This special issue looks at the situated realties of those who are suffering from the practices of international business and “have been and continue to be relegated to the periphery of IB discourses” (Prasad and Durepos, 2016, p. 218).
Effects of international business activities
A third building block of critical IB research examines the effects of international business activities. One focus here is on developmental implications. An example is the 2015 (issue 3/4) special issue on rising power firms, which was edited by Yamin and Sinkovics (2015). The issue argues that although MNCs from emerging markets (i.e. rising powers) have capabilities and strategies that could be development friendly, the realization of developmental effects is challenging. Other papers in cpoib investigating the developmental implications of MNC activity include Seyoum and Manyak (2009), Ado and Su (2016), De Jong (2016), Alamgir and Cairns (2014) and Hollinshead (2017).
Two special issues look at the effects of international business activities on state policies. The special issue entitled “Brazilian corporations, the state and transnational activity” edited by Nölke (2014, issue 4) explores the downsides of close cooperation between the Brazilian state and major Brazilian multinationals for poorer countries near Brazil as well as smaller Brazilian companies, consumers and radical social movements. The special issue entitled “Russia: As solid as a BRIC?” edited by Michailova et al. (2013, issue 1/2) argues that despite many pitfalls and unresolved issues, Russia’s political and institutional transition allows for closer integration of the country with the world economy.
Beyond the macro effects of international business activity on the economic development of developing countries or on state politics, a number of contributions study the effects of international business activities on particular stakeholder groups. In addition to papers published in the above-mentioned postcolonial special issues, a number of articles published in regular issues focus on marginalized stakeholders in developing or emerging economies. These articles examine, for instance, slavery in Congolese coltan mills (Ayres, 2012), a community in Bolivia that resists the privatization and internationalization of the water supply (Otto and Böhm, 2006; Spence and Shenkin, 2008; Molz and Ratiu, 2012), workers and their families in the shipbreaking industry in Bangladesh (Cairns, 2007, 2014, 2017), and victims of fast fashion (Taplin, 2014). In addition, studies of workers and unions, the erosion of their power base through the enhanced mobility of MNCs, and their resistance strategies provide some insights into the effects of international business activities in developed countries. Examples in this regard include research by Lillie and Lucio (2012) and Ietto-Gillies (2007, 2017), as well as papers in the special issue entitled “Globalisation of labour: Countercoordination and unionism on the Internet” edited by Grieco et al. (2005, issue 2/3).
Finally, the impacts of international business activities have also been studied by looking at actors that actively promote IB, such as expatriates, migrating professionals and the globally mobile middle class. These studies focus on problems of identity construction and the hardships of working abroad (Boussebaa and Morgan, 2008; Wagner and Vormbusch, 2010; Kosmala and Xian, 2011; Blazejewski, 2012; McCann, 2013; Moore, 2016; Santamaria Alvarez and Sliwa, 2016; Mielly et al., 2017; Fitzpatrick, 2017 as well as the papers found in the special issue entitled “Critical perspectives on the globally mobile professional and managerial class” edited by McKenna et al. (2015; issue 2).
Financialization and the global financial crisis
A number of papers published in regular issues (McSweeney, 2008; Hudson and Maioli, 2010; Dholakia, 2011) and in two special issues deal with the causes and effects of the influence of financial markets, financial institutions and financial elites in the global economy since 1980 and, in particular, during the 2008 global financial crisis. The special issue entitled “Reflections on a global financial crisis” edited by Cairns and Roberts (2009, issue 1/2) analyses the moral and regulatory failures in the finance industry that led to the global financial crisis. The crisis continues to have strong negative impacts not only on international business activities but also on large stakeholder groups that suffer from austerity policies in many countries. A second special issue entitled “Transnational corporations, socio-economic change and recurrent crisis” edited by Ackroyd and Murphy (2013, issue 4) addresses the impact of the focus on shareholder value on various policies and priorities of large MNCs in such areas as personnel management and organization. Furthermore, it tackles the activities and strategies of a set of new financial institutions, including private equity and hedge funds, as change agents for an economy oriented towards shareholder value.
“Black international business” and corporate social responsibility
The last set of papers making up critical IB research are focussed on “Black IB” and CSR. According to a taxonomy by Cairns and As-Saber (2017), “Black IB” encompasses international business activities that can be considered unethical or illegal or both. The special issue entitled “Critical perspectives on corruption” edited by Brown and Cloke (2011, issue 2) pinpoints supply‐side stimulants as the reason for corrupt practices, such as tax havens, and demonstrates the inappropriateness of internationally accepted anti‐corruption instruments. The special issue entitled “Militarization and international business” edited by Stokes et al. (2007, issue 1) argues that the military and military actions have a “hegemonic, omnipresent and pervasive influence” (Stokes et al., 2007, p. 6) on the strategies and management approaches used by internationally operating firms. Other morally and legally questionable IB practices, as well as outright illegal activities, addressed within the pages of cpoib include consumerism (Kellner, 2005; Arruda Fontenelle, 2010), environmental hazards (Cairns, 2009; Molthan-Hill, 2015; Reis and Guedes, 2017), tax evasion (Sikka and Willmott, 2013) and criminal enterprise (Enderwick, 2009).
In addition to discussing the “dark side” of international business activities, critical IB research is also concerned with the question of CSR in IB. cpoib has published more than 20 papers on CSR in IB, including a special issue on fair trade edited by Gibbon and Sliwa (issue 4, 2012). All of these papers aim to overcome the naïve and unrealistic expectations of CSR and to detect and challenge “greenwashing”. Moreover, a number of contributions go beyond CSR as a win-win situation by discussing how progressive goals such as “emancipation, social justice, ecological balance, community and human development” (Banerjee, 2014, p. 92) can be integrated into MNCs’ activities (Sanders, 2012; Zanfei, 2012; Gibbon and Sliwa, 2012; Banerjee, 2014; Barkemeyer and Figge, 2014; Ahen and Zettinig, 2014; De Graaf, 2016; Ivanova, 2016; Herlin and Solitander, 2017; Omoteso and Yusuf, 2017; Uldam and Krause Hansen, 2017).
In summary, critical IB research can be split into five topical clusters, each with a substantial number of contributions. These contributions are concerned with relevance, context and the effects of international business activities on various stakeholders. This implies a great deal of openness towards methodologies that allow for both deeper and broader insights into the societal phenomena associated with international business activities. Moreover, unlike the majority of mainstream IB contributions, critical IB research does not ignore the adverse effects of international business activities (including corporate moral and legal aberrations) or the uneven power structures and inequality within MNCs, between MNCs and various stakeholders, and in the global economy. As such, critical IB contributions serve as a strong complement to mainstream IB research. In the remainder of this paper, a citation analysis helps to uncover the extent to which these particular themes and the issues of uneven power structures and inequalities have been recognized in the mainstream IB field.
The marginal recognition of critical international business issues in mainstream international business research: a citation analysis
Given the differences between critical and mainstream IB research in terms of core topics and approaches, a key question is whether critical IB issues are recognized by and have an impact on mainstream IB research. To better elucidate the relationship between the critical and mainstream IB streams of literature, the authors undertook a citation analysis covering the years from 2005 (the year in which cpoib was inaugurated) to 2017[3].
This section starts with a presentation of citation data for leading IB journals, including cpoib. Thereafter, a comparative analysis of the extent to which cpoib and other IB journals are recognized by mainstream IB research is presented before the discussion turns to an analysis of the citations of papers published in cpoib.
Table II provides some metrics for the leading “general purpose IB journals” – peer-reviewed IB journals with a stated mission of covering a broad range of IB-related topics from different disciplinary, interdisciplinary and methodological perspectives. The ranking, which shows high consistency across the different journal-quality indicators, is based on information from Scimago (www.scimagojr.com/index.php) , which is powered by citation data from Scopus, one of three globally leading citation databases (next to Google Scholar and Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, formerly Thomson Reuters' Web of Science).
Table II reveals that cpoib is the second youngest general-purpose IB journal in the ranking. It tripled its impact factor from 2006-2008 to 2014-2016, such that it caught up to a number of older journals in the field, such as the Multinational Business Review and Thunderbird International Business Review. According to the Journal Impact Factor™ for 2014-2016, cpoib also moved closer to Management International Review, which ranked fifth in the top ten.
The Scopus data indicate that relatively little of the increase in cpoib’s impact factor is owing to recognition by mainstream IB journals (see Table III). Only 7.1 per cent of the cumulated citations of the 274 cpoib articles published between 2005 and 2017 came from the nine other general-purpose IB journals (i.e. journals with mission statement indicating that they are mainstream journals). This percentage is lower (in some cases, far lower) than the corresponding figure for any of the other nine mainstream IB journals. The relative lack of recognition of cpoib in the mainstream IB literature becomes even more pronounced if self-citations of the mainstream IB journals are included. In this case, mainstream IB journals, such as MBR or MIR, have a proportion of mainstream citations that is three times higher than for cpoib. On average, the nine mainstream general-purpose IB journals listed in Table III have two times more citations (14.5 per cent) from mainstream IB journals than cpoib (7.1 per cent). A look at those IB journals that get a particular high recognition by mainstream IB journals (MBR, MIR, TIBR, JIM and EJIM) reveals that neither the position in the ranking of IB journals, nor the reputation of the publishing house, nor the question of whether the journal is considered European or North American based (in terms of the national affiliation of editor/s-in-chief) can explain the relative ignorance of cpoib papers. The most likely explanation for mainstream IB’s relative aversion to citing cpoib papers is that, in contrast to mainstream IB journals, cpoib has a political message.
The remainder of this citation analysis is based on the most encompassing sample of cpoib citations. In line with Harzing and van der Wal’s (2008) general assumption this is Google Scholar (see Table IV).
A detailed analysis of the sub-disciplines and types of outlets citing cpoib papers is given in Table V.
The data show that cpoib papers are most often recognized in general management, organization/organizational behaviour, and business ethics outlets. However, cpoib’s recognition by mainstream IB outlets ranks only fourth, which supports the argument of relatively weak recognition. While general management is a broad category that draws on cpoib content in various ways (e.g. by describing the global business environment), one can assume that the recognition in organization/organizational behaviour and business ethics outlets is largely because of the discussions of the structural imbalances in the world economy and of the morally and legally inappropriate activities of MNCs (including their effects on stakeholders) found in cpoib. This content seems to be of no or little interest in mainstream IB research, which typically takes an indifferent or positive view of MNCs and the global economy.
To analyse which authors cite cpoib in mainstream IB publications, the analysis was restricted to articles in mainstream IB journals that had cited cpoib papers according to Google Scholar[4]. The analysis of citations of cpoib in mainstream IB journals nurtures the thesis of weak recognition of cpoib content by mainstream IB authors, as a considerable proportion (27.7 per cent) of mainstream papers that cite cpoib papers were (co-)authored by scholars with a close relationship to cpoib as either members of the Editorial Team (14.9 per cent) or the Editorial Advisory Board (1 per cent), or authors of research published in cpoib (11.8 per cent)[5]. Notably, 60.8 per cent of authors citing cpoib had reached a mature career status (i.e. full professor, chair or associate professor), whereas one third were early in their careers[6]. A similar pattern was evident when analysing the ranking of the mainstream IB journals citing cpoib papers[7]. Based on the ratings of the Academic Journal Guide 2018 of the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS), two thirds (66.3 per cent) of articles citing cpoib papers were from journals with at least the same rank as cpoib (rating 2; 7.9 per cent) or a higher rank (ratings 3, 4 and 4*; 58.4 per cent).
A content-based analysis using Taskin and Al’s (2018) approach also supports the thesis that mainstream IB has thus far only marginally reacted to the political stance critical IB papers take on the nature of IB. In total, mainstream IB journals cited 61 different cpoib articles. An examination of the top five cpoib articles cited in mainstream IB journals (see Table VI) shows that mainstream IB research most often cites cpoib papers that address technological change and changes within MNCs. None of the more politically critical cpoib papers (i.e. those that adopt a postcolonial perspective or deal with the financial and economic crisis) that figure prominently in the top five cpoib papers cited overall (Table VI, first column) made it into the top five papers cited in the mainstream IB literature. Similar results are found when enlarging the ranking to the top 10 (only one paper on the financial crisis is among the top 10 cpoib papers cited by mainstream IB research).
Altogether, the 61 cpoib papers were cited 223 times in the mainstream IB journals. On average, each cpoib article was cited 3.7 times (including citations in different mainstream IB articles and multiple citations in individual articles). The 223 in-text citations were distributed among the different sections of the citing articles as follows: introduction – 57, literature review – 79, concept and methodology – 31, empirical study – 42, conclusion – 14. The relatively high number of citations in the introduction section in combination with the low number of citations in the concluding section suggests that cpoib papers are used in the mainstream IB literature for idea-generation purposes but not for deep discussion. The in-text citations were almost exclusively neutral (212 citations), with only one negative citation and ten positive citations. This further supports the thesis that the politically critical content of cpoib is generally ignored rather than debated or countered in mainstream IB journals. Moreover, few mainstream IB articles make intense use of cpoib articles. Only 13 mainstream IB articles had four or more in-text citations of cpoib articles (accounting for 100 of the 223 in-text citations). Notably, 7 of these articles were co-authored by cpoib authors or members of the cpoib editorial team who cited their own cpoib publications. The remaining six articles were on intra-organizational issues, such as headquarters-subsidiary relationships, organizational learning and language. Only one mainstream IB article cited two cpoib papers on the global financial crisis, and then only for definitional reasons, such that the citations had no implications for the article’s remaining content.
Critical international business and moving towards a more societally engaged international business field
The evidence suggests that critical IB research published in cpoib has rarely been recognized by the mainstream IB literature. For sure, academic recognition requires time. This challenge is made more difficult by the fact that a number of academic systems discourage their researchers from publishing in newer and, hence, lower-ranked academic journals such as cpoib. This is particularly true for younger IB scholars. Unlike in other disciplines, career advancement in IB is often strictly associated with publishing in higher-ranked journals, which creates an incentive to focus on mainstream topics. In this regard, most citations of cpoib papers found in mainstream IB papers are made by authors with advanced career status. Moreover, the flow of critical IB papers has not always been steady, and several necessary inward-looking discussions of critical IB in comparison to the mainstream in the public domain and among the cpoib editorial team have taken place. Today, 15 years after cpoib was established, a higher level of self-understanding of critical IB research has been achieved by the academic community that the journal serves.
While cpoib has only been marginally recognized by mainstream IB thus far, its contributions have been more fully recognized and used in other academic fields, such as general management, organization studies and business ethics. This recognition might be owing to the broader range of politically critical thought found in these disciplines. The political approaches adopted by many of cpoib’s authors do not fit comfortably with mainstream IB, where power imbalances are an anathema, while a one-sided positive view of the field’s main study object, the MNC, prevails.
Looking at the ways forward for critical IB, two questions seem of particular relevance. First, how can critical IB become an integral part of more inclusive, societally engaged IB research? In this regard, it is necessary to take a closer look at the different fractions in the mainstream IB research, especially those mainstream authors who criticize IB (hereafter called “mainstream critics”). Second, how can critical IB research become a supplier of progressive alternatives to pressing real-world problems associated with international business? In this regard, this paper draws on the debate over “critical performativity” that is currently underway in the field of critical management studies.
Making critical international business an integral part of more inclusive, societally engaged international business research
Gaining recognition in mainstream IB research is key, as doing so would mean that the concerns of critical IB are discussed with those who account for most of the knowledge production in the field. However, as the above citation analysis demonstrates, merely providing critical content is not enough to initiate a debate or broaden the scope of IB. One starting point could be to actively link up to those who have criticized IB from within. In the late 1990s, several renowned IB scholars (Sullivan, 1998a; Toyne and Nigh, 1998; Buckley, 2002) called for changes in the IB agenda, unleashing a debate within mainstream IB outlets about the “future of IB”. In this ongoing debate, mainstream critics have raised three major criticisms:
the fact that particular IB themes have been omitted from the mainstream IB agenda;
the focus on quantitative studies and the lack of interdisciplinary research within the field; and
the emphasis on performance studies at the expense of research on questions rooted in societally relevant problems and challenges.
Omitted topics in international business.
Toyne and Nigh (1997, 1998) were the first to initiate the debate over the future of IB when they called for a vision of a more expansive view of the field. Buckley (2002) followed with a call to define the “big question” in IB. In these and subsequent discussions, mainstream scholars have pointed to the fact that although an interest in critical issues was originally present, it vanished over time (Buckley and Lessard, 2005; Doh, 2017; Kolk, 2016; Caves, 1998; Sullivan, 1998a). Buckley and Lessard (2005) found that at the time of the IB field’s establishment in the 1960s, the focus was not only on issues such as trade and FDI but also on critical aspects of MNCs’ power, such as the formation of cartels (Caves, 1998). Similarly, Doh (2017) argued that IB originally focussed on tackling real-world problems, such as policies towards MNCs, trade agreements, and environmental and developmental issues. However, over time, the discipline’s focus changed to the MNC as the focal actor. As such, it turned toward managerial issues, emerging markets and firms as networks – developments that largely excluded the analysis of societal consequences.
This decline in the investigation of critical issues has led to a neglect of the consequences and outcomes of IB operations. Shenkar (2004), for instance, argued that while there is a wide range of literature on expatriation, little is known about the effects of expatriate management on the local labour force, which makes up the bulk of MNC employment. Kolk (2016) reported a lack of attention paid to poverty issues when investigating FDI. Likewise, Delios (2017) found that the emphasis on emerging markets and emerging-market multinationals had detracted attention from developing markets. Buckley et al. (2017) and Delios (2017) confirmed the consequences of emphasizing the MNC as the actor of interest in IB investigations, and pointed to the lack of interest in NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and SMOs (social movement organizations). The recent development of anti-globalization following the global financial crisis caused Meyer (2017) to highlight IB scholars’ lack of interest in inequality and other negative aspects of globalization. In general, IB scholars have focussed on the “winners” (i.e. the MNCs) of internationalization efforts but have paid little attention to the “losers” of, for example, outsourcing strategies. Similarly, Caves (1998) pointed out a bias in IB research, which tends to focus on successful firms and successful outcomes of international business. More specifically, surveys typically ignore firms that failed even though they might have adopted the same IB strategies as successful firms. Furthermore, the effects associated with the disappearance of these companies have been omitted from analyses.
Methodological shortcomings.
Early on in the debate about the future of IB, mainstream critics challenged IB research on methodological grounds. As early as 1998, Sullivan claimed that IB had narrowed its perspective, as the underlying models used for investigations of IB-related phenomena had become simpler over time – they contained fewer elements and fewer relationships between elements, leading to less complex surveys overall. In addition, he maintained that the IB literature seemed to be static rather than dynamic, as the questions addressed, the methodologies used, and the findings changed very little over time.
Furthermore, some authors have claimed that while findings are often technically impressive and statistically significant, they are not innovative and, therefore, fail to more profoundly challenge the state of the art in IB. According to Devinney et al. (2010) and Delios (2017), quantitative studies in IB that strive for high p-levels and sophistication in statistical instruments sometimes examine rather simple or even trivial questions for the sake of testing hypotheses in large samples. This has led to an inability to change the IB agenda, which has focussed on analysing MNCs, FDI and internationalization since the 1960s. Overall, Delios (2017) found a lack of focus on the host-country context and that institutional analysis was too instrumental with a high level of abstraction. This, according to Delios (2017), led to a lack of understanding of the effects of international business activities on people’s life. Similarly, a number of authors (i.e. Oesterle and Laudien, 2007; Schmid and Oesterle, 2009; Henisz, 2011) have argued that the focus on financial and economic questions (usually addressed using quantitative approaches) rather than on questions amenable to qualitative research designs leads to reduced relevance and weak links to policy and practice.
Mainstream critics have also criticized the absence of interdisciplinary analyses (Toyne and Nigh, 1998; Sullivan, 1998b; Cheng et al., 2009; Doh, 2017; Henisz, 2011; Buckley et al., 2017). For instance, Toyne and Nigh (1998) highlight the lack of “thoughtful” borrowing from other disciplines. This narrowing perspective led Sullivan (1998b) to state that IB research is trapped in an end-game in which it explains less and less of the changing world. IB research has therefore been invited to engage with other disciplines, such as anthropology, history, political economy, sociology, biology, geology and ecology (Toyne and Nigh, 1998) as well as social and clinical psychology, ethnography, ethnology, cognitive science and neuroscience (Cheng et al., 2009). Finally, Toyne and Nigh (1998) proposed that IB research should be carried out by a consortia of researchers from different countries, with each adding their respective tacit knowledge on their home country’s societal processes. In line with these early calls, Doh (2017) claimed that all IB research should be enriched by a thorough analysis of the local context that draws on such disciplines as anthropology and ethnology.
Performance at the expense of societal relevance.
In response to Buckley’s (2002) seminal request for “one big IB question”, Peng (2003) suggested that this question should address the drivers of good performance. Peng’s (2003) ambition was to bring evidence into IB analyses and to highlight that IB is a subfield of business administration. However, mainstream critics countered his demand for an exclusive focus on drivers of good performance. Shenkar (2004) argued that firm performance studies often inherently exclude environmental variables and, consequently, neglect the context (see also Michailova, 2011). More generally, a number of mainstream critics refused such a narrow focus, and called for IB to take a wider perspective that does not omit critical elements or the consequences of MNCs’ activities. For instance, Cheng et al. (2009) claimed that IB research needs to address challenges, such as migration, climate change and inequality. Similarly, Doh (2017) called for a stronger connection between IB academia and the real world, suggesting that IB researchers should address relevant phenomena instead of indulging in abstract theories and sophisticated methodologies. Along similar lines, Buckley et al. (2017) saw the future of IB in making sense of and developing practical knowledge on society’s grand challenges – complex problems that are international, interdisciplinary, multi-level and multi-stakeholder in nature, such as income inequality, resource scarcity, protectionism, gender inequality and tax avoidance.
In conclusion, in two decades of calls for a changed agenda in IB studies, mainstream critics have outlined a neglect of central and, in many cases, politically critical issues, which has reduced the relevance of the IB discipline. Furthermore, researchers have argued that the methods being used have restricted perspectives, approaches and research designs, which has essentially led to a lock-in of the traditional IB agenda that does not allow for curiosity or the inclusion of other (non-) business disciplines. Finally, mainstream critics have bemoaned the facts that IB research has favoured evidence-based performance studies and is often positivistic at the expense of deeper investigations into the international business context and societally relevant questions.
A comparison of the calls of mainstream critics with this analysis of critical IB research shows considerable overlap between what authors call for when discussing the future of IB and what critical IB research represents. The fact that none of the mainstream critics have cited work in cpoib that firmly matches their calls is puzzling. Nevertheless, opportunities can be uncovered by taking their calls seriously and starting a conversation with authors who are more firmly anchored in mainstream IB research. While such a conversation will make differences clear, proponents of critical IB research would be ill advised to abandon the fundamentals of critical IB, such as its sensitivity to uneven power structures, its naming and analysing of MNCs’ moral and legal aberrations, and its preference for research that gives full credit to the local context (e.g. by promoting local authors). Moreover, how mainstream critics’ calls for a changed IB agenda will materialize in actual research remains to be seen. While mainstream critics have repeatedly called for a change in the IB agenda, it is only very recently that a few articles addressing critical issues have appeared in mainstream IB newsletters (Doh, 2017; Child, 2018; Michailova and Stinger, 2018, in AIB Insights as well as Svetličič (2018), in EIBAzine). These newsletters may be the forerunners of an emerging debate in mainstream IB journals on critical issues or singular occurrences.
Moreover, certain pleas from mainstream critics might not be in line with critical IB research. For instance, the call for a stronger interdisciplinary approach to practical problems faced by MNCs (as stipulated by Cheng et al., 2009) might motivate collaboration between IB and communication studies to help MNCs overcome legitimacy problems in the face of scandals without addressing the root causes of those scandals. There is also a danger that investigations into pressing societal challenges might become unilateral performance studies. For instance, issues of gender equality and diversity management might turn into studies of “[h]ow […] the MNC [can] exploit the diversity of its workforce” (as proposed by Cheng et al., 2009, p. 1072). Similarly, Kolk (2016) reports that insights into subsidiaries operating in conflict/war zones have recently been offered, but again with a focus on efficient operations rather than whether the existence of foreign companies furthers or limits these conflicts.
Such reservations should not prevent cooperation. Instead, they should stimulate a discussion between mainstream critics and promotors of critical IB research aimed at agreeing on the building blocks of a renewed, societally engaged IB agenda, ways to overcome inertia in mainstream IB research, and methods of translating a renewed agenda into specific research projects and publications.
Developing critical performativity: offering progressive alternatives to pressing real-world problems
While trying to make critical IB research an integral part of a more inclusive IB field should increase the level of discussion of critical IB content in academia, critical IB research remains responsible for working on progressive alternatives to pressing real-world problems. This relates to the ongoing debate among critical management scholars on critical performativity. According to Spicer et al. (2009, 2016), critical management studies have shown major deficiencies in the past by initially studying every phenomenon with the aim of confirming a Marxist view and later interpreting the focal phenomenon through the lenses of exotic theories with no or little effect outside the academic trade. To overcome this critique and ensure relevance, Spicer et al. (2016) urge critical management scholars to engage in a four-step approach:
Select issues of concern to the broader public.
Use dialectical reasoning rather than orthodoxy.
Engage with the wider public and build movements.
Work on and introduce progressive alternatives.
While cpoib rarely indulged in orthodox Marxist and poststructuralist re-readings of the world, there is clearly more room to work on progressive alternatives to issues of crucial concern to the world, groups of countries or stakeholders. In the past, cpoib has published a number of lists covering such issues (for the most recent list, see Roberts and Dörrenbächer, 2016). In addition, the UN Agenda for Sustainable Development and, in particular, the 17 SDGs adopted by UN member states in 2015 offer a framework in which IB scholars could use their expertise to contribute progressive alternatives.
Such research might deviate from what has been considered “normal” in IB, as it would be motivated by societal needs rather than a gap in the extant literature (which is absent for many societally relevant questions; see also the contributions in this programmatic issue). Moreover, the knowledge created might go beyond evidence-based professional knowledge produced for fellow academics and it could be applied to the needs of various civil society actors challenged by pressing problems. Last but not least, such research might produce controversial knowledge or insights into systemic malformations. As such, it might be able to unleash public debates on societally relevant issues, unlike much of the “harmless” IB research carried out to date. It probably remains wishful thinking that mainstream IB outlets would publish such research, for which Ayres (2012) and Taplin (2014) might be an inspiration. For cpoib, however, it should be a duty to develop suitable formats and quality criteria that facilitate the publication of such research.
Notes
1.As cpoib is the only IB journal with a politically critical mission, and as the number of monographs and book chapters with a critical IB content is low (see Table V), this approach should serve to accurately cover the overall development of the critical IB field.
2.Westwood (2006) is the cpoib paper with the highest number of citations in Google Scholar. Westwood and Jack (2007) ranks fifth. See Table 6 for more information.
3.The authors gratefully acknowledge support by Julia Tennert (Berlin School of Economics and Law) and Hayley Coulson (Emerald) in the process of gathering and evaluating citation data.
4.The analysis is based on 101 different mainstream IB journal articles citing cpoib articles. The difference between this figure and the 141 journal articles retrieved from Google Scholar (see Table 5) is explained as follows: 31 articles were excluded because they occurred two or more times, 5 articles did not cite cpoib papers, 3 papers only listed cpoib articles in the bibliography but did not cite in the text and 1 article was not available as full text.
5.Each of the 101 mainstream IB journal articles citing cpoib articles was only counted once. In cases of multiple affiliations of citing authors to the three groups distinguished here, the citation was attributed to the group with the closet relationship to cpoib, with editorial team membership representing the closest relationship followed by editorial advisory board membership and authorship.
6.The 101 mainstream IB journal articles citing cpoib articles had a total of 254 authors (227 different authors). For ten authors, it was impossible to trace the career stage as of the year of publication. Of the remaining 217 authors, 97 were full professors or chairs; 35 were associate professors; 67 were assistant professors, lecturers or researchers; and 18 were PhD students.
7.Available at: https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2018/ (accessed 1 February 2019).
cpoib special issues and guest editors, 2005-2017
| Year | Vol: issue/s | Special issue title | Special issue guest editor/s |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 1:2/3 | The globalisation of labour: counter coordination and unionism on the Internet | Margaret Grieco, John Hogan, Miguel Martinez Lucio |
| 2006 | 2:2 | Critical perspectives on international business: “What does it mean to be critical in relation to international business?” | Adrian Carr |
| 2006 | 2:3 | Developing approaches to critical management studies in the Netherlands | Hugo Letiche, Ruud Kaulingfreks, Robert van Boeschoten |
| 2007 | 3:1 | Militarization and international business | Peter Stokes, Ryan Bishop, John Phillips |
| 2007 | 3:4 | The internet and its paradoxical nature in international business | Rudolf R. Sinkovics, Mo Yamin |
| 2008 | 4:2/3 | Critical reflections on management and organization: A Postcolonial Perspective | Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee, Anshuman Prasad |
| 2009 | 5:1/2 | Reflections on a global financial crisis | George Cairns, Joanne Roberts |
| 2010 | 6:2/3 | Critical international management and international critical management: perspectives from Latin America | Eduardo Ibarra-Colado, Alex Faria, Ana Lucia Guedes |
| 2011 | 7:2 | Critical perspectives on corruption | Ed Brown, Jonathan Cloke |
| 2012 | 8:4 | Critical perspectives on fair trade | Jane Gibbon, Martyna Sliwa |
| 2013 | 9:1/2 | Russia: as solid as a BRIC? | Snejina Michailova, Daniel J. McCarthy, Sheila M. Puffer |
| 2013 | 9:4 | Transnational corporations, socioeconomic change and recurrent crisis | Stephen Ackroyd, Jonathan Murphy |
| 2014 | 10:1/2 | Challenging the orthodox: a decade of critical perspectives on international business (10th anniversary issue) | Joanne Roberts, Christoph Dörrenbächer |
| 2014 | 10:4 | Brazilian corporations, the state and transnational activity | Andreas Nölke |
| 2015 | 11:2 | Critical perspectives on the globally mobile professional and managerial class | Steve McKenna , M.N. Ravishankar, David Weir |
| 2015 | 11:3/4 | Rising power firms – the developmental promises and challenges | Mo Yamin, Rudolf R Sinkovics |
| 2016 | 12:3 | Voices at/from the margins | Ajnesh Prasad, Gabrielle Durepos |
Source: cpoib volume list, www.emeraldinsight.com/loi/cpoib (accessed 29 August 2018)
Top ten general-purpose IB journals (ranked by average impact factor 2014-2016)
| Journal | Founding year | H-indexa |
Average impact factor b |
Average impact factorb 2014-2016 | Growth factor 2006-2008 to 2014-2016 | SJRc |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS) | 1970 | 148 | 4.257 | 4.949 | 1.2 | 4.848 | |
| Journal of World Business (JWB) | 1965 | 80 | 1.925 | 4.094 | 2.1 | 1.974 | |
| Journal of International Management (JIM) | 1995 | 53 | 1.196 | 2.913 | 2.4 | 1.849 | |
| International Business Review (IBR) | 1992 | 69 | 2.001 | 2.820 | 1.4 | 1.193 | |
| Management International Review (MIR) | 1960 | 37 | 1.267 | 1.709 | 1.3 | 0.844 | |
| Thunderbird International Business Review (TIBR) | 1959 | 23 | 0.705 | 1.110 | 1.6 | 0.925 | |
| critical perspectives on international business (cpoib) | 2005 | 18 | 0.331 | 1.014 | 3.1 | 0.528 | |
| Multinational Business Review (MBR) | 1992 | 11 | 0.091 | 0.709 | 7.8 | 0.411 | |
| International Studies of Management and Organizationd (ISMO) | 1971 | 11 | n.a. | 0.693 | n.a. | 0.203 | |
| European Journal of International Managemente (EJIM) | 2007 | 13 | n.a. | 0.691 | n.a. | 0.407 | |
aThe H-index expresses the number of articles (H) in that journal that have received at least H citations;
bAccording to the Journal Impact Factor™ in the Thomson Reuters metric. In this metric, the Journal Impact Factor is defined as all citations to the journal in the current year to items published in the previous two years, divided by the total number of scholarly items (articles, reviews and proceedings papers) published in the journal in the previous two years. An average of three current years of this indicator was used to even out strong yearly fluctuations;
cSJR is a measure of the scientific influence of journals. It accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals in which such citations are found. It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal and expresses the extent to which an average article in that journal is central to the global scientific discussion;
dData have only been available since 2010;
edata have only been available since 2008
Source: Scimago (accessed 14 March 2018)
IB Journals and their recognition by mainstream IB journals (according to Scopus, sorted by percentage of citations journals receive from mainstream IB journals)
| Journal (publishing house, national affiliation of editor/s-in-chief) | No. of docsa |
Total no. of citat. received | No. and % of self- citations | No. of citat. in cpoib | No. and % of citations in mainstream IB journalsb (excluding self-citations)c | No. and % of citations in mainstream IB journals (including self- citations)d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MBR (Emerald; Canada) | 263 | 976 | 94 (9.6%) | 5 | 155 (17.7%) | 249 (25.6%) |
| MIR (Springer; Germany) | 418 | 5,188 | 223 (4.3%) | 29 | 915 (18.5%) | 1,138 (22.1%) |
| TIBR (Wiley; USA) | 532 | 2,359 | 186 (7.9%) | 10 | 232 (8.3%) | 418 (17.8%) |
| JIM (Elsevier; USA) | 347 | 5,403 | 201 (3.7%) | 27 | 725 (14.0%) | 926 (17.2%) |
| EJIM (Inderscience; N) | 336 | 1,373 | 88 (6.4%) | 8 | 121 (9.5%) | 209 (15.3%) |
| IBR (Elsevier; UK) | 848 | 9,670 | 625 (6.4%) | 31 | 783 (8.8%) | 1,408 (14.6%) |
| JWB (Elsevier; Ireland/USA) | 616 | 11,524 | 411 (3.5%) | 33 | 1,063 (9.6%) | 1,474 (12.8%) |
| JIBS (Palgrave; Canada) | 789 | 20,328 | 583 (2.9%) | 58 | 1,858 (9.4%) | 2,441 (12.0%) |
| ISMO (Taylor and Francis; USA) | 178 | 707 | 5 (0.7%) | 3 | 66 (9.4%) | 71 (10.1%) |
| cpoib (Emerald; Germany/New Zealand) | 274 | 1,213 | 101 (8.3%) | 101 | 79 (7.1%) | Not applicable |
Notes:aDocs = articles and reviews;
bmainstream IB journals = EJIM, IBR, TIBR, MIR, JIBS, JWB, JIM, MBR, ISMO
cCalculated as follows – number of citations received by mainstream IB journals without self-citations as % of the total number of citations received minus self-citations minus citations in cpoib;
dcalculated as follows – number of citations received by mainstream IB journals including self-citations as % of the total number of citations received minus citations in cpoib
Source: Scopus (accessed March 16, 2018)
Information availability on cpoib citation data
| Source | Citable docs | Total citations | Years covered | Citation per year | Citation per doc | H-index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Web of science | 63 | 49 | 2015-2017 | 16 | 0.78 | 4 |
| Scopus | 274 | 1,213 | 2005-2017 | 93 | 4.4 | 18 |
| Google Scholara | 255 | 3,822 | 2005-2017 | 294 | 15.0 | 34 |
Notes:aFor Google Scholar, the number of citable papers was limited to academic articles by comparing the individual tables of content of each issue with Google Scholar data to exclude secondary articles, such as short editorials and calls for papers and commentaries about awards. This explains the lower number of citable papers in Google Scholar. When concentrating on articles only in Scopus, the number of citable papers was 236 and the number of citations was 1,122
Source: Google Scholar (accessed 29 January 2018), Scopus (accessed 16 March 2018), Web of Science (accessed 16 March 2018)
Citations of cpoib papers by subject area and publication type (base 255 academic papers published in cpoib between 2005 and 2017; citation source: Google Scholar)
| Subject area | Journal articles citing cpoib papers | Book chapters citing cpoib papers | Monographs citing cpoib papers | All publications (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Business and management | 1,135 (48.4%) | 369 (15.7%) | 100 (4.3%) | 1,604 (68.3%) |
| General management (incl strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, sector studies) | 342 | 34 | 11 | 387 (16.5%) |
| Organization studies/organization behaviour | 190 | 70 | 8 | 268 (11.4%) |
| Business ethics (incl CSR, crime/corruption, sustainability) | 129 | 57 | 8 | 194 (8.3%) |
| International businessa | 141 | 23 | 4 | 168 (7.2%) |
| HRM/IR | 85 | 34 | 18 | 137 (5.8%) |
| Critical management studiesb | 15 | 83 | 25 | 123 (5.2%) |
| Area studies | 73 | 30 | 5 | 108 (4.6%) |
| Finance and accounting | 68 | 10 | 11 | 89 (3.8%) |
| Culture studies | 41 | 22 | 10 | 73 (3.1%) |
| Marketing | 51 | 6 | 0 | 57 (2.4%) |
| Other subject areas | 380 (16.2%) | 49 (2.1%) | 27 (1.2%) | 456 (19.4%) |
| Economics | 104 | 14 | 6 | 124 (5.3%) |
| Sociology, political science, psychology | 88 | 8 | 8 | 104 (4.4%) |
| Geography | 55 | 7 | 6 | 68 (2.8%) |
| Other (e.g. education, health, law, language studies) | 133 | 20 | 7 | 160 (6.8%) |
| cpoib self-citations | 287 (12.2%) | – | – | 287 (12.2%) |
| Total citations classified | 1,802 (76.8%) | 418 (17.8%) | 127 (5.4%) | 2,347 (100.0%) |
| Citations in other sourcesc | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 447 |
| Citations missing a “source” in Google Scholar | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 1,028 |
| Total citations | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 3,822 |
Notes:n.a. = not available; – = not applicable;
aOnly citations in mainstream sources (i.e. excluding citations in cpoib as well as in a critical IB monographs and book chapters);
bexcluding Critical Perspectives on Accounting;
csearch reports, research gate and similar paper repositories, academic portals, calls for papers, descriptions of research projects, author and institution websites, student papers, etc.
Source: Google scholar (accessed 29 January 2018)
Top five and top 10 cpoib papers cited in mainstream IB journals and overall
| Top five/top ten cpoib papers cited overall (all types of publications, all subjects) | Top five/top ten cpoib papers cited in mainstream IB journal articles | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Westwood (2006) International business and management studies as an orientalist discourse: a postcolonial critique | 113a | Sinkovics and Yamin (2007). ICT and MNE reorganisation: The paradox of control | 16a |
| Forsgren and Hagström (2007) Ignorant and impatient internationalization? The Uppsala model and internationalization patterns for Internet-related firms | 96 | Forsgren and Hagström (2007). Ignorant and impatient internationalization? The Uppsala model and internationalization patterns for internet-related firms | 11 |
| Banerjee and Prasad (2008) Introduction to the special issue on “Critical reflections on management ad organizations: a postcolonial perspective” | 96 | Dörrenbächer and Gammelgaard (2011) Subsidiary power in multinational corporations: the subtle role of micro-political bargaining power | 7 |
| Kallis et al. (2009) Paper assets, real debts: An ecological-economic exploration of the global economic crisis | 95 | Boussebaa and Morgan (2008). Managing talent across national borders: The challenges faced by an international retail group | 6 |
| Westwood and Jack (2007) Manifesto for a post-colonial international business and management studies: A provocation | 91 | Jean (2007). The ambiguous relationship of ICT and organizational performance: A literature review | 5 |
| Aula and Tienari (2011) Becoming “world-class”? Reputation-building in a university merger | 87 | Blenkinsopp and Shademann-Pajouh (2010) `Lost in translation? Culture, language and the role of the translator in international business | 4 |
| Dörrenbächer and Gammelgaard (2011) Subsidiary power in multinational corporations: the subtle role of micro-political bargaining power | 77 | Becker‐Ritterspach et al. (2010). Learning in multinational enterprises as the socially embedded translation of practices | 3 |
| Sinkovics and Yamin (2007) ICT and MNE reorganisation: The paradox of control | 68 | Ben Hamida (2011) “FDI and spillovers in the Swiss service/construction industry: interaction effects between spillover mechanisms and domestic technological characteristics” | 3 |
| Riaz (2009) The global financial crisis: an institutional theory analysis | 67 | Cheung (2008). Let the “other” speak for itself. Understanding Chinese employees from their own perspectives. | 3 |
| Bjerregaard et al. (2009) A critical analysis of intercultural communication research in cross-cultural management: Introducing newer developments in anthropology | 65 | Riaz (2009). The global financial crisis: An institutional theory analysis | 3 |
Note:aNumber of publications/journal articles that cite the cpoib paper
Source: Google Scholar
© Emerald Publishing Limited 2019