Globalization: An Overview of Its Main Characteristics and Types, and an Exploration of Its Impacts on Individuals, Firms, and Nations

Abstract

This paper presents a review of globalization by examining its main characteristics, types, and the advantages and disadvantages associated with each type with regard to people, firms, and nations. It synthesizes the literature and provides a structured analysis of the multifaceted impacts of globalization. The review combines the theoretical constructs of globalization characteristics and types, with empirical observations of the contributions and challenges of each type of globalization—based on multiple levels of an analysis—including micro, meso, and macro. Each type of globalization is analyzed to identify how it contributes to economic growth, cultural exchange, political cooperation, technological advancement, and environmental collaboration, while also presenting significant challenges, such as inequality, cultural homogenization, political dependency, digital divide, and ecological degradation. Understanding the multidimensional nature of globalization allows policymakers, business leaders, and individuals to navigate its complexities more effectively, while recognizing both the opportunities and risks. Although much of the literature examined globalization through a single lens, this paper offers an integrative and comparative perspective across the various dimensions. By categorizing the impacts into various levels according to type, it contributes to a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of globalization.

1. Introduction

Globalization refers to the integration between the world’s nations, markets, and social and political systems (Chase-Dunn et al., 2000; Rugman & Verbeke, 2004; Verbeke et al., 2018). It links distant locations in such a way that events in one place may affect or become affected by events in other locations around the world (Giddens, 1990). Globalization involves the “widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide connectedness” (Held et al., 1999, p. 2). The phrases “global village” (McLuhan, 1962) and “compression of the world” (Robertson, 1992) are often used to reflect the interconnected nature of modern life, where technologies such as digital media and the internet allow people to communicate and share information instantaneously, like members of a small close-knit community.

Globalization is a process that can be slowed down or even reversed, with deglobalization representing the opposite end of the spectrum. Deglobalization refers to “the weakening interdependence among nations” (Witt, 2019). Throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, globalization experienced significant growth, with rapid rises in international growth and regional agreements (Anderson & Obeng, 2020). However, the failure to address its multiple dimensions and challenges has fueled political backlash and led to an opposite turn towards protectionism and nationalism (Rodrik, 2018; Stiglitz, 2018).

Proponents of globalization argue that trade and liberalization benefit society in various ways. One argument for globalization suggests its trickle-down impact, where the gains move from the wealthiest to the least wealthy, leading to greater overall prosperity for all (Dollar & Kraay, 2004). Proponents also suggest that globalization can lead to improvements in the host economies’ optimal allocation of scarce resources, absolute and comparative advantage (P. S. Machado, 2025; Salvatore, 2004), and factor productivity and positive externalities (Borensztein et al., 1998; G. M. Grossman & Helpman, 1991). Critics of globalization point at the erosion of local culture and identity through cultural homogenization (Janssen et al., 2008) and argue for the need to maintain control over critical technologies and knowledge within nations to maintain global competitiveness and national security (Bellanova et al., 2022; Calderaro & Blumfelde, 2022; Crespi et al., 2021; Edler et al., 2023; Fontes et al., 2022). In addition, they suggest that globalization contributes to rising income inequality within nations (Baek & Shi, 2016) and increases environmental deterioration (Balsalobre-Lorente et al., 2020). According to McCann (2018, p. 123), “free trade encourages wealth generation and technological innovation, but free competition and open borders also expose people, firms, and governments to uncertainty and poverty”.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the characteristics and types of globalization from the literature and evaluate the positives and negatives of each type according to three levels: nations, firms, and people. This study aims to answer the following main questions: what are the main characteristics and types of globalization? What are the impacts of each type of globalization (economic, cultural, political, technological, environmental) on nations, firms, and people? By structuring the analysis in three levels, we present a novel categorization to highlight globalization’s multidimensional effects according to each type. Overall, this paper presents a description of its characteristics, types, and impacts.

2. Main Characteristics

Globalization is characterized by the level of interconnectedness, integration, speed, and scope, among the different economies, cultures, political systems, technologies, and environments (types). Interconnectedness refers to the strength, variety, and interdependence of the network of relationships and interactions that link people, places, and nations around the world (Giddens, 1990). Giddens (1990) describes it as the “intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away”. Integration, on the other hand, refers to the process in which isolated people, firms, and nations come together to form a more unified or interdependent global system (Gilpin, 2001; Harris, 1995; Keohane, 2002). According to Harris (1995), globalization is the “integration of humanity and the compression of both the temporal and spatial dimensions of planetwide human interaction”. Integration is characterized by the diminishing of boundaries that once separated isolated systems, and a “growing interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volumes and variety of cross-border transactions (IMF, 1997, p. 45).

Speed refers to the pace at which global exchanges occur, facilitated by advances in technology, communication, or transportation (Held et al., 1999). The “speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life” (Held et al., 1999, p. 2) is another key characteristic of globalization. While globalization has been going on for over 5000 years, it has been accelerated through major events such as the fall of communism in Eastern Europe (Tehranian, 1998), pro-market reforms in Latin America, and technological breakthroughs that connect people, firms, and nations.

Scope involves the scale of reach and spread of globalization, such as the extent of its geographic spread (Spich, 1995), the range of industry sectors impacted, or the level of resources invested. According to Spich (1995), globalization “suggests and believes essentially that all economic activity, whether local, regional, or national, must be conducted within a perspective and attitude that constantly is global and worldwide in its scope”. The universalization of processes and practices is an example of a high scope, indicating an extensive level of geographic spread. Type refers to the different dimensions of globalization that impact modern life, such as economic (Aninat, 2001; de Wilde, 1995/1997; IMF, 2002; UNESCO, 2001), cultural/social (Aninat, 2001; de Wilde, 1995/1997; IMF, 2002; UNESCO, 2001), political (Aninat, 2001; de Wilde, 1995/1997; IMF, 2002; UNESCO, 2001), and technological (Archibugi & Iammarino, 2002; UNESCO, 2001), and environmental (IMF, 2002). Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics.

3. Types of Globalization

3.1. Economic

Economic globalization refers to the “increasing interdependence of world economies as a result of the growing scale of cross-border trade of commodities and services, flow of international capital, and wide and rapid spread of technologies” (Gao, 2000, p. 1). This involves growing interconnectedness through economic exchanges such as international trade, foreign direct investment (FDI), and global value chains (Stiglitz, 2002). One feature of economic globalization, international trade, involves the exchange of goods and services across borders, and is often driven by reduced trade barriers and policy reforms. FDI, another feature of economic globalization, refers to the investments made by multinational enterprises (MNEs) in foreign countries, in the form of establishing newly built facilities (greenfield investments) or acquisitions (brownfield investments) with the intentions of managing those assets (Dunning, 1988, 2008). Economic globalization may also operate through global value changes, which involve the international fragmentation of production processes, where components are produced in different nations and assembled globally (Golgeci et al., 2021).

3.2. Political

Political globalization is characterized by the processes through which political authority and decision-making extends beyond national borders, involving international and supranational organizations (S. Cao et al., 2019; Scholte, 2005; Steger, 2020). It involves the intensification of worldwide political interrelations and interdependence, through global governance institutions and transitional agreements (S. Cao et al., 2019; Steger, 2020). Political globalization is influenced by interactions among states and global non-state actors, where diverse social interests are represented. Key features of political globalization include global governance, regional integration and cross-national agreements (S. Cao et al., 2019; Steger, 2020). Global governance refers to the influence of international organizations that manage global issues, such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund (Wouters & Odermatt, 2014). These organizations are central to promoting global integration and facilitating political globalization (Wouters & Odermatt, 2014). Regional integration and cross-national agreements, another key feature of political globalization, involves the establishment of agreements between different nations, or regional blocs by neighboring countries, to coordinate policies and achieve common goals in areas such as governance, security, climate change, and trade.

3.3. Cultural

Cultural globalization refers to the exchange of cross-border culture flows, including values, norms, assumptions, and practices (Hannerz, 1996; Tomlinson, 1999). According to Cuddy-Keane (2003, p. 553), “cultural globalization is distinguished by a consciousness of dwelling in the world, and a conception of that world as a fluid, interconnected, conflicted, and dynamic whole”. Cultural globalization may lead to the development of a similar set of widely shared beliefs or an adaptation of some form (Hopper, 2007). Cultural exchanges can occur through media, communication, or human mobility. The movement of people through tourism or migration, as well as platforms that foster communication between people, e-commerce, or news and media platforms that distribute information globally, foster direct cultural exchanges (Janssen et al., 2008). Each play a unique role for disseminating information and facilitating the exchange of values and practice exchanges (Janssen et al., 2008). The dominance of certain languages such as English across the world and the spread of popular culture, including music, fashion, movies, and sports, are manifestations of cultural globalization (Hopper, 2007; Janssen et al., 2008).

3.4. Technological

Technological globalization represents the interconnectedness and exchange of technology, including the dissemination of innovations, communication systems, and technological practices (Archibugi & Iammarino, 2002; Archibugi & Michie, 1997, 2003). This involves the spatiotemporal evolution of global innovation (Hu et al., 2024) and international exploitation of nationally produced innovations, global generation of innovations, and global techno-scientific collaborations (Archibugi & Iammarino, 2002). A feature of technological globalization is the expansion of ICT, which facilitates global communication and information processing, promoting information sharing and high levels of data processing. ICT drives the exchange of information, communication, and innovation across the world, significantly reducing barriers of time and space, and allowing communication and collaboration to occur instantaneously. The diffusion of innovation across the world, through exports of innovative goods, transfer of license and patents, and foreign production of internally generated innovation, are the other key features of technological globalization (Archibugi & Iammarino, 2002). Innovation diffusion is the process by which new technologies, ideas, and practices spread. This feature highlights the ways in which technological advancements are not confined to their place of origin, but are rather rapidly adopted and adapted worldwide, fostering shared development. Technological globalization fosters international collaboration through joint scientific projects and scientific exchanges of students and ideas by universities, or through joint ventures and production agreements by multinational firms, allowing nations and firms to pool resources and knowledge and introduce and develop technologies globally (Archibugi & Iammarino, 2002; Hu et al., 2024).

3.5. Environmental

Environmental globalization refers to the increased interconnectedness of environmentally coordinated practices and regulations among nations, highlighting their interdependence, and how ecological challenges transcend national borders, requiring collective global action (Grainger, 2005; Pfeffer et al., 2006; Zimmerer, 2006). Key feature of environmental globalization includes transboundary environmental integration, an awareness and diffusion of environmental knowledge and technology, and global governance (Grainger, 2005; Pfeffer et al., 2006; Zimmerer, 2006). Environmental challenges are interdependent and extend beyond the borders of a single nation, requiring the nations to cooperate to address them (Kröger, 2023). Examples include climate change, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and ocean pollution (Habibullah et al., 2022; Lincoln et al., 2023; Wongchuig et al., 2022). Environmental globalization involves the global spread of innovation related to sustainable practices, including sharing renewable energy technologies and conservation strategies (Karakosta et al., 2010). Global governance plays a key role in environmental globalization by coordinating international treaties and agreements to manage shared resources (Karakosta et al., 2010). International organizations, treaties, and protocols aimed to address global environmental challenges exemplify collective efforts to manage environmental use on a global scale (Grainger, 2005). Table 2 summarizes the main types of globalization. Figure 1 illustrates the characteristics determining the degree of globalization. Figure 2 presents the types of globalization and their impacts.

4. The Big Picture

4.1. Contributions and Challenges of Economic Globalization

4.1.1. For People

Economic globalization provides various contributions and tradeoffs for people around the world. Starting with its contributions, economic globalization drives employment opportunities and enhances access to goods and services (Coulibaly et al., 2018; Satti et al., 2022). It enables individuals to participate in industries driven by exports (J. Lee, 2011) and can lead to improved working conditions through the adoption of global labor standards (Elliott & Freeman, 2003). As multinational enterprises enter new markets, workers in these industries may benefit from higher wages and improved working conditions (Elliott & Freeman, 2003). In addition, economic globalization improves access to a wide variety of goods and services at competitive prices, benefiting consumers affordability and choice (Bhagwati, 2004). This is often driven by economies of scale and global competition.

Economic globalization can also facilitate the exchange of ideas, skills, and technologies (Coulibaly et al., 2018) and shape attitudes towards risk, independence, and social responsibility. This enables individuals to improve their knowledge, capabilities, and enhance their productivity. When individually funded entrepreneurs outperform government funded entrepreneurs in business and management abilities, a shift towards a merit-based attitudes suggests that success depends on individual skills, rather than government intervention (Alkharafi et al., 2024b). Education and training opportunities often expand as a result of partnerships between global firms and local institutions. In sum, economic globalization improves access to goods and services, opportunities for employment, and contributes shaping individual attitudes, exchanging knowledge, and improving in individual capabilities.

Economic globalization also has trade-offs, particularly in industries that compete through lower-cost labor. Some sectors may experience job loss due to outsourcing or offshoring (Görg, 2011). Industries like manufacturing, textiles, and customer service are significantly affected as firms relocate employment opportunities in these sectors to regions with lower-labor costs (Kletzer, 2005; Truett & Truett, 2010). This displacement may lead to structural unemployment for workers with specialized skills that are no longer in demand, widening inequality between skilled and unskilled workers (Rodrik, 2011). These losses, often experienced by certain industrial regions and vulnerable demographics, can lead to in increased inequality (Ezcurra & Del Villar, 2021) and social unrest, and highlight the need for policies to address the challenges of displaced workers.

Economic globalization can also lead to the exploitation of labor in developing nations, with firms seeking cost-cutting at the expense of fair wages and safety (Kiely, 2008). Multinational firms often relocate production to regions with lower wages, weaker labor regulations, and limited union protections (Hogstedt et al., 2007). In extreme cases, this leads to violations of human rights. In addition, economic globalization may exacerbate income inequality in developing regions (Bergh & Nilsson, 2010; Mallick et al., 2020), as the benefits are often accrued to those with access to capital and connections, such as business owners and elites.

4.1.2. For Firms

Economic globalization benefits firms through facilitating growth, allowing access to global supply chains, and incentivizing firms to innovate and remain competitive. Firms can gain access to a much larger pool of potential consumers by expanding to other markets (Chen et al., 2021; De Sousa et al., 2012). This expansion not only allows firms to grow, but also to diversify their markets and reduce reliance on any single domestic market, mitigating the risks associated with local economic fluctuations (Reinholtz et al., 2021). Even further, firms can take advantage of demographic and cultural differences, tailoring products and services to meet new needs and preferences (Beise, 2004; Creusen, 2010; Iyer et al., 2006), by tapping into global markets. This fosters innovation and brand loyalty beyond the local markets (Beise, 2004; Creusen, 2010; Iyer et al., 2006).

Economic globalization incentivizes firms to innovate and remain competitive (Gorodnichenko et al., 2010) by exposing them to the dynamic pressures of international markets. As firms enter global markets, they face competition from established multinational enterprises, which drives firms to improve their products, services, and processes to obtain a competitive edge in the global market (Porter, 2008). Economic globalization also allows firms to access to global supply chains to source raw materials, labor, and components from different parts of the world (Gereffi et al., 2005). This access enables firms to optimize production by leveraging regional advantages, such as lower labor costs, specialized expertise, or access to raw materials (Mudambi, 2008).

The intensification of competition has drawbacks for small and medium enterprises. Small and medium enterprises are exposed to foreign multinational enterprises that enter domestic markets. The entry of global giants, such as Toyota in developed markets or Google in emerging markets, may lead domestic firms to struggle to retain their customers, particularly in price-sensitive markets (Wu, 2020; Zeng & Glaister, 2016). Larger firms may offer lower prices and wider product selections that intensify competition for local firms, which may increase consumer welfare (Vavoura, 2024) but drive smaller firms to lose their market share and struggle to maintain viability in the new market dynamic.

Another drawback of economic globalization for firms is the uncertainty and lack of control over global supply chains (Flynn et al., 2016; Kancs, 2024; Gereffi et al., 2022; Um & Han, 2021). Global supply chains, while offering significant cost and efficiency benefits, make firms vulnerable to external shocks, such as political instability, natural disasters, or pandemics (Kancs, 2024; Ivanov & Dolgui, 2020). A disruption in one region can ripple through the other parts of the supply chain, causing delays, increased costs, and production cuts. Supply chain resilience requires diversification, digital tools for monitoring, and strategies such as near-shoring or multi-sourcing to mitigate external shocks (Flynn et al., 2016; Golan et al., 2020; Ivanov & Dolgui, 2020; Simchi-Levi et al., 2015). Finally, economic globalization may drive unethical practices, such as the exploitation of low-cost labor, tax evasion, and environmental degradation (Cobham & Janský, 2018; LeBaron & Gore, 2020; Shapiro, 2021). The global competition for lower production costs and higher profit may incentivize certain firms, particularly those located in nations with low regulations, to exploit vulnerable populations and engage in practices that prioritize cost-cutting over ethical considerations.

4.1.3. For Nations

Nations experience many benefits through economic globalization. Economic globalization facilitates access to international markets, allowing nations to specialize in their comparative advantages, enhance overall productivity, and advance the national competitive advantage (Contractor et al., 2015; Costinot & Rodríguez-Clare, 2014; Feenstra & Sasahara, 2018; G. M. Grossman & Helpman, 2018). Foreign direct investment contributes to nations economic growth, by providing capital inflow as well as job creation (Herzer, 2012; Wang & Wong, 2009). By establishing new firms or expanding the existing firms to different locations, economic globalization boosts national income and generates additional revenue through production, trade, and employment.

Furthermore, economic globalization can contribute to the introduction of new management techniques and technologies that may be used to advance domestic industries (Bloom et al., 2012; Dunning, 2008; Guadalupe et al., 2012). Technology transfers through multinational enterprises, and trade agreements enable nations to adopt new and innovative production techniques, further enhancing their global competitiveness (Hoekman & Javorcik, 2006; Kowalski et al., 2017; Saggi, 2002). The trickle-down effect of these benefits to individuals often depends on the level of the development of institutions and policies that ensure equitable distribution and development (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012; North, 1991; Rodrik, 2008; Stiglitz, 2002).

There are several drawbacks of economic globalization for nations. First, trade imbalances can create significant challenges for smaller economies (Cuñat & Zymek, 2024; Razmi, 2016; Rojid & Rojid, 2024), such as economic dependency from trade imbalance. Trade liberalization without corresponding measures can lead to trade imbalances (Blecker & Ibarra, 2013). When nations rely on imports from other nations to meet domestic demand for critical goods and services, they risk becoming dependent on foreign firms, which undermines their economic self-sufficiency and national security. This dependency exposes nations to various vulnerabilities. Geopolitical tensions, trade restrictions, and global pandemics can compromise the access of essential goods and services, threatening national security and economic stability (Ghazalian, 2025; Rojid & Rojid, 2024).

Second, economic globalization can lead to a loss of sovereignty as nations join and commit to complying to international organizations’ policies and trade agreements (Andrenelli et al., 2019; Rodrik, 2008; Stiglitz, 2002). Finally, another drawback of economic globalization is the exacerbation of income inequality within nations (Ezcurra & Del Villar, 2021; Matsuyama, 2004; Naanwaab, 2022). When trade liberalization and foreign investments generate wealth, the benefits may be concentrated among a few (Jaumotte et al., 2013; Khan & Nawaz, 2019). This includes large corporations, skilled workers, and urban areas, leaving unskilled workers, rural areas, and small businesses at a disadvantage (Liu et al., 2022; Naanwaab, 2022). This disparity widens the gap between rich and poor within nations, fueling social tensions and hindering inclusive economic development (Rodrik, 2011). The integration of financial markets can exacerbate income inequality rather than promote economic convergence, with the global economy becoming increasingly polarized as the wealthier nations accumulate more capital and the less affluent countries face persistent constraints, such as borrowing limitations (Matsuyama, 2004). Table 3 summarizes the contributions and challenges of economic globalization for people, firms, and nations.

4.2. Contributions and Trade-Offs of Cultural Globalization

4.2.1. For People

Cultural globalization has positive and negative impacts on people. First, cultural globalization provides individuals with the chance to experience a wider range of cultures, languages, and lifestyles, fostering greater awareness and understanding of other societies around the world (Rosendorf, 2000). Through digital communication, art, media, and travel, people are exposed to diverse ways of life, cuisines, clothing, and practices, enriching their worldview. This exposure can breakdown stereotypes and prejudices and provide individuals with the opportunity to interact with the richness of diverse expressions (Carano & Berson, 2007). Over time, these interactions create social cohesion and mutual respect through shared experiences and may lead to the development of deeper bonds among people from different parts of the world.

Second, cultural globalization can increase access to knowledge and ideas. Through art, literature, music, and education, people can access a vast range of cultural expressions (Janssen et al., 2008). This enriches individual perspectives and drives personal intellectual growth (Gmelch, 1997; Hottola, 2004; Patel, 2010; Schellenberg, 2005; Zaidel, 2015). Cultural globalization stimulates intellectual growth by allowing individuals access to diverse philosophies, ways of thinking, and problem-solving approaches. Exposure to different ideas and perspectives encourages critical thinking and enables people to challenge their own assumptions. Even further, it encourages creativity, as individuals incorporate new ideas into their own understandings to enrich their personal growth (Cohen, 2007; Rosendorf, 2000).

Third, cultural globalization provides opportunities for multicultural collaborations, enabling individuals to study, work, and build ties across boarders more easily, fostering cooperation and cultural exchanges between different nations (Bird & Osland, 2005; Hinds et al., 2011; R. Grossman et al., 2021; Guillén-Yparrea & Ramírez-Montoya, 2023; Keengwe, 2018; West et al., 2024). By creating networks that span across borders, cultural globalization brings together individuals and facilitates the ability to collaborate and innovate in ways that reflect multiple perspectives (Bird & Osland, 2005; Hinds et al., 2011; R. Grossman et al., 2021; Guillén-Yparrea & Ramírez-Montoya, 2023; Keengwe, 2018; West et al., 2024) through business, science and technology, art, sports, education, or humanitarian efforts. These exchanges can lead to new solutions for global challenges and provide unique insights for problem-solving. Traits such as proactiveness and risk-taking, which are central for individual innovation (Alkharafi et al., 2024a), can be disseminated through cultural globalization.

Cultural globalization also has drawbacks as it may lead to a loss of cultural identity, language endangerment, and cultural appropriation or misrepresentation. The dominance of global cultural influences from dominant cultures can overshadow local traditions, customs, and languages, leading to cultural homogenization (Janssen et al., 2008; Rosendorf, 2000). The replacement of unique cultural trends with globalized trends through cultural homogenization leaves less room for indigenous and local expressions, in some cases, leading to cultural erosion and a loss of cultural roots and heritage (Janssen et al., 2008).

Language endangerment is another significant challenge associated with cultural globalization (Minkov et al., 2021; Unganer, 2014). As dominant languages become increasingly prevalent in global trade, media, and technology, small and indigenous languages often struggle to survive (Lo Bianco, 2010). Valuable knowledge, oral traditions, and cultural expressions related to these languages may disappear (Minkov et al., 2021). This is especially relevant to younger generations, who may be focused on learning widely spoken languages for educational opportunities and economic and social mobility and experience a decline of their own native languages (Unganer, 2014). Languages carry unique histories, stories, and traditions, and their loss diminishes cultural identity and reduces the richness of human culture.

Cultural appropriation or misrepresentation is another challenge that arises in the context of cultural globalization (Mosley, 2025). As elements of different cultures become commercialized, they may be taken out of their original context and used without understanding or respecting their cultural significance (Araya & Beyene, 2024; Cruz et al., 2024; Lin et al., 2024). Fashion trends, music styles, and religious symbols can be appropriated by individuals or businesses, without regard to the traditions that they represent, leading to the trivialization of their value and meaning. Cultural appropriation may occur without any acknowledgement of the original culture, perpetuating exploitation (Lalonde, 2021).

4.2.2. For Firms

Cultural globalization presents benefits and challenges for firms. Some benefits that cultural globalization may bring for firms include access to larger and diverse pools of talent, improved features and specifications in products and services, and cross-cultural partnerships. As firms experience increasing competition in the global talent pool (Beechler & Woodward, 2009), cultural globalization enables the access to a wider, more diverse talent pools to attract new skills, experiences, and cultural perspectives into the organization (Bird & Stevens, 2003). Many organizations face challenges related to global talent glow (Tarique & Schuler, 2010). Employees from different cultural backgrounds contribute to a firms’ creativity (Stahl et al., 2010), by transforming the ways of thinking, structures, and routines of work (Özbilgin, 2019), as well as knowledge of local markets and consumer preferences. This drives firms to operate more effectively in global markets and build relationships across borders.

In addition, cultural globalization drives firms to adapt their marketing strategies (Douglas & Craig, 2011) and deliver products to meet the needs and preferences of diverse groups (Gürpınar et al., 2016; Poulis & Poulis, 2013). By understanding different customs, traditions, and consumer behavior, firms can tailor their output and marketing strategies to capture customers and increase their market share (Douglas & Craig, 2011; Pallant et al., 2020). This cultural awareness can bring firms new adaptations and improvements to existing products, as well as trust, credibility, and legitimacy in the global landscape (Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2001; Jijelava & Vanclay, 2017) to establish a strong brand presence. Firms that embrace cultural understanding are more likely to build a positive brand image (Guzmán & Paswan, 2009) and reduce the risk of consumer backlash.

Through cultural globalization, firms can enhance their cultural intelligence and unlock new growth opportunities through expanding abroad and building new collaborations globally (S. Ang & Inkpen, 2008). Cultural globalization can facilitate cross-national partnerships and collaborations and enable firms to share knowledge. Partnerships often result in knowledge transfer, where the firms learn from each other’s practices (Inkpen & Tsang, 2005). Joint ventures between firms have been shown to bridge gaps in knowledge (Berdrow & Lane, 2003), market access, and other resources (Meyer et al., 2009). Innovations are often the result of knowledge exchanges (Pérez-Luño et al., 2019) and combinations of different philosophies (Bassett-Jones, 2005; Morrison & Steltzer, 2021), business models (Foss & Saebi, 2017), and strategic technology development (Kash & Rycroft, 2002). Thus, firms have various benefits to gain from embracing cultural globalization.

Some challenges of cultural globalization for firms include liability of foreignness, the costs associated with cultural adaptation and localization, and the expanded ethical and social responsibility to address cultural differences. The liability of foreignness refers to the disadvantages that firms face when operating in a foreign market due to different cultural, economic, and institutional differences (Denk et al., 2012). While cultural globalization creates opportunities for firms to expand to new markets and collaborate across borders, it also exposes firms to unfamiliar social norms and consumer behaviors that can hinder their ability to operate smoothly (M. Cao & Alon, 2021; Denk et al., 2012; Goerzen et al., 2024). Differences in values, norms, and language can lead to disadvantages such as lack of information, lack of social embeddedness, or value-based ideological conflict (Kim & Siegel, 2024). Firms may struggle with cultural misalignment, where products, services, or business practices do not build trust with a broader global audience (M. M. Zhang et al., 2024).

Another challenge of cultural globalization for firms is the cost associated with adaptation. Cultural globalization increases consumers development of bicultural identities through exposure to different cultures. In order to remain competitive in the global dynamic landscape, this may pressure firms to adapt to new expectations. Adaptation costs may involve advertising campaigns (Arnett, 2002; Hornikx et al., 2023), operational practices, and sales strategies. While the costs of adaptation are significant, they are often necessary for firms to serve multi-cultural target audiences (Z. Ang & Massingham, 2007). In some instances, firms may choose to culturally adapt and adjust their practices to local norms, while maintaining hidden business control, rather than face the higher costs associated with formal stringent regulations within an operational context (Moharrak et al., 2025).

Cultural globalization can also present ethical and social responsibility challenges for firms, even when they do not expand abroad as they increasingly operate in interconnected and multicultural environments. As societies become more integrated through digital connectivity (Marlowe et al., 2017), trade agreements (Shadlen, 2008), and immigration (Thielemann & Schade, 2016), firms have more pressure to navigate complex cultural expectations and sensitivities. Firms may face ethical dilemmas related to balancing global ethical standards with local cultural standards (Melé & Sánchez-Runde, 2013) or failing to acknowledge cultural differences and risk repetitional damage. Globally connected communities are more informed and demand more diverse workplace and fair labor practices, leading to more pressure on firms to align with these expectations in an increasingly globalized world.

4.2.3. For Nations

Cultural globalization contributes to nations through enhanced diplomatic and international relations, multilateral collaboration, and tourism and creative industries expansion. One-way cultural globalization contributes to diplomacy is through cultural exchange programs, where scholars and professionals from different national engage with one another’s traditions, languages, and worldviews (Guillén-Yparrea & Ramírez-Montoya, 2023; Keengwe, 2018; Mariyono et al., 2025; Sustarsic & Cheng, 2022). As cultures interact more frequently, mutual understanding and respect are promised, reducing the likelihood of cultural misunderstandings. This helps to bridge nations and create long-term relationships that foster peace and cooperation (Mariyono et al., 2025; Sustarsic & Cheng, 2022). The promotion of national art, music, literature, and cinema on a global stage through cultural diplomacy enhances a nation’s soft power (Cohen, 2007; Rosendorf, 2000). Soft power involves a nation’s ability to influence others through cultural appeal, rather than military or economic force (Nye, 2002). Nations that successfully project their culture globally, such as the United States through Hollywood, or South Korea with K-pop and K-dramas (Kang, 2017; Rosendorf, 2000), or Qatar through mega-sports events (El-Dabt et al., 2025), gain significant diplomatic leverage.

Multilateral collaborations between nations are often strengthened through cultural globalization (Bird & Osland, 2005; Hinds et al., 2011; R. Grossman et al., 2021; Guillén-Yparrea & Ramírez-Montoya, 2023; Keengwe, 2018; West et al., 2024). International events, such as the World Cup and global art fairs, not only showcase a nation’s culture, but also provide platforms for diplomatic dialogue (Mariyono et al., 2025; Sustarsic & Cheng, 2022). These events bring diverse cultures together, and may encourage cooperation in other areas, such as international trade, environmental politics, and human rights.

An economic benefit of cultural globalization for nations is the expansion of the tourism industry. Cultural diffusion is shaped by national identity and geopolitical identities and drives the creation of networks that place cultural products into the global art and literature landscape (Levitt & Siliunas, 2024). As global awareness of a specific culture increases, more travelers around the world seek to experience its traditions, cuisines, festivals, and historical sites. Nations with rich cultural heritages benefit from increased tourism. Tourism not only contributes to the local economy through spending, but also creates demand for cultural experiences such as museums and historical tours. In this way, cultural globalization supports creative industries, including art, music, and film, by providing a broader international market (Levitt & Siliunas, 2024). For example, the South Korean government actively promotes K-pop and K-dramas (Kang, 2017), which have become a highly lucrative industry that contributes substantially to their gross domestic product. Similarly, Qatar strategically used mega-sports events (El-Dabt et al., 2025) to boost national income through tourism and gain international visibility through soft power.

While there are benefits to cultural globalization for nations, the drawbacks include cultural homogenization, erosion of national identity, and tension from clashing values. While globalization facilitates cultural exchanges, dominant cultures, primarily from the West, often overshadow smaller, less powerful cultures (Janssen et al., 2008; Rosendorf, 2000). The presence of dominant cultures may lead to the standardization of lifestyles, making cities around the world feel more similar. The loss of cultural uniqueness can undermine national identity and economic diversity, eroding traditional customs, languages, and social norms (Bird & Stevens, 2003; Ullah & Ho, 2021).

Traditional industries, such as local textile production, crafts, and regional agriculture, may decline as global brands take over the market. As nations become more similar in cultural expression, they lose the distinctiveness that once made them attractive for course and cultural heritage promotion (Bird & Stevens, 2003; Ullah & Ho, 2021). The widespread use of English in business and education contributes to the decline of indigenous languages, threatening cultural diversity. While resisting the effects of cultural globalization is challenging, governments can counteract national identity erosion and homogenization by implementing programs that preserve national heritage.

Furthermore, cultural globalization introduces new social and political challenges. As diverse cultural values, beliefs, and norms interact, and society becomes more multicultural, tensions may arise (Berry, 2005; Putnam, 2007) between traditionalist and progressive groups in society (N. Lee & Lo, 2020). In many nations across the world, immigration and multicultural places have sparked debates about national identity, social integration, and economic competition (Putnam, 2007). Traditionalists argue that global influences threaten their way of life, leading to resistance against multiculturalism (Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Norris & Inglehart, 2019). This may lead to the rise in political movements advocating for nationalism and cultural preservation, sometimes fueling xenophobia and social division (Gidron & Hall, 2017; Norris & Inglehart, 2019). Encouraging intercultural dialogue, equal opportunities, and coexistence are crucial for maintaining harmony in an increasingly culturally globalized world (Parekh, 2001). Table 4 summarizes the contributions and challenges of cultural globalization for people, firms, and nations.

4.3. Contributions and Trade-Offs of Political Globalization

4.3.1. For People

Political globalization has led to the spread of global governance, increasing the interconnectedness and integration political institutions and policies across national borders. This has revolutionized the way that individuals participate in and influence political processes and has empowered transnational advocacy and international political action (True, 2024). Through supranational institutions and international non-governmental organization, activists can use these mechanisms to influence policy. Global communication platforms and digital media have increased the mobilization and sharing of information on a large scale. Such information sharing can be used to hold governments accountable for their shortcomings, encourage political reforms, highlight human rights injustices, and promote adherence to global human rights standards (Sadik-Zada & Gatto, 2023). Even further, political globalization can increase mobility and opportunities for individuals to engage in overseas missions and experience global citizenship (Money, 2021).

Despite the benefits of political globalization for individuals, conforming to a global norm may create tensions between international expectations and domestic traditions, cultural practices, and political identities (C. Zhang, 2020). Such friction creates political alienation and social polarization as global agendas take precedence over local concerns (N. Lee & Lo, 2020). The clash of the citizens’ local political interests with the international interests of the collective can lead to domestic resistance, withdrawal, or policy backlash as political groups may prioritize national sovereignty (Volk, 2022; Walter, 2021). This can manifest in public protests, the rise in nationalist movements, and populist rhetoric (Schmidtke, 2023). Brexit is an example where global cooperation and shared values faced domestic resistance, and the citizens’ dissatisfaction of and resistance to global norms was represented through local governance (Walter, 2021). Thus, while political globalization empowers citizens and allows them to engage for issues beyond national boarders, it also undermines political autonomy through international obligation. Citizens that maintain conservative values may view global norms as impositions of others, rather than universally applicable rights.

4.3.2. For Firms

Political globalization contributes to firms in various ways. As the prevalence of international and transnational agreements increases, transnational firms are increasingly compelled to adhere to and navigate between global agreements (Bartley, 2007; Akpuokwe et al., 2024). Such harmonization can lead to more predictable and stable regulatory environments, decreased risks from political volatility, and inconsistent policies (Mendoza & Shongwe, 2024), and encourage a healthy competitive environment for firms to develop. By creating a more predictable environment for firms to operate, these agreements and regulations reduce costs. When firms can rely on consistent regulatory bodies and predictable market conditions, they can plan their operations, reducing the cost for adaptations and sudden responses.

In addition, firms can enhance their legitimacy, increase stakeholder trust, and gain a competitive edge in politically sensitive markets by adhering to global political and human rights standards (Jamali et al., 2024). This demonstrates their commitment to ethical practices and positions them as responsible corporate actors in the broader environment. This alignment is especially advantageous in regions where political and human right standards are a priority. As a result of efforts to adhere to global norms, firms may also find themselves in a position to proactively respond to political shifts and emerging international trends (Frynas & Stephens, 2015; Roger & Dauvergne, 2016). Preemptive responses to changing standards can have the additional benefits of fostering innovation in corporate governance and enhancing the firms’ reputation (Frynas & Stephens, 2015; Roger & Dauvergne, 2016). For example, environments with higher regulations may prompt firms to develop sustainable practices well before their establishment and enforcement in policy. These proactive positions support firms into rethinking their internal processes.

On the other hand, political globalization burdens firms to abide by global agreements and standards imposed by global institutions, as well as global norms in relation to democracy, labor rights, gender equality, and environmental sustainability. This presents substantial compliance costs and managerial burdens for firms, as well as stifles the freedom to tailor operations to local markets as they see fit by adhering to global standards and norms (Cuervo-Cazurra et al., 2020). Furthermore, while being responsive to changing global standards and norms benefits, geo-political conflict may disrupt the operational consistency for firms and supply chains (Dadush, 2023; Roscoe et al., 2022; Zhu & Sardana, 2020). Geopolitical tension, such as reginal conflicts and trade wars, can further complicate and increase operational risks for firms, as they may lead to changes in tariffs, regulatory requirements, or access to resources in specific markets.

4.3.3. For Nations

Sovereignty, governance, and policymaking at the national level are all impacted by political globalization, through global institutions that promote a shared governance to reach common goals for critical international issues such as security, human rights, and environmental protection. On the one hand, political globalization facilitates multinational collaborations among nations that enhance the sharing of democratic norms, best practices, transparency, and accountability in governance structures (Schleifer et al., 2019). Political globalization creates platforms for nations to communicate and engage in dialogue, share experiences, and align common values. These spaces are created to promote government collaborations and an exchange in knowledge, for the purpose of adopting collective standards. The way in which nations handle trade and budget improvements can be linked to the varying degrees of political integration with global institutions (Petrakos et al., 2023).

The adoption of collective standards through international agreements encourages transparency and accountability in governance (Schleifer et al., 2019), as nations become more interconnected, and face increased external pressures to share practices, evaluations, and monitoring. Another key contribution of political globalization is the development of a collective capacity to address global challenges (Ullah & Ferdous, 2024) that otherwise nations could address on their own. Issues like climate change and pandemics transcend national borders and require coordinated international action to be resolved. Through coordinated political systems, nations share resources and develop common strategies to address these complex transnational challenges.

Challenges of political globalization include reduced political autonomy in domestic decision-making (Maris & Sklias, 2020), internal conflicts and tensions (Hur & Yeo, 2024), and unequal power dynamics (Farrell & Newman, 2019). Political globalization can undermine a nation’s sovereignty, as global institutions, foreign governments, and international agreements influence domestic policies. Nations may be pressured to align with global standards and norms, sometimes at the expense of their own freedom, political interests, and cultural values. With the adherence to global norms, a nation’s strategic planning becomes particularly vulnerable to shifts in leadership, alliances, or geopolitical realignments (Dindarian, 2023).

In addition, political globalization may lead to internal conflicts and tensions (Hur & Yeo, 2024), as citizens may resist global standards and norms, viewing them as external inferences, which hold little value for their own well-being. Debates over whether to conform to international norms or preserve national traditions may result in nationalist backlashes and political polarization (Hur & Yeo, 2024) when citizens believe the standards imposed are out of touch with their own lived experiences and do not result in a beneficial exchange. Finally, political globalization presents challenges for smaller nations as the pressure on smaller or less powerful states to adapt to the standards of dominant global actors is particularly strong (Farrell & Newman, 2019). This can lead to inequality in power relations and decision-making processes, where the concerns of smaller states may be overlooked. Table 5 summarizes the contributions and challenges of political globalization for people, firms, and nations.

4.4. Contributions and Trade-Offs of Technological Globalization

4.4.1. For People

Technological globalization has reshaped everyday life, increasing access to digital resources and stimulating global connectivity. In advanced regions, technological globalization expanded economic opportunities for people. It allows individuals in developed regions to gain access to a larger market for job opportunities, technological advancements, and entrepreneurship. In addition, the proliferation of information and communication technologies (ICT) has enabled access to a vast array of services that were previously unavailable in emerging or remote regions (Bortoló et al., 2023) and created new forms of digital trade through the decentralization of currency (Al Reshaid et al., 2024), to overcome traditional barriers related to geography.

This includes the proliferation of valuable technological advancements in the areas of healthcare (e.g., telemedicine services), education (e.g., online learning platforms), and financial services (Bortoló et al., 2023). This is especially critical for underserved areas, where such services are scarce. Online learning platforms democratize knowledge through flexible, cost-effective education. Telehealth services allow for monitoring of chronic conditions in real time, reducing hospital visits. ICT has also allowed for the extension of financial services, including digital banking and mobile payment services, to allow individuals in regions with limited banking infrastructures to participate in the formal economy.

Moreover, the connectivity catalyzed by social media can contribute to an enriched global social fabric, enhancing civic engagement and creating new channels for cross-cultural exchanges (Tombleson & Wolf, 2017). Social media platforms facilitate civic participation, enabling individuals to engage in the causes they care about, mobilize social movements according to these causes, and advocate for them on a global scale. By lowering barriers to entry, these platforms allow marginalized voices to be heard, facilitate grassroot activism, and empower individuals to challenge injustice, influence policy, and drive social change.

One of the challenges of technological globalization is the digital divide, which remains a significant issue of unequal access to digital technologies by all regions. Despite the advances in ICT which provided more opportunities to underserved areas—inadequate infrastructure, low digital literacy, and economic constraints mean some individuals are excluded while others have unparalleled access to quality digital tools (Piot-Lepetit, 2025). For instance, rural and developing areas are more likely to have less reliable or lower bandwidth connections (Piot-Lepetit, 2025). These disparities may exacerbate already present socioeconomic inequalities, hinder upward mobility, and widen the gap between those who can and cannot fully participate in the digital economy (Piot-Lepetit, 2025).

Technological globalization has also had tremendous consequences for labor market dynamics. The spread of technological automation and artificial intelligence may accelerate the displacement of traditional jobs, particularly among low-skilled workers (Nguyen & Vo, 2022; Skare & Riberio Soriano, 2021). Continuous skill upgrades are required to combat unemployment in a rapidly changing technological environment.

Additionally, connectivity raises concerns about data privacy and cybersecurity (Karale, 2021). With inconsistent global digital standards, many individuals remain at risk for identity theft, digital surveillance, data breaches, and misuse of personal information, compromising personal freedom and security (Karale, 2021). Comprehensive policy responses and investment in digital infrastructure, education, and robust cybersecurity frameworks are needed to ensure the benefits of technological globalization are equitably shared, and its risks are reduced.

4.4.2. For Firm

With the global advancement and integration of digital technologies, firms have unprecedented access to international markets, diverse customer segments, and real-time communications across borders (Nambisan & Luo, 2022). The opportunities for innovation, efficiency, and market expansion have businesses redefining global value chains and competitive dynamics. For example, firms can streamline operations, reduce costs, and create new revenue streams by employing technological advancements such as cloud computing, big data analytics, and Internet of Things (IoT) (Wamba et al., 2017). Firms can source from global talent pools and take advantage of shared research initiatives to advance innovation (Schuler et al., 2011).

Technological globalization also improves resilience and transparency in supply chains and optimizes inventory management and predictive analytics to respond quickly to market changes (Wamba et al., 2017). Advanced inventory management systems powered by AI support firms in monitoring the levels of inventory to optimize storage and anticipate demand. Such operational efficiencies are particularly useful for adapting to disruptive events, like economic downturns and natural disasters (Chopra & Sodhi, 2014). This allows firms to implement proactive strategies such as diversifying suppliers or adjusting production to maintain stability in their supply chains.

There are, however, various downsides to technological globalization at the firm level. Like people, firms are also subject to cybersecurity threats—including data breaches, cyberattacks, intellectual property theft—especially as the reliance on digital infrastructure increases (Verbeke & Hutzschenreuter, 2021). These cybersecurity concerns can manifest financial loss, reputational damage, and operational disruption (Verbeke & Hutzschenreuter, 2021). The reliance on global digital networks, with differing data protection and trade regulations, can additionally complicate cross-border operations and expose firms to regulatory uncertainties (Burri, 2021).

Moreover, substantial and continuous investment in an ICT infrastructure and employee training is needed to keep up with the changing technology and maintain relevance (Li, 2024). Upgrading ICT systems involves significant hardware, software, and digital transformation strategies which can strain financial resources, especially for small and medium enterprise. For SMEs, such investment can be extensive relative to their capital and may lead to disadvantages in long-term competitiveness (Li, 2024).

Furthermore, global competition has also intensified, as digital technology lowered the barriers to entry, resulting in both established and new firms contending for market share (Silaban et al., 2022). Digital tools such as e-commerce platforms, cloud computing, and digital marketing allow small and new firms to reach a wider range of customers without traditional investments in physical storefronts. This increased competition puts pressure on firms to invest in their digital infrastructure and find ways to differentiate themselves in a new market dynamic. As a result, to realize the full advantages of technological globalization, investments in digital resiliency and adaptive capabilities for firms are essential.

4.4.3. For Nations

Nations can greatly benefit from innovation, such as advancements in science, technology, and industry, as well as economic growth, and transformative governance that technological globalization facilitates (Adams et al., 2019). In emerging economies, where technology structures are still forming, female researchers are central drivers of innovation (Alkharafi, 2024). Governments can use technology to improve public service delivery and transparency through platforms such as e-governance and enhance evidence-based policymaking for optimal resource allocation (Khan et al., 2024). Furthermore, nations incorporating ICT into education, healthcare, and transportation can improve quality of life and global attractiveness (Gracias et al., 2023). Nations can utilize international collaboration to adopt cutting-edge innovations that boost productivity and stimulate economic diversification (van Beers & Zand, 2014; Coulibaly et al., 2018). This is particularly valuable for emerging economies, where the use of technology can help them to bypass traditional developmental stages by fostering growth and industrial upgrading (Steinmueller, 2001).

On the other hand, technological globalization can lead to increased surveillance and privacy concerns. Technological globalization facilitates the collection of vast amounts of data from people, corporations, and other governments (Fratini et al., 2024). It also provides the platform for sharing these data with large audiences. This creates a tension between national security and personal freedom for nations, in an era of interconnected digital technologies (Fratini et al., 2024; Greenwald, 2014; Padden, 2023). It emphasizes the global reach of surveillance in a world where data flows freely, leading to questions about control of information, how it should be used, and when it infringes upon rights (Fratini et al., 2024; Greenwald, 2014; Padden, 2023).

In addition, technological globalization has introduced digital colonialism (Kwet, 2019). Developing nations have become heavily reliant on foreign tech firms for critical digital infrastructure and services, which can manifest in various ways, such as the dependence on global platforms like Google and Amazon for data storage, cloud computing, and internet access (Kwet, 2019). The data collected by tech giants is often stored in foreign territories, creating potential risks for privacy and national security as governments have limited control over their citizens data. This leaves developing nations at the mercy of foreign corporations, increasing power asymmetry between developed and developing nations, and leads developing nations to be vulnerable to external influence, resource extraction, and exploitation (O’Neil, 2017; Zuboff, 2019). Nations have to balance the benefits of open digital markets with the need to protect infrastructure and sensitive data (Fratini et al., 2024).

Moreover, while technological globalization can accelerate technological catch-up for developing nations and help raise global living standards (Archibugi & Filippetti, 2015; K. Lee & Lim, 2001; Perez & Soete, 1988), it can erode the competitive advantage that developed nations have in the global market. Developed nations may face increased competition from nations that were behind in technological development, as recipients adopt and adapt to these technologies. This reduces the unique advantage that developed nations had in controlling critical innovations and increases risks of intellectual property infringement, particularly in regions where legal systems are weak. Table 6 summarizes the contributions and challenges of technological globalization for people, firms, and nations.

4.5. Contributions and Trade-Offs of Environmental Globalization

4.5.1. For People

Environmental globalization can positively impact an individual’s well-being and their environments. The exchange of knowledge and sustainable technologies provides communities with the tools to address their local environmental challenges more effectively (Ahmed et al., 2022). Individual accessibility to renewable energy sources is an example of this, as it has led to cleaner power in regions historically reliant on fossil fuels (Gielen et al., 2019). Environmental globalization has also increased knowledge on climate change and its direct impacts on individuals, improving environmental literacy, civic engagement, and demand for environmentally friendly practices (Du Plessis & Postlewaight, 2024). Growing environmental awareness supports sustainable development and behavioral changes (Piot-Lepetit, 2025).

On the other hand, the advantages of environmental globalization are inequitably distributed among individuals (Udeagha & Ngepah, 2022). While some individuals benefit from these technologies within their communities, others face challenges of worsening environmental conditions (Udeagha & Ngepah, 2022), particularly in developing regions where pollution and resource depletion occur at disproportionate levels (Rahaman et al., 2025). The increasing interconnectedness of the world’s environmental issues, like climate change, deforestation, and rising sea levels, exacerbate vulnerable regions (Nathaniel et al., 2021; Wen et al., 2021) which may lead to displacement. Environmental refugees may experience loss of their homes and their access to natural resources, as well as increased exposure to harmful environmental factors (Bates, 2002). Furthermore, as international environmental agreements and conservation efforts standardize sustainability measures, indigenous communities may lose their traditional ecological knowledge and practices that have been used for generations to manage the environment (Agrawal, 2002).

4.5.2. For Firms

Firms can leverage environmental globalization to their advantage, as the interconnectedness and integration of environmental practices provide access to knowledge on renewable energy innovations and best practices. Shared knowledge from internationally coordinated practices and regulations can be used to integrate sustainable practices into multiple aspects of their operations, including production, waste management, and energy efficiency (Smith et al., 2022). In the long-term, these changes can improve the firms’ reputation and provide an advantage in consumer markets where environmental issues are a priority (Johnson et al., 2023). These changes can additionally lead to cost-savings through resource efficiency, as firms adopt energy efficient and waste reduction strategies. Furthermore, regulatory harmonization and alignment with global environmental regulations can streamline compliance processes and reduce administrative burdens, especially for multinational firms. Firms can future-proof their operations against stricter regulations and penalties, avoiding future issues related to compliance.

While environmental globalization provides innovation opportunities, it comes with operational and financial risks. Navigating higher standards in diverse regulatory environments can increase compliance costs and present other challenges for firms operations (Kinderman, 2020). Environmental reporting and monitoring can burden firms with administrative challenges (Murillo-Avalos et al., 2021). Conforming to global environmental standards may be less feasible for small and medium-sized enterprises. They are at a disadvantage compared to larger multinational companies with deeper pockets that can invest in new technologies and environmental processes more easily. Overall, environmental globalization opens firms up to operational and financial risks.

4.5.3. For Nations

Environmental challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and air pollution are transboundary, thus, the ability to leverage shared knowledge, practices, and collaborative research initiatives is essential (Mehdikhani & Valmohammadi, 2019). Sharing technology can enable nations to spur innovation, adopt renewable energy, enhance public welfare, and introduce sustainable practices, which can be highly advantageous for emerging economies (Herman & Xiang, 2022). In this way, nations benefit from being a part of an integrated and interconnected international community focusing on environmental conservation.

Furthermore, environmental globalization holds governments to higher regulatory and transparency standards (Melega, 2022). Through global treaties and agreements, governments become obliged to recognize and meet internationally set environmental standards, or face trade restrictions, economic and diplomatic pressure (Demarais, 2022; Meyer et al., 2023). Nations can additionally benefit in terms of public health. Stronger environmental policies from global cooperation can promote cleaner air, water, and soil, reducing disease prevalence. Efforts to limit deforestation, pollution, and habitat destruction curb the spread of diseases that originate from human and wildlife interactions. By improving air quality, water safety, and disease prevention, environmental globalization provides nations with a sustainable path towards economic resilience and societal well-being.

Despite potential benefits, the need to comply with global environmental protocols forces nations to choose between economic growth and environmental protection (Rees, 2003; Xin & Liu, 2022). These nations may have to forego industrial competitiveness to adopt stringent and potentially costly environmental standards (Xin & Liu, 2022). Moreover, given the nature of environmental challenges, nations may also be facing environmental repercussions from polluting neighbors. For instance, regional pollution caused by polluting neighboring countries can have spillover effects, undermining domestic air quality and public health (Heo & Kotamarthi, 2025). The need to ensure equitable benefits and the preservation of national policy space is essential to offset any adverse impacts of environmental globalization.

Wealthier nations may outsource their environmental impacts to developing nations, by shifting high-emission industries, waste disposal, and resource extraction to regions with weaker regulations (Cuervo-Cazurra et al., 2021; Levinson, 2023). These burden the developing nations to bear the brunt of pollution, deforestation, biodiversity, and resource extractions (R. B. Machado et al., 2024), for the sake of economic benefit. Finally, environmental globalization can lead to disputes over ownership and control of natural resources. Ecosystems transcend national boarders making the definition of boundaries increasingly more complex. Transboundary resources like rivers and oceans create tension over resource allocation. What one nation does to one side—such as polluting, overfishing, waste dumping—can directly impact other nations use. Shared ownership often lacks clearly defined boundaries, creating complex disputes over rights to use. Table 7 summarizes the contributions and challenges of environmental globalization for people, firms, and nations.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Who Are the Winners?

The impacts of globalization are highly context-dependent, in the sense that their effects vary significantly depending on geographic location and a stakeholder’s position—whether it is an individual, a firm, or a nation. Geographic location plays a key role in shaping how globalization affects economic growth, social structures, technological exchanges, political regulations, environmental well-being. For example, in developing regions, globalization often attracts foreign direct investment, access to new technologies and expanded trade opportunities. However, globalization has also been shown to result in labor exploitation, environmental degradation, and limitations on national sovereignty. In contrast, developed nations may benefit from expanded markets and access to lower-cost resource inputs, but experience job outsourcing and intellectual property risks. Additionally, regional differences in governance and labor market conditions further shape whether globalization results in prosperity or exacerbates the existing disparities.

Beyond geography, the effects of globalization are dependent on the stakeholder. For individuals, globalization can provide greater job opportunities, access to wider goods and services, and cultural exchange; however, it can also lead to job displacement, increased competition, and conflict between local interest and global commitment. For firms, while multinational corporations benefit from cost efficiencies, larger markets, and diversified supply chains, they face increased competition and uncertainties from geopolitical conflict. For nations, globalization may drive economic growth, geopolitical influence, and technological advancements, but threaten national sovereignty and increase wealth inequality. The impact of globalization is multifaceted.

Because of these variations, aggregate welfare depends on both the geographic context (Carpa & Martínez-Zarzoso, 2022) and the stakeholder being considered. While globalization may lead to increased national wealth, it may not necessarily translate to improved welfare for all individuals (Huang et al., 2022). These disparities highlight the importance of considering multiple layers when evaluating the overall aggregate welfare effects (Ezcurra & Del Villar, 2021). Only by addressing the multiple layers can we accurately assess whether globalization offers a net positive or negative for a given entity in a particular region.

5.2. Avenues for Future Research

Future research can provide a more nuanced and context-specific analysis of the dimensions of globalization and the consequences of globalization, particularly in relation to economic, cultural, political, technological, and environmental globalization. One of the pressing gaps is the impact of economic globalization on income inequality across different socioeconomic groups. Studies in this area can address how trade liberalization and foreign direct investment influence wage distribution among high- and low-skilled workers across the developing and developed economies, and why some regions benefit more from globalization. Another line of research can examine the ways in which cultural globalization impacts identity transformation and social cohesion, as cultural globalization accelerates through migration and digital media. Studies in this area can explore the extent to which globalization shape’s cultural identity, and how smaller local cultures adapt and integrate to global influences, while preserving their native language and identity. This can shed light on important drivers of anti-globalization and cultural resistance movements.

Another line of research may examine the challenges of political globalization, namely the governance structures required to manage globalization effectively through global institutions such as the World Trade Organization. Studies in this area can additionally cover the long-term consequences of anti-globalization policies on the geo-political stability, and the ways in which nations can maintain international cooperation on trade, security, and environmental policy, while maintaining a level of national sovereignty. Technological globalization is relatively less examined in the literature, as compared to economic, political, and cultural globalization. The spread of innovation, scientific research and digital connectivity and its impact on the uneven access to technology and its effects are important areas to consider. Studies in this area may also examine the effects of multinational and research institutions engagement in cross-border technology transfer and the importance of intellectual property rights and innovation ownership in globalized technological landscape.

Another critical gap of research that emerges involves the consequences of environmental globalization. Studies in this area can explore the ways in which an integrated and interconnected environment, separated by national boundaries, is influenced by economic, political, cultural, and technological globalization. The interconnectedness of environmental issues has profound implications for sustainability, resource management, and climate change mitigation, as the uneven impact continues to be a pressing issue.

5.3. Policy Implications and Concluding Thoughts

Given the multifaceted effects of globalization, policymakers must adopt a nuanced approach based on context. For example, in developed nations, governments should consider investments in education and workforce reskilling to counteract job displacement by offshoring. For developing nations, policymakers should ensure that labor protections are included in trade agreements to prevent the exploitation of workers. Cultural and technological globalization requires policies that balance openness with the preservation of local identities and intellectual property rights. Governments with smaller, less influential cultures and languages can support cultural industries to maintain national heritage, while encouraging intercultural exchanges. Investments in digital infrastructure and education are critical to closing the digital divide in developing nations, while ensuring that intellectual property laws are strengthened through trade agreements is important for developed nations. Environmental globalization requires stronger global governance and enforcement mechanisms. International agreements should incorporate binding commitments with clear accountability measures to address transnational environmental issues and incentivize the adoption of sustainable practices through promoting green technology.

In conclusion, the continuous evolution of globalization has led to transformations in economic, cultural, political, technological, and environmental systems around the world, influencing individuals, firms, and nations. As globalization accelerates and decelerates over time, it has become increasingly important to understand the mechanisms driving its expansion, and the associated advantages and disadvantages as they relate to people, firms, and nations. This paper begins by establishing a definition and boundary of globalization, outlining its defining traits, such as interconnectedness, integration, scope, and speed. Subsequently, the paper explored the major types of globalization—economic, cultural, political, technological, and environmental—that shape global interactions. Finally, it extends to an in-depth analysis of the contributions and challenges of each type of globalization for the individual perspective, firm perspective, and national perspective. By synthesizing these insights, this paper contributes a comprehensive overview of globalizations multifaceted impacts, serving as a reference for understanding its implications. It brings together fragmented studies that focus on the individual components, to offer a wholistic understanding of the main characteristics of globalization, and its impacts across multiple levels, with future avenues of research that extend the ongoing discourse on globalization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.A.; writing—original draft preparation, N.A. and M.A.; writing—review and editing, N.A. and M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Characteristics determining the degree of globalization.

Figure 2 Types of globalization and their impacts.

Table 1

Main characteristics of globalization.

Characteristics
Interconnectedness	The strength, variety, and interdependence of the network of relationships and interactions that link people, places, and nations around the world.
Integration	The process by which isolated people, firms, and nations come together to form a more unified or interdependent system.
Speed	The pace at which global exchanges occur, facilitated by technology, communication, or transportation.
Scope	The scale of reach and spread of globalization, such as the extent of its geographic spread, the range of industry sectors impacted, or the level of resources invested.

Table 2

Main types of globalization.

Types
Economic	The process of increasing interdependence of global economies due to cross-border trade, flow of international capital, and technology.
Political	The processes through which political authority and decision-making increasingly extend beyond national boarders, involving international and supranational organizations.
Cultural	The process of increasing exchange of cross-border culture flows, including values, norms, assumptions, and practices.
Technological	The interconnectedness and diffusion of technology, including the dissemination of innovations, communication systems, and technological practices.
Environmental	The increased interconnectedness and integration of environmentally coordinated practices and regulations among nations through collective global action.

Table 3

Economic globalization contributions and challenges.

	Contributions	Challenges
People	+ Promotes employment opportunities in industries driven by exports, + Enhances access to goods and services, + Advances the adoption of global labor standards.	− Job displacement from outsourcing/offshoring, − Labor exploitation in low-cost regions, − Widening wealth gap.
Firms	+ Market expansion for business growth, + Access to global supply chains for resource and labor, + Incentivizing innovation and competition.	− Pressure on local small and medium businesses, − Reduced control over operations and supply chains, − Allows unethical practices in regions with weak regulations.
Nations	+ Specialization by comparative advantage, + Stimulates economic growth, + Adoption of new management techniques and technologies.	− Trade imbalance in small economies, − Reduced national sovereignty, − Increased inequality.

Table 4

Cultural globalization contributions and challenges.

	Contributions	Challenges
People	+ Experience a wider range of cultures, languages, and lifestyles, + Increase access to knowledge and ideas, + Opportunities for multicultural collaborations.	− Cultural homogenization, − Language endangerment, − Cultural appropriation and misrepresentation.
Firms	+ Access to wider pool of talent, + Innovation and learning through product customization and localization, + Cross-cultural partnerships.	− Liability of foreignness, − Costs associated with cultural adaptation and localization, − Expanded ethical and social responsibility.
Nations	+ Enhanced diplomatic and international relations, + National innovation and knowledge sharing through multilateral collaboration, + Tourism and creative industry expansion.	− Influence of dominant cultures threatens cultural diversity, − Erosion of national identity, − Tension due to clashing values.

Table 5

Political globalization contributions and challenges.

	Contributions	Challenges
People	+ Empowers citizens, + Allows individuals to engage in issues beyond national boarders, + Increases mobility and opportunities for citizens.	− Erodes national identity, − Potential conflict between citizens’ local interest and global commitment, − Political resistance to global norms and nationalism.
Firms	+ Harmonization of political regulations create more predictable environments, + Increased firm standards, reputation, and legitimacy from adherence to global standards, + Potential for innovation in corporate governance.	− Increased costs and managerial burden, − Reduced freedom and flexibility in operations, − Introduces uncertainties from geopolitical conflict.
Nations	+ Multinational collaboration to share best practices, + Transparency and accountability in governance, + Ability to address complex global challenges that transcend national borders through collective action.	− Limits national sovereignty, − Internal conflicts and tensions within nations, − Inequality in power and decision-making.

Table 6

Technological globalization contributions and challenges.

	Contributions	Challenges
People	+ Expanded economic opportunities for people in developed regions, + Increased access to digital resources and global connectivity enables services in healthcare and education in remote regions, + Enhanced civic engagement and cross-cultural exchanges.	− Digital divide, − Displacement of jobs due to automation, AI, and outsourcing in certain industries, − Data privacy and cybersecurity.
Firms	+ Increased efficiency and innovation, + Access to greater market expansion at lower costs, + Development of more predictable and stable supply chains.	− Introduced cybersecurity threats and different intellectual property theft, − Costs associated with infrastructure development and continuous training in technological advancements, − Lowered barriers of entry and intensified market conditions and competition.
Nations	+ Transformed governance, + Facilitated international collaborations to adopt cutting-edge innovations, + New opportunities for economic diversification.	− Surveillance, privacy, and defining digital sovereignty in democratic nations, − Digital colonialism, − Competitive advantage erosion and intellectual property risks.

Table 7

Environmental globalization contributions and challenges.

	Contributions	Challenges
People	+ Individual accessibility to renewable energy sources, + Improved health outcomes, + Increased awareness of environmental literacy and civic engagement, allowing individuals to address local environmental challenges.	− Uneven distribution of benefits of environmental globalization, − Uneven exposure of environmental risks from transboundary pollution and resource depletion, − Loss of traditional knowledge and practices.
Firms	+ Global networks for sharing knowledge, + Reputation and cost-savings, + Alignment with higher quality sustainability standards and best practices.	− Increased costs, − Increased administrative burden, − Disadvantages small and medium enterprises who may not be able to invest in similar environmental standards and systems.
Nations	+ Sharing knowledge and best practices aimed at environmental conservation, + Governments upholding higher standards for themselves and hold other nations accountable, + Sustainable path through improved health, cleaner natural environments, and economic resilience.	− Forgo economic growth and competitiveness at the cost of environmental conservation, − Spillover effects and unequal impacts, − Conflict over ownership of nature and defining boundaries.

References

Acemoglu, D.; Robinson, J. A. Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. ASEAN Economic Bulletin; 2012; 29, 2 168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1355/ae29-2j]

Adams, D.; Adams, K.; Ullah, S.; Ullah, F. Globalisation, governance, accountability and the natural resource “curse”: Implications for socio-economic growth of oil-rich developing countries. Resources Policy; 2019; 61, pp. 128-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.02.009]

Agrawal, A. Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. International Social Science Journal; 2002; 54, 173 pp. 287-297. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00382]

Ahlstrom, D.; Bruton, G. D. Learning from successful local private firms in China: Establishing legitimacy. Academy of Management Perspectives; 2001; 15, 4 pp. 72-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ame.2001.5897661]

Ahmed, F.; Ali, I.; Kousar, S.; Ahmed, S. The environmental impact of industrialization and foreign direct investment: Empirical evidence from Asia-Pacific region. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International; 2022; 29, 20 pp. 29778-29792. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17560-w]

Akpuokwe, C. U.; Bakare, S. S.; Eneh, N. E. Urban resilience against environmental disasters: Comparing Lagos and New York. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews; 2024; 21, 2 pp. 1909-1917.

Al Reshaid, F.; Tosun, P.; Yanar Gürce, M. Cryptocurrencies as a means of payment in online shopping. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance; 2024; 26, 4 pp. 375-393. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-12-2023-0185]

Alkharafi, N. The role of women in driving national innovation and entrepreneurship through entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge; 2024; 9, 4 100550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100550]

Alkharafi, N.; Alsaber, A.; Alnajem, M. Exploring entrepreneurial orientation in an emerging economy. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge; 2024a; 9, 4 100553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100553]

Alkharafi, N.; Alsaber, A.; Alqatan, A.; Alainati, S.; Al Kandari, A. A.; Nafea, R. Comparison between sponsored and non-sponsored regarding personal administrative factors for SMEs from Kuwait during the COVID-19 pandemic. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters; 2024b; 12, 1 pp. 117-132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18488/73.v12i1.3653]

Anderson, E.; Obeng, S. Globalisation and government spending: Evidence for the “hyper-globalisation” of the 1990s and 2000s. The World Economy; 2020; 44, 5 pp. 1144-1176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/twec.13035]

Andrenelli, A.; Gourdon, J.; Moïsé, E. International technology transfer policies; OECD Publishing: 2019.

Ang, S.; Inkpen, A. C. Cultural intelligence and offshore outsourcing success: A framework of firm-level intercultural capability. Decision Sciences; 2008; 39, 3 pp. 337-358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00195.x]

Ang, Z.; Massingham, P. National culture and the standardization versus adaptation of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management; 2007; 11, 2 pp. 5-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738889]

Aninat, E. China, globalization, and the IMF. Speech on the Foundation for Globalization Cooperation’s Second Globalization Forum; Sanya City, China, January; January 2001; 1.

Araya, S. G. T.; Beyene, B. B. Effect of cultural appropriation on the cultural garment weaving industry: The case of weavers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Cogent Social Sciences; 2024; 10, 1 2351679. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2351679]

Archibugi, D.; Filippetti, A. The handbook of global science. Technology and innovation; John Wiley & Sons: 2015.

Archibugi, D.; Iammarino, S. The globalization of technological innovation: Definition and evidence. Review of International Political Economy; 2002; 9, 1 pp. 98-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09692290110101126]

Archibugi, D.; Michie, J. Technological globalisation or national systems of innovation?. Futures; 1997; 29, 2 pp. 121-137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(96)00072-9]

Archibugi, D.; Michie, J. Paganetto, L.; Phelps, E. S. Technological globalization of national systems of innovation. Finance, research, education and growth; Palgrave Macmillan UK: 2003; pp. 133-156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781403920232_8]

Arnett, J. J. The psychology of globalization. The American Psychologist; 2002; 57, 10 pp. 774-783. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.10.774]

Baek, I.; Shi, Q. Impact of economic globalization on income inequality: Developed economies vs. emerging economies. Global Economy Journal; 2016; 16, 1 pp. 49-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/gej-2015-0047]

Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Driha, O. M.; Shahbaz, M.; Sinha, A. The effects of tourism and globalization over environmental degradation in developed countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International; 2020; 27, 7 pp. 7130-7144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07372-4]

Bartley, T. Institutional emergence in an era of globalization: The rise of transnational private regulation of labor and environmental conditions. American Journal of Sociology; 2007; 113, 2 pp. 297-351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/518871]

Bassett-Jones, N. The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management; 2005; 14, 2 pp. 169-175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.00337.x]

Bates, D. C. Environmental refugees? Classifying human migrations caused by environmental change. Population and Environment; 2002; 23, 5 pp. 465-477. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015186001919]

Beechler, S.; Woodward, I. C. The global “war for talent”. Journal of International Management; 2009; 15, 3 pp. 273-285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2009.01.002]

Beise, M. Lead markets: Country-specific drivers of the global diffusion of innovations. Research Policy; 2004; 33, 6–7 pp. 997-1018. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.03.003]

Bellanova, R.; Carrapico, H.; Duez, D. Digital/sovereignty and European security integration: An introduction. European Security; 2022; 31, 3 pp. 337-355. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2022.2101887]

Berdrow, I.; Lane, H. W. International joint ventures: Creating value through successful knowledge management. Journal of World Business; 2003; 38, 1 pp. 15-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-9516(02)00106-2]

Bergh, A.; Nilsson, T. Do liberalization and globalization increase income inequality?. European Journal of Political Economy; 2010; 26, 4 pp. 488-505. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2010.03.002]

Berry, J. W. Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations; 2005; 29, 6 pp. 697-712. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013]

Bhagwati, J. In defense of globalization: With a new afterword; Oxford University Press: 2004.

Bird, A.; Osland, J. S. Making sense of intercultural collaboration. International Studies of Management and Organization; 2005; 35, 4 pp. 115-132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2005.11043739]

Bird, A.; Stevens, M. J. Toward an emergent global culture and the effects of globalization on obsolescing national cultures. Journal of International Management; 2003; 9, 4 pp. 395-407. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2003.08.003]

Blecker, R. A.; Ibarra, C. A. Trade liberalization and the balance of payments constraint with intermediate imports: The case of Mexico revisited. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics; 2013; 25, pp. 33-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.02.001]

Bloom, N.; Sadun, R.; Van Reenen, J. The organization of firms across countries. The Quarterly Journal of Economics; 2012; 127, 4 pp. 1663-1705. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qje/qje029]

Borensztein, E.; De Gregorio, J.; Lee, J.-W. How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth?. Journal of International Economics; 1998; 45, 1 pp. 115-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(97)00033-0]

Bortoló, G. M.; Valdés, J. Á.; Nicolas-Sans, R. Sustainable, technological, and innovative challenges post Covid-19 in health, economy, and education sectors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change; 2023; 190, 122424. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122424]

Burri, M. Big data and global trade law; Cambridge University Press: 2021.

Calderaro, A.; Blumfelde, S. Artificial intelligence and EU security: The false promise of digital sovereignty. European Security; 2022; 31, 3 pp. 415-434. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2022.2101885]

Cao, M.; Alon, I. Overcoming the liability of foreignness—A new perspective on Chinese MNCs. Journal of Business Research; 2021; 128, pp. 611-626. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.017]

Cao, S.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, J. Challenge of political globalization. Time and Society; 2019; 28, 2 pp. 828-837. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961463X17716550]

Carano, K. T.; Berson, M. J. Breaking stereotypes: Constructing geographic literacy and cultural awareness through technology. The Social Studies; 2007; 98, 2 pp. 65-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3200/TSSS.98.2.65-70]

Carpa, N.; Martínez-Zarzoso, I. The impact of global value chain participation on income inequality. International Economics; 2022; 169, pp. 269-290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2022.02.002]

Chase-Dunn, C.; Kawano, Y.; Brewer, B. D. Trade globalization since 1795: Waves of integration in the world-system. American Sociological Review; 2000; 65, 1 pp. 77-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240006500105]

Chen, M.; Ni, P.; Reve, T.; Huang, J.; Lu, R. Sales growth or employment growth? Exporting conundrum for new ventures. Review of International Business and Strategy; 2021; 31, 4 pp. 482-506. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-04-2020-0048]

Chopra, S.; Sodhi, M. Reducing the risk of supply chain disruptions. MIT Sloan Management Review; 2014; 55, 3 pp. 73-80.

Cobham, A.; Janský, P. Global distribution of revenue loss from corporate tax avoidance: Re-estimation and country results. Journal of International Development; 2018; 30, 2 pp. 206-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jid.3348]

Cohen, R. Creolization and cultural globalization: The soft sounds of fugitive power. Globalizations; 2007; 4, 3 pp. 369-384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14747730701532492]

Contractor, F. J.; Kumar, V.; Dhanaraj, C. Leveraging India: Global interconnectedness and locational competitive advantage. Management International Review; 2015; 55, 2 pp. 159-179. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11575-015-0239-6]

Costinot, A.; Rodríguez-Clare, A. Trade theory with numbers: Quantifying the consequences of globalization. Handbook of international economics; Elsevier: 2014; Volume 4, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-54314-1.00004-5]

Coulibaly, S. K.; Erbao, C.; Metuge Mekongcho, T. M. Economic globalization, entrepreneurship, and development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change; 2018; 127, pp. 271-280. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.028]

Crespi, F.; Caravella, S.; Menghini, M.; Salvatori, C. European technological sovereignty: An emerging framework for policy strategy. Inter Economics; 2021; 56, 6 pp. 348-354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6]

Creusen, M. E. H. The importance of product aspects in choice: The influence of demographic characteristics. Journal of Consumer Marketing; 2010; 27, 1 pp. 26-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761011012921]

Cruz, A. G. B.; Seo, Y.; Scaraboto, D. Between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation: Self-authorizing the consumption of cultural difference. Journal of Consumer Research; 2024; 50, 5 pp. 962-984. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad022]

Cuddy-Keane, M. Modernism, geopolitics, globalization. Modernism/Modernity; 2003; 10, 3 pp. 539-558.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A.; Dieleman, M.; Hirsch, P.; Rodrigues, S. B.; Zyglidopoulos, S. Multinationals’ misbehavior. Journal of World Business; 2021; 56, 5 101244. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2021.101244]

Cuervo-Cazurra, A.; Doz, Y.; Gaur, A. Skepticism of globalization and global strategy: Increasing regulations and countervailing strategies. Global Strategy Journal; 2020; 10, 1 pp. 3-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1374]

Cuñat, A.; Zymek, R. Bilateral trade imbalances. Review of Economic Studies; 2024; 91, 3 pp. 1537-1583. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdad052]

Dadush, U. The policy response to global value chain disruption. Global Policy; 2023; 14, 3 pp. 548-557. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13220]

De Sousa, J.; Mayer, T.; Zignago, S. Market access in global and regional trade. Regional Science and Urban Economics; 2012; 42, 6 pp. 1037-1052. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2012.07.011]

de Wilde, J. H. Whose world order? Uneven globalization and the end of the Cold War. European Journal of Development Research; 1997; 9, 2 pp. 193-195. (Original work published 1995)

Demarais, A. Backfire: How sanctions reshape the world against US interests; Columbia University Press.: 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7312/dema19990]

Denk, N.; Kaufmann, L.; Roesch, J.-F. Liabilities of foreignness revisited: A review of contemporary studies and recommendations for future research. Journal of International Management; 2012; 18, 4 pp. 322-334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2012.07.001]

Dindarian, K. Embracing the Black Swan: How resilient enterprises navigate global risks; Springer: 2023.

Dollar, D.; Kraay, A. Trade, growth, and poverty. The Economic Journal; 2004; 114, 493 pp. F22-F49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-0133.2004.00186.x]

Douglas, S. P.; Craig, C. S. Convergence and divergence: Developing a semiglobal marketing strategy. Journal of International Marketing; 2011; 19, 1 pp. 82-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jimk.19.1.82]

Dunning, J. H. The eclectic paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies; 1988; 19, 1 pp. 1-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490372]

Dunning, J. H. Space, location and the multinational enterprise: A neglected topic. Journal of International Business Studies; 2008; 39, 1 pp. 5-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400342]

Du Plessis, T.; Postlewaight, G. The significance of global nature-based education to ensure a sustainable world: An urgent need for change. Frontiers in Sustainability; 2024; 5, 1379223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2024.1379223]

Edler, J.; Blind, K.; Kroll, H.; Schubert, T. Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy; 2023; 52, 6 104765. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765]

El-Dabt, L.; AlReshaid, F.; Park, K.; Albuloushi, N.; Al-Enzi, A. Sustainable strategic nation branding through sports: Leveraging soft power via mega-event hosting. Frontiers in Sociology; 2025; 10, 1521396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2025.1521396]

Elliott, K. A.; Freeman, R. B. Can labor standards improve under globalization? All Books; Peterson Institute Press: 2003.

Ezcurra, R.; Del Villar, A. Globalization and spatial inequality: Does economic integration affect regional disparities?. The Annals of Regional Science; 2021; 67, 2 pp. 335-358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00168-021-01050-5]

Farrell, H.; Newman, A. L. Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security; 2019; 44, 1 pp. 42-79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00351]

Feenstra, R. C.; Sasahara, A. The “China shock,” exports and US employment: A global input–output analysis. Review of International Economics; 2018; 26, 5 pp. 1053-1083. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/roie.12370]

Flynn, B. B.; Koufteros, X.; Lu, G. On theory in supply chain uncertainty and its implications for supply chain integration. Journal of Supply Chain Management; 2016; 52, 3 pp. 3-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12106]

Fontes, C.; Hohma, E.; Corrigan, C. C.; Lütge, C. AI-powered public surveillance systems: Why we (might) need them and how we want them. Technology in Society; 2022; 71, 102137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102137]

Foss, N. J.; Saebi, T. Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go?. Journal of Management; 2017; 43, 1 pp. 200-227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206316675927]

Fratini, S.; Hine, E.; Novelli, C.; Roberts, H.; Floridi, L. Digital sovereignty: A descriptive analysis and a critical evaluation of existing models. Digital Society; 2024; 3, 3 59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s44206-024-00146-7]

Frynas, J. G.; Stephens, S. Political corporate social responsibility: Reviewing theories and setting new agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews; 2015; 17, 4 pp. 483-509. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12049]

Gao, S. Economic globalization: Trends, risks and risk prevention; United Nations Development Policy and Analysis Division: 2000; Available online: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/cdp_background_papers/bp2000_1.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2025).

Gereffi, G.; Humphrey, J.; Sturgeon, T. The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy; 2005; 12, 1 pp. 78-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805]

Gereffi, G.; Pananond, P.; Pedersen, T. Resilience decoded: The role of firms, global value chains, and the state in COVID-19 medical supplies. California Management Review; 2022; 64, 2 pp. 46-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00081256211069420]

Ghazalian, P. L. Globalization and the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic. World; 2025; 6, 1 4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/world6010004]

Giddens, A. The consequences of modernity; Stanford University Press: 1990.

Gidron, N.; Hall, P. A. The politics of social status: Economic and cultural roots of the populist right. The British Journal of Sociology; 2017; 68, (Suppl. 1), pp. S57-S84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12319]

Gielen, D.; Boshell, F.; Saygin, D.; Bazilian, M. D.; Wagner, N.; Gorini, R. The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy Strategy Reviews; 2019; 24, pp. 38-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.01.006]

Gilpin, R. Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order; Princeton University Press: 2001; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400831272]

Gmelch, G. Crossing cultures: Student travel and personal development. International Journal of Intercultural Relations; 1997; 21, 4 pp. 475-490. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(97)00021-7]

Goerzen, A.; Asmussen, C. G.; Nielsen, B. B. Global cities, the liability of foreignness, and theory on place and space in international business. Journal of International Business Studies; 2024; 55, 1 pp. 10-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41267-023-00672-5]

Golan, M. S.; Jernegan, L. H.; Linkov, I. Trends and applications of resilience analytics in supply chain modeling: Systematic literature review in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Environment Systems and Decisions; 2020; 40, 2 pp. 222-243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-020-09777-w]

Golgeci, I.; Makhmadshoev, D.; Demirbag, M. Global value chains and the environmental sustainability of emerging market firms: A systematic review of literature and research agenda. International Business Review; 2021; 30, 5 101857. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101857]

Gorodnichenko, Y.; Svejnar, J.; Terrell, K. Globalization and innovation in emerging markets. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics; 2010; 2, 2 pp. 194-226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1257/mac.2.2.194]

Görg, H. Globalization, offshoring and jobs. Making Globalization Socially Sustainable, 21; ILO Publications: 2011.

Gracias, J. S.; Parnell, G. S.; Specking, E.; Pohl, E. A.; Buchanan, R. Smart cities—A structured literature review. Smart Cities; 2023; 6, 4 pp. 1719-1743. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/smartcities6040080]

Grainger, A. Environmental globalization and tropical forests. Globalizations; 2005; 2, 3 pp. 335-348. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14747730500367942]

Greenwald, G. No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US surveillance state; Macmillan: 2014.

Grossman, G. M.; Helpman, E. Trade, knowledge spillovers, and growth. European Economic Review; 1991; 35, 2–3 pp. 517-526. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(91)90153-A]

Grossman, G. M.; Helpman, E. Growth, trade, and inequality. Econometrica; 2018; 86, 1 pp. 37-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3982/ECTA14518]

Grossman, R.; Campo, M. S.; Feitosa, J.; Salas, E. Cross-cultural perspectives on collaboration: Differences between the Middle East and the United States. Journal of Business Research; 2021; 129, pp. 2-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.031]

Guadalupe, M.; Kuzmina, O.; Thomas, C. Innovation and foreign ownership. American Economic Review; 2012; 102, 7 pp. 3594-3627. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3594]

Guillén-Yparrea, N.; Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. A review of collaboration through intercultural competencies in higher education. Cogent Education; 2023; 10, 2 2281845. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2281845]

Guzmán, F.; Paswan, A. K. Cultural brands from emerging markets: Brand image across host and home countries. Journal of International Marketing; 2009; 17, 3 pp. 71-86. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jimk.17.3.71]

Gürpınar, A.; Yagou, A.; Öğüt, Ş. T. Tactics of cultural adaptation: Design and production characteristics of toys in Istanbul. The Design Journal; 2016; 19, 3 pp. 451-472. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2016.1149380]

Habibullah, M. S.; Din, B. H.; Tan, S.-H.; Zahid, H. Impact of climate change on biodiversity loss: Global evidence. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International; 2022; 29, 1 pp. 1073-1086. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15702-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34341937]

Hannerz, U. Transnational connections: Culture, people, places; Routledge: 1996.

Harris, R. L. Halebsky, S.; Harris, R. L. The global context of contemporary Latin American affairs. Capital, power, and inequality in Latin America; Routledge: 1995; pp. 279-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429501869-12]

Held, D.; McGrew, A.; Goldblatt, D.; Perraton, J. Global transformations: Politics, economics, and culture; Stanford University Press: 1999.

Heo, S. W.; Ito, K.; Kotamarthi, R. International spillover effects of air pollution: Evidence from mortality and health data. Review of Economics and Statistics; 2025; pp. 1-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01581]

Herman, K. S.; Xiang, J. How collaboration with G7 countries drives environmental technology innovation in ten Newly Industrializing Countries. Energy for Sustainable Development; 2022; 71, pp. 176-185. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2022.09.011]

Herzer, D. How does foreign direct investment really affect developing countries’ growth?. Review of International Economics; 2012; 20, 2 pp. 396-414. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9396.2012.01029.x]

Hinds, P.; Liu, L.; Lyon, J. Putting the global in global work: An intercultural lens on the practice of cross-national collaboration. Academy of Management Annals; 2011; 5, 1 pp. 135-188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.586108]

Hoekman, B.; Javorcik, B. S. Lessons from empirical research on international technology diffusion through trade and foreign direct investment. Global Integration and Technology Transfer; 2006; 225, 1 pp. 1-26.

Hogstedt, C.; Wegman, D. H.; Kjellstrom, T. The consequences of economic globalization on working conditions, labor relations and workers health. Globalization and health; Oxford University Press: 2007; pp. 138-157.

Hopper, P. Understanding cultural globalization; Polity Press: 2007.

Hornikx, J.; Janssen, A.; O’Keefe, D. J. Cultural value adaptation in advertising is effective, but not dependable: A meta-analysis of 25 years of experimental research. International Journal of Business Communication; 2023; pp. 1-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23294884231199088]

Hottola, P. Culture confusion. Annals of Tourism Research; 2004; 31, 2 pp. 447-466. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.01.003]

Hu, F.; Qiu, L.; Wei, S.; Zhou, H.; Bathuure, I. A.; Hu, H. The spatiotemporal evolution of global innovation networks and the changing position of China: A social network analysis based on cooperative patents. R&D Management; 2024; 54, 3 pp. 574-589. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/radm.12662]

Huang, K.; Yan, W.; Sim, N.; Guo, Y.; Xie, F. Can trade explain the rising trends in income inequality? Insights from 40 years of empirical studies. Economic Modelling; 2022; 107, 105725. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2021.105725]

Hur, S.; Yeo, A. How inclusive are national identities in East Asian democracies? Exploring new experimental designs. Journal of East Asian Studies; 2024; 24, 1 pp. 101-125.

Inglehart, R.; Baker, W. E. Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review; 2000; 65, 1 pp. 19-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240006500103]

Inkpen, A. C.; Tsang, E. W. K. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review; 2005; 30, 1 pp. 146-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281445]

International Monetary Fund (IMF). ‘Meeting the challenges of globalization in the advanced economies’, in the world economic and financial surveys; Springer: 1997; Chapter 3 45.Available online: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/WEOMAY/Weocon.htm (accessed on 1 February 2025).

Ivanov, D.; Dolgui, A. Viability of intertwined supply networks: Extending the supply chain resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by COVID-19 outbreak. International Journal of Production Research; 2020; 58, 10 pp. 2904-2915. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1750727]

Iyer, G. R.; LaPlaca, P. J.; Sharma, A. Innovation and new product introductions in emerging markets: Strategic recommendations for the Indian market. Industrial Marketing Management; 2006; 35, 3 pp. 373-382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.02.007]

Jamali, D. R.; Ahmad, I.; Aboelmaged, M.; Usman, M. Corporate social responsibility in the United Arab Emirates and globally: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Cleaner Production; 2024; 434, 140105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140105]

Janssen, S.; Kuipers, G.; Verboord, M. National variation in the internationalization of elite culture: A comparative study of the coverage of foreign culture in elite newspapers. American Sociological Review; 2008; 73, 5 pp. 719-740. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240807300502]

Jaumotte, F.; Lall, S.; Papageorgiou, C. Rising income inequality: Technology, or trade and financial globalization?. IMF Economic Review; 2013; 61, 2 pp. 271-309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/imfer.2013.7]

Jijelava, D.; Vanclay, F. Legitimacy, credibility and trust as the key components of a social licence to operate: An analysis of BP’s projects in Georgia. Journal of Cleaner Production; 2017; 140, pp. 1077-1086. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.070]

Johnson, M. P.; Rötzel, T. S.; Frank, B. Beyond conventional corporate responses to climate change towards deep decarbonization: A systematic literature review. Management Review Quarterly; 2023; 73, 2 pp. 921-954. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00318-8]

Kancs, D. A. Uncertainty of supply chains: Risk and ambiguity. The World Economy; 2024; 47, 5 pp. 2009-2033. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/twec.13534]

Kang, J. M. Just another platform for television? The emerging web dramas as digital culture in South Korea. Media, Culture and Society; 2017; 39, 5 pp. 762-772. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0163443717709442]

Karakosta, C.; Doukas, H.; Psarras, J. Technology transfer through climate change: Setting a sustainable energy pattern. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews; 2010; 14, 6 pp. 1546-1557. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.02.001]

Karale, A. The challenges of IoT addressing security, ethics, privacy, and laws. Internet of Things; 2021; 15, 100420. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2021.100420]

Kash, D. E.; Rycroft, R. Emerging patterns of complex technological innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change; 2002; 69, 6 pp. 581-606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(01)00171-8]

Keengwe, J. Globalization, digital technology, and teacher education in the United States. Oxford research encyclopedia of education; Oxford University Press: 2018; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.366]

Keohane, R. O. Power and governance in a partially globalized world; Psychology Press: 2002.

Khan, I.; Nawaz, Z. Trade, FDI and income inequality: Empirical evidence from CIS. International Journal of Development Issues; 2019; 18, 1 pp. 88-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJDI-07-2018-0107]

Khan, S.; Ullah, S.; Nobanee, H. ICT diffusion, e-governance, and sustainability in the digital era. Sustainable Futures; 2024; 8, 100272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100272]

Kiely, R. Poverty Through “insufficient exploitation and/or globalization”? Globalized production and new dualist fallacies. Globalizations; 2008; 5, 3 pp. 419-432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14747730802252586]

Kim, J. H.; Siegel, J. I. Paying for legitimacy: Autocracy, nonmarket strategy, and the liability of foreignness. Administrative Science Quarterly; 2024; 69, 1 pp. 131-171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00018392231217676]

Kinderman, D. The challenges of upward regulatory harmonization: The case of sustainability reporting in the European Union. Regulation & Governance; 2020; 14, 4 pp. 674-697.

Kletzer, L. G. Globalization and job loss, from manufacturing to services. Economic Perspectives; 2005; 29, 2 pp. 38-46.

Kowalski, P.; Rabaioli, D.; Vallejo, S. International Technology Transfer measures in an interconnected world: Lessons and policy implications; OECD Publishing: 2017.

Kröger, M. Socio-ecological crises and global climate tipping points as difficulties for expanding extractivisms: Prognoses on the Arctic. Globalizations; 2023; 20, 3 pp. 465-481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2022.2117500]

Kwet, M. Digital colonialism: US empire and the new imperialism in the Global South. Race and Class; 2019; 60, 4 pp. 3-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306396818823172]

Lalonde, D. Does cultural appropriation cause harm? Politics. Groups, and Identities; 2021; 9, 2 pp. 329-346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2019.1674160]

LeBaron, G.; Gore, E. Gender and forced labour: Understanding the links in global cocoa supply chains. The Journal of Development Studies; 2020; 56, 6 pp. 1095-1117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2019.1657570]

Lee, J. Export specialization and economic growth around the world. Economic Systems; 2011; 35, 1 pp. 45-63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2010.11.002]

Lee, K.; Lim, C. Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: Findings from the Korean industries. Research Policy; 2001; 30, 3 pp. 459-483. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00088-3]

Lee, N.; Lo, A. Progressive cities: Urban–rural polarisation of social values and economic development around the world. Urban Studies; 2020; 60, 12 pp. 2329-2350.

Levinson, A. Are developed countries outsourcing pollution?. Journal of Economic Perspectives; 2023; 37, 3 pp. 87-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.37.3.87]

Levitt, P.; Siliunas, A. Cultures of cultural globalization: How national repertoires and political ideologies affect literary and artistic circulation. Cultural Sociology; 2024; 18, 3 pp. 332-353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17499755221147653]

Li, L. Reskilling and upskilling the future-ready workforce for industry 4.0 and beyond. Information Systems Frontiers; 2024; 26, 5 pp. 1697-1712.

Lin, J. D.; Kim, N. Y. J.; Uduehi, E.; Keinan, A. Culture for sale: Unpacking consumer perceptions of cultural appropriation. Journal of Consumer Research; 2024; 51, 3 pp. 571-594. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad076]

Lincoln, S.; Chowdhury, P.; Posen, P. E.; Robin, R. S.; Ramachandran, P.; Ajith, N.; Harrod, O.; Hoehn, D.; Harrod, R.; Townhill, B. L. Interaction of climate change and marine pollution in Southern India: Implications for coastal zone management practices and policies. The Science of the Total Environment; 2023; 902, 166061. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166061]

Liu, J.; Lai, M.-Y.; Liu, Z.-S. Trade liberalization, domestic reforms, and income inequality: Evidence from Taiwan. Review of Development Economics; 2022; 26, 3 pp. 1286-1309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rode.12875]

Lo Bianco, J. The importance of language policies and multilingualism for cultural diversity. International Social Science Journal; 2010; 61, 199 pp. 37-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01747.x]

Machado, P. S. Globalization of production and absolute advantage in a classical approach. Review of Political Economy; 2025; 37, 1 pp. 264-282. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2023.2265102]

Machado, R. B.; Aguiar, L. M.; Bustamante, M. M. Why is it so easy to undergo devegetation in the Brazilian Cerrado?. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation; 2024; 22, 3 pp. 209-212. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2024.08.003]

Mallick, H.; Mahalik, M. K.; Padhan, H. Does globalization exacerbate income inequality in two largest emerging economies? The role of FDI and remittances inflows. International Review of Economics; 2020; 67, 4 pp. 443-480. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12232-020-00350-0]

Maris, G.; Sklias, P. European integration and asymmetric power: Dynamics and change in the EMU. European Politics and Society; 2020; 21, 5 pp. 634-649. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2019.1710998]

Mariyono, D.; Alifatul Kamila, A. N.; Alif Hidayatullah, A. N. Unity in diversity: Navigating global connections through cultural exchange. Quality Education for All; 2025; 2, 1 pp. 114-137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QEA-10-2024-0122]

Marlowe, J. M.; Bartley, A.; Collins, F. Digital belongings: The intersections of social cohesion, connectivity and digital media. Ethnicities; 2017; 17, 1 pp. 85-102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468796816654174]

Matsuyama, K. Financial market globalization, symmetry-breaking, and endogenous inequality of nations. Econometrica; 2004; 72, 3 pp. 853-884. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00514.x]

McCann, L. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about globalization; Sage Publications: 2018.

McLuhan, M. The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man; University of Toronto Press: 1962.

Mehdikhani, R.; Valmohammadi, C. Strategic collaboration and sustainable supply chain management: The mediating role of internal and external knowledge sharing. Journal of Enterprise Information Management; 2019; 32, 5 pp. 778-806. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-07-2018-0166]

Melé, D.; Sánchez-Runde, C. Cultural diversity and universal ethics in a global world. Journal of Business Ethics; 2013; 116, 4 pp. 681-687. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1814-z]

Melega, A. Bibliometric analysis of scientific production regarding the harmonization of accounting in BRICS emerging economies. European Journal of Accounting, Finance & Business; 2022; 10, 1 pp. 11-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4316/EJAFB.2022.1012]

Mendoza, R.; Shongwe, M. Uncovering the strengths and weaknesses of an ensemble of quantile mapping methods for downscaling precipitation change in Southern Africa. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies; 2024; 41, 101104.

Meyer, K. E.; Estrin, S.; Bhaumik, S. K.; Peng, M. W. Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal; 2009; 30, 1 pp. 61-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.720]

Meyer, K. E.; Fang, T.; Panibratov, A. Y.; Peng, M. W.; Gaur, A. International business under sanctions. Journal of World Business; 2023; 58, 2 101426. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2023.101426]

Minkov, M.; Kaasa, A.; Welzel, C. Economic development and modernization in Africa homogenize national cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology; 2021; 52, 8–9 pp. 801-821. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00220221211035495]

Moharrak, M.; AlReshaid, F.; Park, K. M.; Alsaber, A. R. International hidden entrepreneurs: Concealed partnerships in new venture formation in an emerging markets context. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge; 2025; 10, 2 100669. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100669]

Money, J. Globalization, international mobility and the liberal international order. International Affairs; 2021; 97, 5 pp. 1559-1577. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiab118] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34642576]

Morrison, D. L.; Steltzer, H. Diverse values, philosophies and ideas beget innovation and resilience in ecology and for our world. Ecological Applications; 2021; 31, 6 e02351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eap.2351] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34181294]

Mosley, A. J. Investigating cultural appropriation: An introduction, policy implications, and legal recommendations. Social Issues and Policy Review; 2025; 19, 1 e12110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12110]

Mudambi, R. Location, control and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of Economic Geography; 2008; 8, 5 pp. 699-725. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbn024]

Murillo-Avalos, C. L.; Cubilla-Montilla, M.; Celestino Sánchez, M. Á.; Vicente-Galindo, P. What environmental social responsibility practices do large companies manage for sustainable development?. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management; 2021; 28, 1 pp. 153-168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.2039]

Naanwaab, C. The impact of Trade liberalization on income inequality: Does the direction of Trade Matter?. International Economic Journal; 2022; 36, 3 pp. 307-338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10168737.2022.2105378]

Nambisan, S.; Luo, Y. The digital multinational: Navigating the new normal in global business; MIT Press: 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13579.001.0001]

Nathaniel, S. P.; Nwulu, N.; Bekun, F. Natural resource, globalization, urbanization, human capital, and environmental degradation in Latin American and Caribbean countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International; 2021; 28, 5 pp. 6207-6221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10850-9]

Nguyen, Q. P.; Vo, D. H. Artificial intelligence and unemployment: An international evidence. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics; 2022; 63, pp. 40-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2022.09.003]

Norris, P.; Inglehart, R. Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism; Cambridge University Press: 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108595841]

North, D. C. Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives; 1991; 5, 1 pp. 97-112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.97]

Nye, J. S., Jr. The information revolution and American soft power. Asia-Pacific Review; 2002; 9, 1 pp. 60-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13439000220141596]

O’Neil, C. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy; Crown Publishing Group: 2017.

Özbilgin, M. F. Global diversity management; Springer International Publishing: 2019; pp. 25-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19523-6_3]

Padden, M. The transformation of surveillance in the digitalisation discourse of the OECD: A brief genealogy. Internet Policy Review; 2023; 12, 3 pp. 1-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14763/2023.3.1720]

Pallant, J.; Sands, S.; Karpen, I. Product customization: A profile of consumer demand. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services; 2020; 54, 102030. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102030]

Parekh, B. Rethinking multiculturalism: Cultural diversity and political theory. Ethnicities; 2001; 1, 1 pp. 109-115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/146879680100100112]

Patel, A. D. Music, language, and the brain; Oxford University Press: 2010.

Perez, C.; Soete, L. Dosi, G.; Freeman, C.; Nelson, R.; Silverberg, G.; Soete, L. Catching-up in technology: Entry barriers and windows of opportunity. Technical change and economic theory; Pinter Publishers: 1988; pp. 458-479.

Petrakos, G.; Rontos, K.; Salvati, L.; Vavoura, C.; Vavouras, I. The impact of economic, political, and institutional factors on budget balances of the heavily indebted European countries. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis; 2023; 15, 1 pp. 81-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37043/JURA.2023.15.1.4]

Pérez-Luño, A.; Alegre, J.; Valle-Cabrera, R. The role of tacit knowledge in connecting knowledge exchange and combination with innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management; 2019; 31, 2 pp. 186-198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1492712]

Pfeffer, M. J.; Schelhas, J. W.; Meola, C. Environmental globalization, organizational form, and expected benefits from protected areas in Central America. Rural Sociology; 2006; 71, 3 pp. 429-450. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1526/003601106778070662]

Piot-Lepetit, I. Editorial: Strategies of digitalization and sustainability in agrifood value chains. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems; 2025; 9, 1565662. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1565662]

Porter, M. E. On competition; Harvard Business Press: 2008.

Poulis, K.; Poulis, E. The influence of intra-national cultural heterogeneity on product standardisation and adaptation: A qualitative study. International Marketing Review; 2013; 30, 4 pp. 357-383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMR-03-2012-0047]

Putnam, R. D. E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies; 2007; 30, 2 pp. 137-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x]

Rahaman, M.; Southworth, J.; Amanambu, A. C.; Tefera, B. B.; Alruzuq, A. R.; Safaei, M.; Hasan, M. M.; Smith, A. C. Combining deep learning and machine learning techniques to track air pollution in relation to vegetation cover utilizing remotely sensed data. Journal of Environmental Management; 2025; 376, 124323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124323] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39914214]

Razmi, A. Correctly analysing the balance-of-payments constraint on growth. Cambridge Journal of Economics; 2016; 40, 6 pp. 1581-1608. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cje/bev069]

Rees, W. E. Economic development and environmental protection: An ecological economics perspective. Environmental monitoring and assessment; 2003; 86, pp. 29-45. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12858997]

Reinholtz, N.; Fernbach, P. M.; De Langhe, B. Do people understand the benefit of diversification?. Management Science; 2021; 67, 12 pp. 7322-7343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3893]

Robertson, R. Globalization: Social theory and global culture; Sage Publications: 1992.

Rodrik, D. Second-best institutions. American Economic Review; 2008; 98, 2 pp. 100-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.2.100]

Rodrik, D. The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy; W. W. Norton & Company: 2011.

Rodrik, D. Populism and the economics of globalization. Journal of International Business Policy; 2018; 1, 1–2 pp. 12-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s42214-018-0001-4]

Roger, C.; Dauvergne, P. The rise of transnational governance as a field of study. International Studies Review; 2016; 18, 3 pp. 415-437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/isr/viw001]

Rojid, T.; Rojid, S. Impact of exchange rate volatility on export of small economies. International Trade, Politics and Development; 2024; 8, 3 pp. 165-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ITPD-08-2023-0023]

Roscoe, S.; Aktas, E.; Petersen, K. J.; Skipworth, H. D.; Handfield, R. B.; Habib, F. Redesigning global supply chains during compounding geopolitical disruptions: The role of supply chain logics. International Journal of Operations and Production Management; 2022; 42, 9 pp. 1407-1434. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-2021-0777]

Rosendorf, N. M. Social and cultural globalization: Concepts, history, and America’s role. Governance in a Globalizing World; Rowman & Littlefield: 2000; pp. 109-134.

Rugman, A. M.; Verbeke, A. A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies; 2004; 35, 1 pp. 3-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400073]

Sadik-Zada, E. R.; Gatto, A. Civic engagement and energy transition in the Nordic-Baltic Sea Region: Parametric and nonparametric inquiries. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences; 2023; 87, 101347. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101347]

Saggi, K. Trade, foreign direct investment, and international technology transfer: A survey. The World Bank Research Observer; 2002; 17, 2 pp. 191-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/wbro/17.2.191]

Salvatore, D. Globalization, comparative advantage, and Europe’s double competitive squeeze. Global Economy Journal; 2004; 4, 1 pp. 1-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1524-5861.1001]

Satti, S. L.; Shahzad, U.; Nadeem, A. M. The moderating role of human capital in the globalization-employment nexus: Evidence from Asian countries. PLoS ONE; 2022; 17, 10 e0276431. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276431]

Schellenberg, E. G. Music and cognitive abilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science; 2005; 14, 6 pp. 317-320. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00389.x]

Schleifer, P.; Fiorini, M.; Auld, G. Transparency in transnational governance: The determinants of information disclosure of voluntary sustainability programs. Regulation and Governance; 2019; 13, 4 pp. 488-506. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rego.12241]

Schmidtke, O. The “will of the people”: The populist challenge to democracy in the name of popular sovereignty. Social and Legal Studies; 2023; 32, 6 pp. 911-929. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09646639231153124]

Scholte, J. A. Globalization: A critical introduction; 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan: 2005.

Schuler, R. S.; Jackson, S. E.; Tarique, I. Global talent management and global talent challenges: Strategic opportunities for international human resource management. Journal of World Business; 2011; 46, 4 pp. 506-516. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.10.011]

Shadlen, K. Globalisation, power and integration: The political economy of regional and bilateral trade agreements in the Americas. The Journal of Development Studies; 2008; 44, 1 pp. 1-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562570701722089]

Shapiro, J. S. The environmental bias of trade policy. The Quarterly Journal of Economics; 2021; 136, 2 pp. 831-886. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjaa042]

Silaban, P. H.; Chen, W.-K.; Silalahi, A. D. K. The use of social media by entrepreneurial and small firms: A systematic literature review. International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Applications (DASA); Chiangrai, Thailand, March 23–25; 2022; pp. 947-952. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DASA54658.2022.9765244]

Simchi-Levi, D.; Schmidt, W.; Wei, Y.; Zhang, P. Y.; Combs, K.; Ge, Y.; Gusikhin, O.; Sanders, M.; Zhang, D. Identifying risks and mitigating disruptions in the automotive supply chain. Interfaces; 2015; 45, 5 pp. 375-390. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.2015.0804]

Skare, M.; Riberio Soriano, D. R. How globalization is changing digital technology adoption: An international perspective. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge; 2021; 6, 4 pp. 222-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2021.04.001]

Smith, H.; Discetti, R.; Bellucci, M.; Acuti, D. SMEs’ engagement with the Sustainable Development Goals: A power perspective. Journal of Business Research; 2022; 149, pp. 112-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.021]

Spich, R. S. Globalization folklore problems of myth and ideology in the discourse on globalization. Journal of Organizational Change Management; 1995; 8, 4 pp. 6-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534819510090196]

Stahl, G. K.; Maznevski, M. L.; Voigt, A.; Jonsen, K. Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies; 2010; 41, 4 pp. 690-709. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.85]

Steger, M. B. The political dimension of globalization. Globalization: A very short introduction; 5th ed. Oxford University Press: 2020; pp. 64-C4.F6. Chapter 4 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198849452.003.0004]

Steinmueller, W. E. ICTs and the possibilities for leapfrogging by developing countries. International Labour Review; 2001; 140, 193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2001.tb00220.x]

Stiglitz, J. E. Globalization and its discontents; W.W. Norton & Company: 2002.

Stiglitz, J. E. Where modern macroeconomics went wrong. Oxford Review of Economic Policy; 2018; 34, 1–2 pp. 70-106.

Sustarsic, M.; Cheng, B. Public diplomacy and exchange programs at a secondary school level: Alumni experiences. International Journal of Intercultural Relations; 2022; 87, pp. 119-130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2022.01.012]

Tarique, I.; Schuler, R. S. Global talent management: Literature review, integrative framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business; 2010; 45, 2 pp. 122-133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.019]

Tehranian, M. Globalization texts, concepts and terms; University of Hawaii: 1998.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF). Globalization: Threat or opportunity; 2002; Available online: http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2000/041200.htm#II (accessed on 1 February 2025).

Thielemann, E.; Schade, D. Buying into myths: Free movement of people and immigration. The Political Quarterly; 2016; 87, 2 pp. 139-147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12246]

Tombleson, B.; Wolf, K. Rethinking the circuit of culture: How participatory culture has transformed cross-cultural communication. Public Relations Review; 2017; 43, 1 pp. 14-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.10.017]

Tomlinson, J. Globalization and culture; Polity Press: 1999; Available online: https://download.e-bookshelf.de/download/0003/8801/09/L-G-0003880109-0002287777.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2025). Available online

True, J. Hidden wars: Gendered political violence in Asia’s civil conflicts; Cambridge University Press: 2024.

Truett, L. J.; Truett, D. B. Globalization challenges for the Mexican textile industry. International Review of Economics and Finance; 2010; 19, 4 pp. 733-741. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2010.04.003]

Udeagha, M. C.; Ngepah, N. Does trade openness mitigate the environmental degradation in South Africa?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research; 2022; 29, 13 pp. 19352-19377. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17193-z]

Ullah, A. K. M. A.; Ferdous, J. Renewed agenda for international relations and implications for migration. Governance, migration and security in international relations; Springer: 2024; pp. 125-150.

Ullah, A. K. M. A.; Ming Yit Ho, H. Globalisation and cultures in Southeast Asia: Demise, fragmentation, transformation. Global Society; 2021; 35, 2 pp. 191-206. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2020.1747992]

Um, J.; Han, N. Understanding the relationships between global supply chain risk and supply chain resilience: The role of mitigating strategies. Supply Chain Management; 2021; 26, 2 pp. 240-255. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2020-0248]

Unganer, T. First language loss; why should we care?. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences; 2014; 158, pp. 351-355. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.099]

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). MOST annual report 2001; 2001; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000149310 (accessed on 1 February 2025).

van Beers, C.; Zand, F. R&D cooperation, partner diversity, and innovation performance: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management; 2014; 31, 2 pp. 292-312. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12096]

Vavoura, C. The rise of the superstars: Uncovering the composition effect of international trade that cements the dominant position of big businesses. Mathematics; 2024; 12, 10 1576. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/math12101576]

Verbeke, A.; Coeurderoy, R.; Matt, T. The future of international business research on corporate globalization that never was…. Journal of International Business Studies; 2018; 49, 9 pp. 1101-1112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0192-2]

Verbeke, A.; Hutzschenreuter, T. The dark side of digital globalization. Academy of Management Perspectives; 2021; 35, 4 pp. 671-684. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2020.0015]

Volk, C. The problem of sovereignty in globalized times. Law, Culture and the Humanities; 2022; 18, 3 pp. 716-738. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1743872119828010]

Walter, S. The backlash against globalization. Annual Review of Political Science; 2021; 24, 1 pp. 421-442. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102405]

Wamba, S. F.; Gunasekaran, A.; Akter, S.; Ren, S. J. F.; Dubey, R.; Childe, S. J. Big data analytics and firm performance: Effects of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Business Research; 2017; 70, pp. 356-365.

Wang, M.; Sunny Wong, M. C. What drives economic growth? The case of cross-border M&A and greenfield FDI activities. Kyklos; 2009; 62, 2 pp. 316-330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2009.00438.x]

Wen, J.; Mughal, N.; Zhao, J.; Shabbir, M. S.; Niedbała, G.; Jain, V.; Anwar, A. Does globalization matter for environmental degradation? Nexus among energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emission. Energy Policy; 2021; 153, 112230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112230]

West, H.; Goto, K.; Borja, S. A. N.; Trechter, S.; Klobodu, S. Evaluation of a Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL): A food product analysis and development project. Food, Culture and Society; 2024; 27, 1 pp. 152-173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2022.2069441]

Witt, M. A. De-globalization: Theories, predictions, and opportunities for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies; 2019; 50, 7 pp. 1053-1077. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00219-7]

Wongchuig, S.; Espinoza, J. C.; Condom, T.; Segura, H.; Ronchail, J.; Arias, P. A.; Junquas, C.; Rabatel, A.; Lebel, T. A regional view of the linkages between hydro-climatic changes and deforestation in the Southern Amazon. International Journal of Climatology; 2022; 42, 7 pp. 3757-3775. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.7443]

Wouters, J.; Odermatt, J. Comparing the “four pillars” of global economic governance: A critical analysis of the institutional design of the FSB. Journal of International Economic Law; 2014; 17, 1 pp. 49-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgu008]

Wu, T. The curse of bigness: How corporate giants came to rule the world; Atlantic Books: 2020.

Xin, Y.; Liu, X. Coupling driving factors of eco-environmental protection and high-quality development in the yellow river basin. Frontiers in Environmental Science; 2022; 10, 951218.

Zaidel, D. W. Neuropsychology of art: Neurological, cognitive, and evolutionary perspectives; Psychology Press: 2015.

Zeng, J.; Glaister, K. W. Competitive dynamics between multinational enterprises and local internet platform companies in the virtual market in China. British Journal of Management; 2016; 27, 3 pp. 479-496. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12136]

Zhang, C. Right-wing populism with Chinese characteristics? Identity, otherness, and global imaginaries in debating world politics online. European Journal of International Relations; 2020; 26, 1 pp. 88-115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354066119850253]

Zhang, M. M.; Lu, Y.; Zhu, J. C.; Zhang, K. Dealing with trust deficit and liabilities of foreignness in host countries: Chinese multinational enterprises in Australia. Management International Review; 2024; 64, 1 pp. 35-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11575-023-00524-2]

Zhu, Y.; Sardana, D. Multinational enterprises’ risk mitigation strategies in emerging markets: A political coalition perspective. Journal of World Business; 2020; 55, 2 101044. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2019.101044]

Globalization and new geographies of conservation; Zimmerer, K. S. University of Chicago Press: 2006.

Zuboff, S. ‘We make them dance’: Surveillance capitalism, the rise of instrumentarian power, and the threat to human rights. Human Rights in the Age of Platforms; 2019; pp. 3-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11304.003.0006]