Ahoy There!

Toward Greater Congruence and Synergy Between International Business and Business Ethics Theory and Research
Jonathan Doh, Bryan W. Husted, Dirk Matten, and Michael Santoro
ABSTRACT: The literatures of business ethics and international business have generally had httle influence on each other. Nevertheless, the decline in the power of nation states, the emergence of non-governmental organizations, the proliferation of self-regulatory bodies, and the changing responsibilities, roles, and structure of multinational corporations make constructive engagement between these two disciplines imperative. This changing institutional landscape creates many areas of common concern. In this article, we describe the changing institutional context of global business and suggest ways in which both business ethics and international business may inform each other more fruitfully.

Ships that pass in the night, and speak each other in passing; Only a signal shown and a distant voice in the darkness; So on the ocean of life we pass and speak one another. Only a look and a voice; then darkness again and a silence. Henry Wads worth Longfellow, Tales of a Wayside Inn

INTRODUCTION A LTHOUGH A GREAT MANY BUSINESS ETHICS ISSUES deal with interzxnational business and multinational enterprises, surprisingly the two disciplines of business ethics (BE) and international business or international management (IB) rarely speak to each other. When they do, they speak in different languages. In a review of the international management literature (which overlaps substantially with the IB field), Egri and Ralston (2008) found that fewer than seven percent of the articles published between 1998 and 2007 addressed questions of ethics, social and environmental responsibility, and corporate govemance. Only 2.6% of the articles published dealt directly with ethics, an overwhelming proportion of which focused on corruption. Although it is difficult to determine the extent to which IB informs BE research, an analysis of the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) found that in 2008, Business Ethics Quarterly (BEQ) cited only two articles from the Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS), the leading IB journal, and no articles from the Journal of World Business (JWB) or International Business Review (IBR), two other prominent IB journals listed with SSCI. The Journal of Business Ethics (JBE)
2010 Business Ethics Quarterly 20:3 (July 2010); ISSN I052-150X pp. 481-502

482

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

cited 94 articles from JIBS, 19 from JWB, and five articles from the IBR for the same year; however it should be kept in mind that JBE publishes over ten times as many issues and pages as BEQ.' This lack of communication among the disciplines creates a number of problems and missed opportunities. First, there is a significant misalignment between the subject matter of ethics scholarship and IB scholarship. While BE scholars write about child and "sweatshop" labor in Pakistan and the role of business in promoting peace in the war-torn countries of Africa, intemational business researchers focus on multinational entry mode, intemational joint ventures, and knowledge transfer, although there is increasing attention in some IB outlets to ethical and social issues. Second, even when the same subjects are being addressed, there is a lack of congruence and compatibility in theoretical approaches. IB scholars frame their work in perspectives such as the "knowledge-based view of the firm" and the "eclectic paradigm," while BE researchers use a variety of philosophical and social-scientific approaches which usually are founded on wholly different theoretical premises, such as Kantian ethics or micro-organizational behavior. In short, it seems as though these disciplines are akin to Longfellow's ships passing in the night: "Only a look and a voice; then darkness again and a silence." Despite the lack of integration to date, there are reasons to hope for greater collaboration in future research. To begin with, IB and BE face common challenges within business studies. Both are broad and inclusive fields that are diffuse and lack central organizing principles, other than "Intemational" in the case of IB and "Ethical" in the case of BE (see, as an overview, Rugman & Brewer, 2001; Brenkert & Beauchamp, 2009). Both until recently have struggled for legitimacy within the larger field of business scholarship. In the past some have questioned whether IB constituted a separate field of study because nearly all business issues have an intemational dimension anyway; hence, IB is ubiquitous (Janavaras, 1975). The philosophical basis of much BEQ research sometimes leads to its being dismissed by more empirically oriented researchers in business studies. For example, in Hambrick and Chen's (2008) analysis of the emergence of the business policy and strategy (BPS) division of the Academy of Management and strategy as a field, they observe that neither the intemational management nor social issues in management (the two divisions of the Academy most closely analogous to the IB and BE fields) have risen to first-tier status in the management discipline. Both BE and IB borrow heavily from and draw extensively on core philosophical and social science fieldseconomics, sociology and political science in the case of IB, and political philosophy philosophical ethics, and social psychology in the case of BE, although BE scholars have certainly incorporated social science approaches and topics in their research with increasing frequency. This tendency to "borrow and integrate" from foundational disciplines is a common featureand a potential source of opportunity for exploring closer connections and potential integration of topics and themes across these two vital areas of business research. In this article, we describe how these literatures may constmctively engage each other. We begin by reviewing the changing institutional context of global business, including a discussion of the phenomenon of globalization itself and its

TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY

483

many implications. We identify several broad trends that mark this institutional transformationthe decline in power of nation states, the emergence of non-governmental organizations, the proliferation of self-regulatory bodies, and the changing responsibilities, roles, and structure of MNCs all within a broader discussion of globalization and its efficacy. We then identify areas of common concem for BE and IB raised by this changing institutional landscape, and we suggest ways in which IB research might help to inform how BE scholars approach these issues. Although our primary objective is to identify areas where IB and its disciplinary antecedents may usefully inform BE research, we also explore how BE scholars can contribute to IB research. THE CHANGING INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF GLOBAL BUSINESS Globalization has changed the very nature of business in the twenty-first century. Driven by advances in information technology and communication, growth in cross-border trade and investment, global capital flows, immigration and emigration and many other forces, globalization has profoundly affectedand been affected bybusiness conduct. These forces have transformed the way we thitik about the nation state, global govemance, and cultural differences among and within groups and societies. Recognizing that there are myriad antecedents to and consequences of globalization, here we identify several specific institutional trends important to business operating globally. These examples are not exhaustive; rather they are identified as archetypes of the kinds of institutional changes that affect business and are important to both IB and BE scholars. Perhaps the most far reaching institutional change in recent decades has been the steady decline in the political power of the nation state that has accompanied globalization (Beck, 2000). In particular, nation states are increasingly powerless to control the activities of MNCs (Chandler & Mazlish, 2005). The free flow of capital, services, and goods that characterizes the economic aspects of globalization has enabled MNCs to nimbly structure their intemationai operations to take advantage of the weak, uncoordinated regulatory powers of declining nation-states (Dunning, 2003). A related institutional trend is changes in the nature of citizenship, identity, and cultural affiliation that have caused individuals and populations to affiliate less with the nation state where they happen to reside, and more with their class, tribe, or other personal or professional classification. Increases in mobility across countriesfor example as a result of the deeper integration of the European Unionhas direct implications for individuals and their attachments- or lack thereforeto a particular culture or community. An additional broad institutional trend has been the transformation of the responsibilities, roles, and structure of MNCs themselves. Operating in a "regulatory gap" where states can no longer effectively control them, it has been argued that MNCs have become political actors in the sense that they inevitably become involved, for better or worse, in the making of public policy (Ruggie, 2004; Scherer, Palazzo & Matten, 2009). MNCs even have assumed many of the same public functions and

484

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

responsibilitiese.g., public health, labor rights, and securitythat once were solely the province of nation states In late 2009, for example, there were more U.S. citizens in Iraq working for private security companies and related services than were serving in the armed services (Elms & Phillips, 2009). Pharmaceutical companies are not only providing HIV/AIDS drugs in sub-Saharan Africa, they are in many instances constructing the distribution systems and taking charge of administering the drugs (Doh, 2009). Chinese multinationals are providing basic infrastructure and services in many African countries (Michel & Beuret, 2009). The emergence of new actors on the international stageespecially the rise of the non-governmental organization (NGO)constitutes another important institutional trend in global business. Sometimes called pressure groups (to the political scientists), social movement organizations (in sociology) or nonprofits (in public administration), these organizations have emerged as partners in multi-stakeholder organizations such as the Fair Labor Association, as gadflies such as Greenpeace, or as consultancies providing compliance and monitoring services such as Accountability, the NGO has emerged as an important element of the international business environment (Yaziji & Doh, 2009). A fourth broadand relatedinstitutional development has been the proliferation of self-regulatory organizations. The Marine Stewardship Council and the Forest Stewardship Council are but two examples of a wide array of independent, non-governmental certification systems intended to promote ethically responsible business practices (See Doh & Guay, 2004). In the labor rights area, multi-stakeholder organizations such the Ethical Trading Initiative, the Fair Labor Association and Social Accountability 8000 have similarly attempted to fill the regulatory void by creating a private system of self-regulation. From diamonds to oil and coffee to rugs, there is hardly an industry that doesn't have some form of private self-regulatory certification of responsible business practices. This flurry of self-regulatory instruments and regimes shows no sign of diminishing, with the U.N. Global Compactto date signed by over 5,000 businessesas just one prominent example (Rasche & Kell, 2010). Waddock (2008) reviews the emerging institutional infrastructure of global CSR, documenting and classifying the myriad codes and standards which have arisen over the past decade. More broadly, the overall impact of globalization, and the specific institutional changes outlined here, have created cleavages among countries and societies and resulted in sharply different perspectives about the efficacy and benefits of globalization itself. Indeed, a vast popular and academic literature has emerged about globalization, and these discussions and debates have informedand been informed byscholarly analysis, including that of BE and IB researchers (Barber & Schulz, 1996; Friedman, 1999; Graham, 2000; Soros, 2002; Stiglitz, 2002). In particular. Singer's (2002) succinct analysis of several specific critiques of globalization using a practical consequentiahst perspective offers a useful primer for some of these debates and how they might be addressed through ethical reasoning. In the following section we outline areas currently of common concern for business ethicists and IB researchers raised by the changing institutional structure of global business. We will also suggest ways that IB research can help to inform how

TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY

485

BE scholars approach these issues and also highlight in some cases how BE scholars can make contributions to the IB field. IMPLICATIONS OF THE CHANGING INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT EOR GLOBAL BUSINESS ON BUSINESS ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOLARSHIP IB and BE scholars are engaged in active research investigations that leverage the institutional phenomenon described above, within the context of their respective conceptual and theoretical traditions. Here we outline those areas and propose how questions raised by these phenomenon can be addressed through expanding the scope of established traditions and integrating insights from one tradition to the other. MNC Legitimacy and Accountability in a Globalized World Both BE and IB scholars have had longstanding concerns about the responsibilities of MNCs operating within developing countries where relatively low standards in areas such as the environment and human rights persist. From Coca Cola in South Africa, to Shell Oil in Nigeria, to Google in China, this has been a subject of significant scrutiny and scholarship in the BE and IB disciplines (Donaldson, 1996; Vemon, 1971). However, in recent decades, these kinds of concerns have reached greater urgency and frequency because nation states are increasingly powerless to control the activities of MNCs. The case of China has been somewhat anomalous in that serious and pervasive human rights issues for MNCs have presented themselves not only from weak governmental enforcement systems as in the case of labor rights, but also from all too effective and vigorous state interventions such as in the case of internet censorship (Santoro, 2010). The system of MNC accountability and regulation resulting from these broad trends in institutional transformationconsisting as it does of voluntary, weakly enforced, non-hierarchical mechanisms among various non-state actors, including the self-regulatory efforts of MNCs themselves as well as non-govemmental organizationspresents problems of both legitimacy and accountability that are of concem to both IB scholars and business ethicists (Bemstein & Cashore, 2007). The China example is broadly illustrative of the kinds of questions that are of mutual concem to both BE and IB scholars. How credible and effective are voluntary and multi-stakeholder efforts such as the Fair Labor Association and the Ethical Trading Initiative in protecting labor rights? How and by what ethical standards can Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft be held accountable for their complicity in intemet censorship (Santoro 2010)? In thinking about how to bring greater accountability and legitimacy to MNCs in a globalized world, BE scholars can look to several research streams that IB researchers have been mining for some time. Institutional theory has provided a broad and rich conceptual backdrop for exploration of how management and organizations adjust and adapt to the broad social and political environment in which they operate. There are at least two relevant variants of this research: the institutional (sometimes called "neo-institutional") theory perspective derived from work by North American sociologists (e.g., DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Oliver, 1991 ; Tolbert

486

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

& Zucker, 1983) and the national business systems approach (e.g., Whitley, 1999) or varieties of capitalism approach (e.g.. Hall & Soskice, 2001), often dubbed "European institutionalism." In the IB literature, these two perspectives have gained considerable traction, especially the former, with a number of special issues in the leading IB journals devoted to this topic over the past decade (see Henisz & Swaminathan, 2008, for an overview and introduction to a JIBS special issue on the topic). The latter perspective has been less present in the IB literature, with some notable exceptions (Jackson & Deeg, 2008; Redding, 2005). Each of these two related streams could enrich the exploration of ethics and corporate responsibility in the international context. American institutionalism elucidates how companies increasingly face a similar set of ethical expectations as the result of pressures from the (globalized) organizational field of businesses, such as consumers, NGOs and global civil society. European institutionalism highlights the relevance of national institutions in shaping different ethical expectations and different ethical dilemmas for international business operating in different countries globally (Matten & Moon, 2008) A related research stream has developed around questions of global govemance and the emergence of non-state market-driven (NSMD) regulations (Cashore, 2002). The proliferation of transnational social and environmental standards developed by non-state govemance systems potentially poses a challenge to established national govemmental and global inter-govemmental institutions (Bemstein & Cashore, 2007). Most of this research has emanated from political science and intemational relations; IB scholars have been somewhat slow to incorporate these "meta" level perspectives in their research. Nonetheless, this broad perspective on global governance could feasibly enrich BE research concemed with issues of the legitimacy and accountability of the MNC in a globalized world (Scherer et al, 2009). Conversely, BE scholars have much to offer in informing current debates about the very nature of global govemance, including issues of institutional adequacy and representativeness, justice, transparency, and the role of non-state actors (Santoro 2010). For example, there is much to be gained from applying and expanding the idea of stakeholder theory in a globalized worid (Elms & Phillips 2009; Goodstein & Wicks, 2007). And in the case of China, a focus on human rights can help to illuminate questions about the impact and sustainability of China's rise as a global economic and political power (Santoro, 2009). One of the more interesting "second stage" developments of economic globalization has been the emergence of multinational enterprises/rom emerging economies, many of which have not received the same level of stakeholder pressure over their social and environmental conduct. Chinese oil and gas companies, for example, have been very active in Africa as a result of that country's rapidly growing energy needs, and have been quite willing to do business with countries that Westem firms have been pressured to avoid (Michel & Beuret, 2009). This kind of global activity from MNCs based in nations with weak regulatory systems raises many questions about comparative accountability among MNCs globally, and the potential competitive effects of one set of MNCs adhering to relatively higher standards and another maintaining lower ones. Other emerging market MNCs are moving toward developed

TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY

487

world standards and practices, and, at the same, responding to consumer needs of developing countries in a manner that many developed country MNCs overlook, as in the case of Tata's $2500 Nano "people's car" that offers affordably and (reasonably) safe transportation for the masses. Some IB scholars, particularly those who focus on issues of global political economy, have applied a particular variant of critical management studies to issues of global political economic and intemational business production relationships. This approach has drawn on the work of Antonio Gramsci to explore power and inuence in global production chains. In IB research this neo-Gramscian perspective on hegemony is represented in Levy (2008), who offers a critical framework on intemational management that views global production networks as integrated economic, political, and discursive systems in which market and political power are intertwined. He applies this framework to contested political and social issues, such as "sweatshops" and incomes for coffee growers. Once again, such a perspective may be leveraged in intemationally oriented BE research to explicate how crossnational systems of ethical or unethical behavior become intertwined and mutually reinforcing. This perspective might also help researchers clarify the normative questions raised about "sweatshop" labor. Another later and emerging stream of research of potentially mutual interest to IB and BE derives from critical management studies (CMS). CMS has, in some ways, done for management what critical legal studies has tried to do for law, by challenging basic assumptions and criticizing historic perspectives. CMS "has emerged as a movement that questions the authority and relevance of mainstream thinking and practice," one which "challenges prevailing relations of dominationpatriarchal, neo-imperialist as well as capitalistand anticipates the development of altematives to them" (Alvesson, Bridgman & Willmott, 2009: 1). Lately, CMS has focused extensively on issues related to global govemance and distributive justice between and within societies (Hanlon, 2008; Kuhn & Deetz, 2008). IB research has been slow to embrace the perspectives of CMS. Specifically, Banerjee (2003, 2009), drawing from post colonial and cultural studies, has explored crucial aspects of the impact of MNCs on the basic entitlements of indigenous people. This work highlights the political nature of IB and would be particularly useful for IB research in terms of enlarging the understanding of the complexity of factors and processes with regard to why and how firms intemationalize successfully or not. Cross-Cultural Values and Norms John Dunning (2009) observes that differences in social values create enormous institutional distance between MNCs and govemments, domestic firms, and local NGOs. Such "distance" constitutes a significant obstacle to effective intemational collaboration. Yet, globalization has, in part, lessenedor at least transformed the natureof some of these differences. The problem of cross cultural values has been an important topic in intemational business ethics research. Indeed, the example of integrative social contracts theory (ISCT) as specified by Donaldson and Dunfee (1994) aptly illustrates how

488

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

IB and BE tnight potentially enrich each other. ISCT, which has been one of the more influential ideas in the field of BE in the past decade, posits the existence of "hypemorms," which Donaldson and Dunfee define as "principles so fundamental that, by definition, they serve to evaluate lower order norms, reaching to the root of what is ethical for humanity. They represent norms by which all others are to be judged." However, the debate over what constitutes a hypemorm has impeded the application of ISCT in real-world empirical settings, with some notable exceptions (Bailey & Spicer, 2007). This debate about hypemorms can profit from consideration of the growing IB literature on convergence, divergence, and crossvergence across cultures as developed by David Ralston (2008) and his colleagues. The crossvergence perspective was advanced as a way to better understand the evolution of managerial values around the world (Ralston, 2008). Tom Dunfee himself (2006), one of the architects of ISCT, called for further study by BE scholars specifically on convergence as it relates to the identification of hypemorms, as well as on the evolution of lower order "authentic norms" in local communities, another key concept in ISCT. The work of IB scholars on crossvergence, which provides insight into the evolution and hybridization of values, directly addresses some of the most fundamental issues on the ISCT research agenda. The crossvergence hypothesis is a response to a long-standing debate in the IB hterature with respect to the nature of the formation and evolution of individual-level values. Convergence theory argued that the spread of similar technologies and the adoption of free-market capitalism around the world would drive individual-level values to more similar values, especially increasingly individualistic work values (Kerr, Dunlop, Harbison, & Myers, 1960; Webber, 1969). In contrast, unique sociocultural influences would resist change and thus sustain continued divergence among individual-level values (Lincoln, Olson, & Hanada, 1978; Meyer, BoliBennett, & Chase-Dunn, 1975; Webber, 1969). In response to this dichotomy, the crossvergence perspective postulates that socio-cultural influences, which are unique to specific societies, together with business ideology, which transcends specific cultures, drive the formation of new values, so that we observe neither a convergence nor divergence of values, but rather crossvergencea kind of hybridization of values (Ralston, 2008). The implications of this work have rarely been recognized in the BE literature (see Donaldson, 2001, and Dunn & Shome, 2009, as important exceptions). Some research indicates that different psychological processes like moral reasoning and attitude formation are affected differentially by globalization (Husted, Dozier, McMahon, & Kattan, 1996). Given that values do evolve over time, Ralston (2008) emphasizes the necessity of longitudinal research. For example, Ralston and colleagues (Ralston, Pounder, Lo, Wong, Egd, & Stauffer, 2006) compared data collected in 1989 and in 2001 and found evidence of values evolution strongly consistent with a pattem of crossvergence. Still there exists a wealth of resources from cross-cultural psychology awaiting exploitation by BE researchers interested in cross-cultural ethics (Husted & Allen, 2008; Triandis, 1995).

TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY

489

BE also has much potentially to contribute to IB research on cross cultural values. In his seminal analysis of the field. Child (2000) has argued that the cross-national study of organizations suffers from a dichotomy of what he terms "low context" and "high context" approaches. Low-context approaches put forces of economic universalism, technology and psychological universalism at the center of explaining international business activity, which is seen as inevitably moving towards increasingly convergent and uniform organizational structures in MNCs. High-context approaches, on the other hand, see cultural and institutional factors as the dominant drivers which lead to organizations that are deeply adapted to national and regional specifics. One could argue that most of the issues BE scholars have been interested in fall into the realm of high context approaches, stressing the importance of institutional and cultural specifics of the international business environment. Recent examples from the pages of BEQ include Hiss's account of the idiosyncrasies of CSR in Germany (Hiss, 2009) or Smith, Simpson, and Huang's study of the social and cultural context of bribery (Smith, Simpson, & Huang, 2007). While Child's analysis still holds some water with regard to IB research in general, this lack of focus on context has been addressed over the last ten years and the institutional context has now become one of the most prominent thrusts in IB research (see Kostova & Roth, 2002; Kostova, Roth, & Dacin, 2008). Nevertheless, IB research on international issues could be enriched by BE perspectives such as ISCT. A core concern of such BE scholarship has long been to navigate the Charybdis of "low context" universalism and the Scylla of "high context" relativism. For example, BE scholars have asked whether Google should practice a "high context" corporate policy and censor its search results in China, or whether it should it follow a "low context" entry into the Chinese market by refusing to do so (Santoro 2009). Moreover, considering the two fields as business management subdisciplines, there are other ways in which BE could inform research in IB. For example, scholarship in the latter field, perhaps in its effort to emulate strategy research, has tended to be "values neutral," with some important exceptions (see Dunning, 2003). Given the events of the past several years which have called into question some basic assumptions about the neoclassical economic model, the appropriateness and limits of U.S.-style capitalism, and the shifting views about the efficacy of the state and its important role as a regulator, IB scholars would do well to consider some of the broader moral implications of their topics and approaches, considerations BE scholars have embraced for some time. Theory Development Related to the Nature of the Multinational Enterprise A third area of mutual concern to BE and IB is the interaction of ethics and international business strategy. In a globalized context, strategic decisions by firms are at every tum either guided by ethical considerations or result in ethical consequences. The theory of the multinational enterprise incorporates a number of related questions. First, why do MNCs exist? Second, how should they best organize globally? Regarding the first question, IB scholars have consistently drawn attention to the fact that MNCs not only import and export, but more importantly, engage in foreign

490

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

direct investment (FDI), sometimes via alliances and joint ventures with other foreign firms. Hence, the theoretical response to this first question has coalesced around the ownership, location, and intemalization paradigm, which argues that the decision to engage in FDI depends on ownership or firm-specific advantages, location or country-specific advantages, and intemalization advantages from the reduction of transaction costs through hierarchical or market forms of organization (Dunning, 1980). The location factor is particularly important, but as Dunning (1998) noted over a decade ago, it had been largely neglected by IB researchers despite the rich tradition within economic geography, one of IB's foundational fields. One of the factors that affects location or country-specific advantages is the institutional environment, which obviously includes business ethics (Dunning, 2009). Donaldson (2001) has discussed the kinds of competitive advantages that ethics can create for countiies. Institutional differences due to cormption, environmental regulation, and human rights policies will increasingly have an impact on the entry mode decision of MNCs (Dunning, 2009). Research indicates that cormption infiuences FDI, especially FDI designed to seek firm resources, rather than new markets (Brouthers, Gao, & McNicol, 2008). New kinds of FDI have strong ethical implications. One area here is clean development mechanism investments under the still-to-be-renegotiated Kyoto Protocol, which link investments by countries and firms in developed countries to projects which reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. This arena of FDI has largely been ignored both by IB and BE scholars, despite the observation by Dunning (2009) that climate change will have an enormous influence on globalization and intemational business and concems by noted philosopher Michael Sandel (1997) that emissionsti-adingschemes are fundamentally immoral (see also Eykmans & Kvemdokk, 2009). In another area, some MNCs have become interested in initiatives at the base of the pyramid (BOP), which focus on the poorest of the poor as both consumers and producers in order to create economic value for the firm and benefit for the least advantaged (Hart & Sharma, 2004; Prahalad, 2006). These initiatives can occur simply as trading relationships, but more frequently involve equity relationships of different types (FDI, alliances, etc.). Although a more self-critical approach has arisen within the IB and strategy literatures regarding the effectiveness of the BOP literature (Kamani, 2007a), input from BE scholars is sorely wanting (see Hahn, 2009, as an important exception). As Kamani (2007b) has argued, there is a fundamental flaw inherent in much of the BOP thinking as it focuses mostly on tuming people in least developed countries into consumers rather than providing them with a meaningful place in production and income generation processes. Given those and other significant criticisms, BOP investment needs to be linked to public policy objectives. Dunning (2009) believes that as a result of collaboration between MNCs, govemment, and the social sector, FDI to the very least developed countries could increase significantiy. The second big question surrounding the theory of the multinational enterprise deals with how the MNC should organize itself to manage activities over diverse locations. Here the discussion has revolved around a typology of multinational

TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY

491

organizational strategies in which MNCs can be organized as global firms to maximize coordination and economies of scale, as multi-domestic companies to focus on fiexibility to adapt to local markets and MNCs attempt to unite the advantages of both by combining economies of scale and responsiveness (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Prahalad & Doz, 1987; Yip, 1992). This second question has been treated by some BE researchers as follows. First, how does MNC strategy and structure affect ethical policy and CSR initiatives? Integrative social contracts theory is the most creative response to arise from BE as it attempts to deal with the tension between universal hypemorms and local authentic norms. Yet ISCT does not confront the possibility of ethical pluralism within organizational reality. For example, what does ISCT mean in terms of global, transnational, or multi-domestic MNCs? It would seem tofitbest with transnational and multi-domestic MNCs as these types of multinational organization tend to be more sensitive to local contexts and decentralized decision making. It would however appear less well suited to global MNCs, which seek economies of scale and tend to mn a globally homogenous set of organizational structures and decision principles across their operations, regardless of the idiosyncrasies of specific local contexts. In the context of CSR initiatives, Husted and Allen (2006) describe how global firms tend to adopt global CSR, while multidomestic firms tend to focus on local CSR. These tendencies certainly make sense, but are they ethically adequate responses on the part of MNCs? Do not global companies also need to be good local corporate citizens (Husted, 2002)? A further set of questions related to MNC stmcture is the issue of technology transfer. How do MNCs transmit knowledge from the parent company to the local subsidiary? A great deal of discussion has surrounded the transfer of manufacturing practices, for example, but the literature is silent with respect to CSR knowledge transfer. How should CSR practices developed in the parent company be transferred to the subsidiary? What kinds of resources and capabilities are needed to facilitate this transfer? In the technology transfer literature, a great deal of discussion has surrounded the concept of absorptive capacity as the ability of the subsidiary to assimilate new knowledge (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Certainly the literature of technology transfer should be studied carefully to examine the extent to which these concepts can be applied to the transfer of social knowledge and ethical practice. These applications have barely been scratched in the BE literature. Meaningful ways to explore these perspectives could include a closer examination of how MNCs implement their global standards (e.g., codes of conduct) or study of the drivers of and barriers to global dissemination of responsible practices within a large MNC. Business, NGOs, and other Non-State Actors in a Globalized World A fourth area of mutual concem to BE and IB is the increasing interactions among corporations and non-state actors, especially NGOs, in the global context. Research on the role, operation, and strategies of NGOs in the intemational relations and nonprofit management fields has a rich and extensive record (Florini, 2003; Fox & Brown, 1998; Lindenberg & Bryant, 2002). In addition, there are several nascent

492

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

efforts that have begun in management research (Dahan, Doh & Guay, 2006; Doh & Teegen, 2003; Rondinelli & London, 2003; Schepers, 2006; Teegen, Doh, & Vachani, 2004; Yaziji, 2004; Yaziji and Doh, 2009). These include exploration of the broader role of NGOs in the process of global management and policy (Doh & Teegen, 2003; Teegen, Doh, & Vachani, 2004) and practitioner-oriented literature that provides guidance regarding corporate-NGO interactions, especially cooperative or collaborative partnerships (Hess, Rogovsky, & Dunfee, 2002; Pearce & Doh, 2005; Rondinelli & London, 2003; Yaziji, 2004). To date, however, there have been few systematic efforts within the IB domain to fully explore the constructs and contexts relevant in understanding the role of NGOs in business, govemment and political relations, and in society more broadly. To the extent that this research emphasizes the differing organizational structures, strategies and orientations among business versus NGOs in the intemational setting, and the interesting challenges presented when NGOs or MNCs from the developed world enter and operate in developing countries (see Oetzel & Doh, 2009), BE research could integrate some of these cross-sectoral and cross-national differences to enrich and enhance existing approaches. Perhaps more interestingly, the challenging relational interactions that result from these differences and that have been explored in the emergent literature on NGO-corporate interactions globally (see Yaziji & Doh, 2009) could complement BE research by demonstrating the dynamic nature of cross-sectoral engagement and its implications for comparative organizational ethics and the evolution of cross-national ethics and CSR by corporations and nonprofits. The Dialectics of Globalization The institutional changes we identified at the beginning of the paper as well as our discussion so far might suggest that the set of challenges for IB and BE research are rather straightforward and well defined. In fact however, there are some fundamental differences in the two perspectives that could be termed the "dialectics" of the globalization process itself (Sorge, 2000, 2005). As discussed in the previous section, globalization itself poses profound questions for business and society, and this is also tme for the academy, including for IB and BE scholars. On the one hand, many of the changes we discussed so far are due to new "transnational social spaces" (Pries, 2001) where business, alongside other actors and institutions, plays a new role, with implications for both IB and BE research. This often leads to a hyperbolic view of globalization, perhaps most forcefully popularized by Thomas Friedman's "Flat Earth" hypothesis (Friedman, 2006). At the same time, however, the very process of globalization has accentuated the importance of local institutions, actors and cultures, commonly popularized by Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" hypothesis (Huntington, 1998). These dialectics have found some reflection in both the IB and the BE literature. The most prominent example in IB is the ongoing contestation about convergence and divergence of business practices (see, e.g., Geppert, Matten, & Walgenbach, 2006, for an overview) while the debate and criticism of the above mentioned ISCT approach has generated a

TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY

493

similar debate in the BE literature (see, e.g.. Van Oosterhout, Heugens, & Kaptein, 2006, for an overview). Here we briefly review some of the dialectical aspects of globalization and their relevance for broader discussions regarding potential complementarities among IB and BE scholarship. Perhaps the most prominent dialectical phenomenon is the role of national govemments in a globalized world. As we argued so far, global business has outstripped the ability of govemments to regulate it; nevertheless, govemments are playing catch up (van Tulder, 2006: 73-91). In the United States, for example, the Alien Tort Claims Act (Stephens, 2007) and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Weiss, 2009) have been applied to extraterritorial behavior and with increasing vigor. The European Union has demonstrated a willingness to use its antitmst law in a manner that forces big companies like Microsoft and Intel to rethink strategies that might have been workable only under U.S. law (Forelle & Kiviniemi, 2009). This trend is also evident in other policy fields relevant to IB: the fallout from the global financial meltdown of 2008 has also spurred intemationai govemmental cooperation. At the Pittsburgh G-20 meeting of September 2009, meaningful discussions began on the constmction in the not-too-distant future of a mechanism for regulating intemationai financial markets (Pittsburgh Summit, 2009). One of the most conspicuous areas where these dialectics have been studied at the intersection of the IB and BE literature is the phenomenon of cUmate change (e.g., Begg, van der Woerd, & Levy, 2005; Hoffman, 2005; Kolk & Pinkse, 2005; Kolk & Pinkse, 2007; Stem, 2007). While climate change can be regarded as a truly global phenomenon, responses have so far been the result of govemmental regulation (such as Kyoto or the EU Emission Trading System). This included a rather intricate and active role for business (alongside other actors). Further, the specific reactions of business firms globally have highlighted the persistent relevance of local political context of business strategies for addressing a global challenge, even of the most globalised MNCs (Eberlein & Matten, 2009; Levy & Kolk, 2002). This field of inquiry has contributed significantly to our understanding of global strategizing of MNCs (from an IB perspective) as well as understanding the complex political context and role of private business in addressing ethical issues (from a BE perspective). A new and otmiipresent aspect of the intemationai environment is the threat of global terrorism. First, this has resulted in new business opportunities for a number of firms in the fast growing private security industry globally (Elms & Phillips, 2009). On a more dialectical note though, while globalization has in some respects facilitated global terrorist activities, it also imposes more restrictions on business and has re-invigorated nation states in their power to restrain the global flow of goods, services and capital (Jain & Grosse, 2009). The controversy about the sale of US ports to a Dubai-based holding company in the late 2000s underscored this resurgent state. These developments raise specific questions about the limits and risks of global business activities for IB and BE research. Finally, terrorism, and of even greater salience, intemationai organized crime, have in recent years presented threats to the financial markets and many products and services (Nordstrom, 2007). Such threats raise additional research questions regarding the extent, nature and limits of business responsibility for the wider public good, in particular public security.

494

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

CONCLUSION In describing some of the areas of mutual concern to IB and BE scholars, we by no means claim to have been exhaustive. In fact, our hope is that our analysis will spur thought about other areas of potential synergy. Nevertheless, there are a number of aspects in which IB and BE can mutually inform each other. Examined from the potential contribution of IB to BE, we documented how IB has leveraged and integrated robust and broadly applicable theoretical traditions from the social sciencesin particularly, institutional theory approachesthat have strengthened and provided greater rigor and relevance and we have argued that BE research could benefit from such a strategy. Our point is not that these social science traditions should replace the fundamental moral perspectives at the core of BE concems. Rather we have tried to show how the varied theoretical approaches in IB can help to clarify and illuminate questions akeady being posed by BE scholars and in some cases may suggest wholly new questions that need further moral inquiry. We have also seen that IB has a strong empirical tradition specific to cross-border phenomena that has helped to legitimize and validate many of its theoretical and conceptual understandings of the world and the interactions of stakeholders within it; to the extent that BE researchers are interested in speaking to a broader social science audience, such approaches could bolster its broader acceptance and adoption within business research generally. In other words, to the extent that BE research tums to more empirical approaches, IB scholarship presents a useful model for rigor and conceptual clarity. Conversely, there are numerous ways in which BE could inform research in IB. Most importantly, BE scholars who approach global issues from a philosophical perspective can add a much needed moral dimension to IB studies. As we have noted, scholarship in IB, perhaps in its effort to emulate strategy research, has tended to be "values neutral," with some important exceptions (see Dunning, 2003). Given the events of the past several years which have called into question some basic assumptions about the neoclassical economic model, the appropriateness and limits of Anglo-Saxon forms of capitalism, and the shifting views about the efficacy of the state and its important role as a regulator, IB scholars would do well to consider some of the broader moral imphcations of their topics and approaches, considerations BE scholars have embraced for some time. BE, by virtue of their training and orientation in moral discourse, can make an important contribution to the great debates and controversies of globahzation. In this article we have tried to show that by engaging with some of the more prominent streams of IB research, BE scholars can bring their much needed voices to the twenty-first-century discourses on globalization. In conclusion, we would suggest afieldof inquiry where IB and BE scholars jointly could benefit from cooperatively venturing into new fields of empirical analysis and conceptual advancement. In our discussion above, in particular with regard to the MNC legitimacy and accountability, or the role of NGOs for global business, we have identified a field which so far has met hmited attention by both IB and BE scholars. The relevance of the changing role of business in global govemance, in

TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY

495

particular for a "values free" IB perspective, has been underscored by none other than GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt (Roberts, 2010). Finding himself drawn into a discussion on US culture and politics while trying to sell GE products to Chinese President Jiang Zemin, he commented: "That was the first time I realized that the job was more than just selling aircraft engines." Leaming this lesson quickly, GE has now a "quasi diplomatic corps" of more than 200 people globally, to, as Immelt puts it, "connect the dots for the company in the eyes of the govemments." For large MNCs such as GE, the realization that they are deeply embedded in the political sphere is just sound business. While there has been work on "corporate political action" (e.g., Hillman, Keim, & Schuler, 2004) in management and IB, Mantere, Pajunen, and Lamberg (2009) have shown that this literature features a fairly blatant disregard of its ethical implications and the political nature of firms. Conversely, while we hinted to some recent work in BE that has tried to address these political dimensions of corporations, the nature and status of this role is anything but uncontestedas, for instance, the current controversy on the pages of BEQ earlier this year shows. Main arenas of contestation include the Westem bias in conceptualizing business responsibilities (Michaelson, 2010), unresolved questions about the boundaries between the private and the public sphere as well as the appropriate design of effective and legitimate global regulation (Van Oosterhout, 2010) or, more radically, questioning the context of corporate power and the potential of reinvigorating democratic leverage in the contemporary institutional context (Banerjee, 2010). While IB traditionally has drawn especially from economics, psychology and sociology, BE typically has drawn from philosophy and more recently social psychology, we suggest that a closer dialogue with the disciplines of political science and intemational relations might be beneficial for both IB and BE scholars. Such a dialogue may even become a fascinating future avenue of more integrated and collaborative research in both fields. NOTE
1. In 2009 JBE published 46 issues and supplements totaling 7298 pages. BEQ was 4 issues totaling 629 pages.

REFERENCES
Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T., & Willmott, H. 2009. Introduction. In M. Alvesson, T. Bridgman, & H. Willmott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of critical management studies: 1-26. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bailey, W. J., & Spicer, A. 2007. When does national identity matter? Convergence and divergence in intemational business ethics. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1462-80. Banerjee, S. B. 2003. Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, 24(1): 143-80. 2009. Necrocapitalism. Organization Studies, 30: 1541-63.

496

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

2010. Governing the global corporation: A critical perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 265-74. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Barber, B., & Schulz, A. (Eds.). 1996. Jihad vs. McWorld: How globalism and tribalism are reshaping the world. New York: Ballentine. Beck, U. 2000. What is globalization? Cambridge: Polity Press. Begg, K., van derWoerd, F., & Levy, D. L. (Eds.). 2005. The business of climate change: Corporate responses to Kyoto. Sheffield: Greenleaf. Bemstein, S., & Cashore, B. 2007. Can non-state global govemance be legitimate? An analytical framework. egii/aft'on and Governance, 1: 1-25. Brenkert, G. S., & Beauchamp, T L. (Eds.). 2009. The Oxford handbook of business ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brouthers, L. E., Gao, Y., & McNicol, J. P. 2008. Corruption and market attractiveness influences on different types of FDI. Strategic Management Journal, 29(6): 67380. Cashore, B. 2002. Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental govemance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) govemance systems gain rule-making authority. Govemance, 15(4): 503-29. Chandler, A. D., & Mazlish, B. (Eds.). 2005. Leviathans: Multinational corporations and the new global history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Child, J. 2000. Theorizing about organizations cross-nationally. In J. L. C. Cheng & R. B. Peterson (Eds.), Advances in international comparative management, 13: 27-75. Stamford, Conn.: JAI Press. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Ad/n/nsraVe Science Marter/y, 35(1): 128-52. Dahan, N., Doh, J. P, & Guay, T. R. 2006. The role of multinational corporations in transnational institutional building: A policy-network perspective. Human Relations, 59: 1571-1600. DiMaggio, R J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147-60. Doh, J. P. 2009. Pharmaceutical companies, intellectual property, and the global AIDS epidemic. (Case.) In F. Luthans and J. P. Doh, International Management: Culture, Strategy and behavior (7th ed.): 84-93. New York: McGraw-Hill/lrwin. Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. 2004. Globalization and corporate social responsibility: How nongovernmental organizations influence labor and environmental codes of conduct. Management International Review, 44(3), 7-30. Doh, J. P, & Teegen, H. (Eds.). 2003. Globalization and NGOs: Transforming business, govemment, and society. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers. Donaldson, T. 1996. Values in tension: Ethics away from home. Harvard Business Review, 74(5): 48-64.

TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY

497

.. 2001. The ethical wealth of nations. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(3): 2535.

Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. 1994. Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 5(2): 25284. Dunfee, T. W. 2006. A critical perspective of integrative social contracts theory: Recurring criticisms and next generation research topics. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(3): 303-28. Dunn, P., & Shome, A. 2009. Cultural crossvergence and social desirahility bias: Ethical evaluations by Chinese and Canadian business students. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4): 527-43. Dunning, I. H. 1980. Toward an eclectic theory of intemational production. Some empirical i&sis. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(1): 9-31. 1998. Location and the multinational enterprise: A neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1): 45-66. (Ed.). 2003. Making globalization good: The moral challenge of global capitalism. London: Oxford University Press. 2009. Location and the multinational enterprise: John Dunning's thoughts on receiving the Journal of Intemational Business Studies 2008 Decade Award. Journal of International Business Studies, 40: 20-34. Eberlein, B., & Matten, D. 2009. Business responses to climate change regulation in Canada and Germany: Lessons for MNCs from Emerging Economies. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2): 241-55. Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. 2008. Corporate responsibility: A review of intemational management research from 1998 to 2007. Journal of International Management, 14: 319-39. Elms, H., & Phillips, R. A. 2009. Private security companies and institutional legitimacy: corporate and stakeholder responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19: 403-32. Eykmans, J., & Kvemdokk, S. 2009. Moral concerns on international trading permits in international environmental agreements. Unpublished paper, available at www. econ.kuleuven.be/CES/discussionpapers/Dps09/Dps0912.pdf. Elorini, A. 2003. The coming democracy: New rules for running a new world. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Eorelle, C , & Kiviniemi, P. 2009. EU, Microsoft near end in antitrust tussle: Kroes welcomes software giant's move to give PC users choice of web browsers. Wall Street Journal (October 8): B9. Fox, J. A., & Brown, L. D. 1998. The struggle for accountability: The World Bank, NGOs and grassroots movements. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Friedman, T. L. 1999. The Lexus and the olive tree: Understanding globalization. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2006. The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century ( 1 st updated and expanded ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

498

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

Geppert, M., Matten, D., & Walgenbach, P. 2006. Transnational institution building and the multinational corporation: An emerging field of research. Human Relations, 59(11): 1451-65. Goodstein, J., & Wicks, A. 2007. Corporate and stakeholder responsibility: Making business ethics a two-way conversation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17: 375-98. Graham, E. 2000. Fighting the wrong enemy: Antiglobal activists and multinational enterprises. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Intemationai Economics. Hahn, R. 2009. The ethical rational of business for the poor: Integrating the concepts bottom of the pyramid, sustainable development, and corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 84 (3): 313-24. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). 2001. Varieties of capitalisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hambrick, D. C , & Chen, M.-J. 2008. New academic fields as admittance-seeking social movements: The case of strategic management," Acodemj' of Management Review, 33(1): 32-54. Hanlon, G. 2008. Re-thinking corporate social responsibility and the role of the firmon the denial of politics. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: 156-72. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hart, S. L., & Sharma, S. 2004. Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 7-18. Henisz, W., & Swaminathan, A. 2008. Institutions and intemationai business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 537-39. Hess, D., Rogovsky, N., & Dunfee, T. W. 2002. The next wave of corporate community involvement: Corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 44(2): 110-25. Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. 2004. Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6): 837-57. Hiss, S. 2009. From implicit to explicit corporate social responsibility: Institutional change as a fight for myths. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19: 433-51. Hoffman, A. J. 2005. Climate change strategy: The business logic behind voluntary greenhouse gas reductions. California Management Review, 47(3): 2 1 ^ 6 . Huntington, S. P. 1998. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster. Husted, B. W. 2002. Cultural balkanization and hybridization in an era of globalization: Implications for intemationai business research. In M. Kotabe (Ed.), Emerging issues in international business research: 81-95. Northampton, Mass.: Elgar Publishing. Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. 2006. Corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprise: Strategic and institutional approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 838-49.

TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY

499

2008. Toward a model of cross-cultural business ethics: the impact of individualism and collectivism on the ethical decision-making process. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2): 293-305. Husted, B. W., Dozier, J. B., McMahon, T. J., & Kattan, M. W. 1996. The impact of crossnational carriers of business ethics on attitudes about questionable practices and form of moral reasoning. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(2): 391411. Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2008. Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 540-61. Jain, S. C , & Grosse, R. 2009. The impact of terrorism and security measures on global business transactions: Some international business guidelines. Journal of Transnational Management, 14(1): 42-73. Janavaras, B. J. 1975. Graduate education in international business: Quo modol Journal of International Business Studies, 6(1): 91-98. Kamani, A. 2007a. The mirage of marketing to the bottom of the pyramid: How the private sector can help alleviate poverty. California Management Review, 49(4): 90111. 2007b. The misfortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Greener Management International, 51: 99-110. Kerr, C , Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F. H., & Myers, C. A. 1960. Industrialism and industrial Man: The problem of labor and management in economic growth. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. 2005. Business responses to climate change: Identifying emergent strategies. California Management Review, 47(3): 6-20. 2007. Multinationals' political activities on climate change. Business & Society, 46(2): 201-28. Kostova, T, & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of an organizational practice by the subsidiaries of the MNC: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45:215-33. Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, T. 2008. Institutional theory in the study of MNCs: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 994-1007. Kuhn, T., & Deetz, S. 2008. Critical theory and corporate social responsibility: Can/should we get beyond cynical reasoning? In A. Crane, A. Me Williams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: 17396. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levy, D. L. 2008. Political contestation in global production networks. Academy of Management Review, 33: 943-62. Levy, D. L., & Kolk, A. 2002. Strategic responses to global climate change: Conflicting pressures on multinationals in the oil industry. Business and Politics, 3(2): 275300. Lincoln, J. R., Olson, J., & Hanada, M. 1978. Cultural effects of organizational structures: The case of Japanese firms in the United States. American Sociological Review, 43: 829-47.

500

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

Lindenberg, M. & Bryant, C. 2002. Going global: Transforming relief and development NGOs. Bloomfield, Conn.: Kumarian Press. Mantere, S., Pajunen, K., & Lamberg, J.-A. 2009. Vices and virtues of corporate political activity: The challenge of intemational business. Business & Society, 48(1)- 10532. Matten, D., & Moon, J. 2008. "Implicit"' and "explicit"' CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2): 404-24. Meyer, J. W., Boli-Bennett, J., and Chase-Dunn, C. 1975. Convergence and divergence in development Annual Review of Sociology, 1: 223^6. Michaelson, C. 2010. Revisiting the global business ethics question. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 237-52. Michel, S., & Beuret, M. 2009. China safari: On the trail of Beijing's expansion in Africa. New York: Nations Books. Nordstrom, C. 2007. Global outlaws: Crime, money, and power in the contemporary world. Berkeley: University of California Press. Oetzel, J. & Doh, J. P. 2009. MNEs and development: A review and reconceptualization. Journal of World Business, 44: 108-20. Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145-79. Pearce, J. A., & Doh, J. P 2005 The high impact of collaborative social initiatives. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(3): 30-39. Pittsburgh Summit. 2009. Leader's statement: The Pittsburgh summit: September 24-25, 2009. Available at www.pittsburghsummit.gov/mediacenter/129639.htm. Prahalad, C. K. 2006. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Wharton School Publishing. Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. L. 1987. The multinational mission: Balancing local demands and global vision. New York: The Free Press. Pries, L. (Ed.). 2001. A'^eM' transnational social spaces. London: Routledge. Ralston, D. A. 2008. The crossvergence perspective: Reflections and projections. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1): 27-40. Ralston, D. A., Pounder, J., Lo, C. W. H., Wong, Y. Y, Egri, C. P, & Stauffer, J. 2006. Stability and change in managerial work values: A longitudinal study of China, Hong Kong, and the U.S. Management and Organization Review, 2(1): 67-94. Rasche, A., & Kell, G. 2010. The United Nations global compact: Achievements, trends and challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Redding, G. 2005. The thick description and comparison of societal systems of capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 36: 123-55. Roberts, D. 2010. General Electric: Why the world's largest company still has spark. The Guardian (January 14). Available at www.guardian.co.uk. Rondinelli, D. A., & London, T. 2003. How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. Academy of Management Executive, 17(1): 61-76.

TOWARD GREATER CONGRUENCE AND SYNERGY

501

Ruggie, J. G. 2004. Reconstituting the public domain: issues, actors, and practices. European Joumal of International Relations, 10(4): 499-531. Rugman, A. M., & Brewer, T. (Eds.). 2001. The Oxford handbook of international business. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sandel, M. J. 1997. It's immoral to buy the right to pollute. New York Times (December 15):A15. Santoro, M. A. 2009. China 2020: How western business canand shouldinfluence social and political change in the coming decade. Ithaca, N.Y.: Comell University Press. 2010. Post-Westphalia and its discontents: Business, globalization and human rights in political and moral perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 285-97. Schepers. D. H. 2006. The impact of NGO network conflict on the corporate social responsibility strategies of multinational corporations. Business & Society, 45: 282-99. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. 2009. Introduction to the special issue: Globalization as a challenge for business responsibilities. Business Ethics

Quarterly, 19: 327^7.

Singer, P. 2002. One world: The ethics of globalization. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Smith, N. C , Simpson, S. S., & Huang, C.-Y. 2007. Why managers fail to do the right thing: An empirical study of unethical and illegal conduct. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17: 633-67. Sorge, A. 2000. The diabolical dialectics of societal effects. In M. Maurice & A. Sorge (Eds.), Embedding organizations: Societal analysis of actors, organizations, and socio-economic content: 37-56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2005. The global and the local: Understanding the dialectics of business systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Soros, G. 2002. George Soros on globalization. New York: Public Affairs. Stephens, P. J. 2007. Spinning Sosa: Federal common law, the alien tort statute, and judicial restraint. Boston University International Law Journal, 25(1): 32-33. Stem, N. 2007. The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stiglitz, J. 2002. Globalization and its discontents. New York: Norton. Teegen, H., Doh, J. P., & Vachani, S. 2004. The importance of nongovemmental organizations (NGOs) in global govemance and value creation: An intemational business research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 463-83. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reforms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 22-39. Triandis, H. C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Van Oosterhout, J. 2010. The role of corporations in shaping the global mies of the game: In search of new foundations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 253-64.

502

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

Van Oosterhout, J., Heugens, R M. A. R., & Kaptein, M. 2006. The internal morality of contracting: Advancing the contractualist endeavor in business ethics. Academy of Management Review, 31(3): 521-39. van Tulder, R. 2006. International business-society management. London: Routledge. Vemon, R. 1971. Sovereignty at bay: The multinational spread of U.S. enterprises. New York: Basic Books. Waddock, S. 2008. Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3): 87-108. Webber, R. H. 1969. Convergence or divergence. Columbia Journal of World Business, 4(3): 75-83. Weiss, D. C. 2009. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, SEC disgorgement of profits, and the evolving intemational bribery regime: Weighing proportionality, retribution, and deterrence. Michigan Journal of Intemational Law, 30: 471-514. Whitley, R. 1999. Divergent capitalisms. The social structuring and change of business systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yaziji, M. 2004. Tuming gadflies into allies. Harvard Business Review, 82(2): 110-15. Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. P 2009. NGOs and corporations: Confiict and collaboration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yip, G. 1992. Total global strategy: Managing for worldwide competitive advantage, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Copyright of Business Ethics Quarterly is the property of Philosophy Documentation Center and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.