Please find below the Special Issue Call for Papers in International Business Review, on the topic of 'MNE Innovation for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals’.
Shasha, on behalf of the GEs
Special Issue Editors:
International Business Review
Special Issue Call for Papers
MNE Innovation for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals
Shasha Zhao II Associate
Professor of International Business and Innovation, University of Surrey Business School, UK
Jahan Ara Peerally II Associate
Professor of International Business, HEC Montréal, Canada
Claudia De Fuentes II Associate
Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Sobey School of Business, Saint Mary’s University, Canada
Maria Alejandra Gonzalez-Perez II Full
Professor of Management, Universidad EAFIT, Colombia
Full Manuscript Submission Deadline: July 1st,
AIMS AND ACADEMIC SIGNIFICANCE
Global sustainability challenges
The world is increasingly facing sustainability challenges that span geographic and economic boundaries. The combination of political discontent with increasing protectionism and trade wars, the digital divide, negative
climate change and social backlashes against growing income inequalities have led to dysfunctional market conditions (Doh, Tashman, & Benischke, 2019; Gonzalez-Perez, Mohieldin, Hult & Velez-Ocampo, 2021), mass migration (Barnard, Deeds, Mudambi, & Vaaler,
2019), and unstable global value chains for cross-border production and trade of goods and services (Witt, 2019), which affect economic activities everywhere and which underlie major global sustainability challenges (Ghauri, Strange & Cooke, 2021; Zhao, Gooderham,
Harzing & Papanastassiou, 2021). These global sustainability challenges, on the one hand, have been the subject of intense discussion among governments, supranational and international organizations; on the other hand, these challenges have led to an increasingly
volatile global business environment, which raises questions on the viability of advanced and emerging economy multinational enterprises’ (AMNEs and EMNEs) local
and crossborder strategies. Thus, it seems necessary for MNEs to establish new and more sustainable practices that focus on the longer-term social value creation (Rygh, 2019) and solutions to grand challenges for all societal stakeholders. Indeed, the short-term
and myopic outlook that concerns firm-specific economic value creation solely for shareholders is becoming increasingly unsustainable. This ever-more challenging global environment has led to a call for action from international and supra-national organizations
to various stakeholders, including MNEs, who can proactively or reactively develop and implement innovative initiatives as coping mechanisms. This highlights the imperative for MNEs to consider and undertake innovation activities that effectively address current
and future sustainability challenges. These challenges are reflected in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by 192 member states,
and the MNEs’ role and contributions are an integral part of this agenda (United Nations Global Impact, n.d.; Kolk, Kourula & Pisani, 2017).
MNEs and sustainable innovation
The current international business (IB) research on MNEs and the SDGs shows growing attention has been paid to not only how MNEs succeed internationally as profit-driven agents but how their value-adding activities
can have both positive and negative impacts on sustainable development (Ghauri & Yamin, 2009; Kolk, 2016; Azevedo, Carneiro, Rodriguez & Gonzalez-Perez, 2020). Some examples are MNEs’ sustainability decisions and practices and offshoring activities (e.g.,
Zhao, 2019; Lartey, Amankwah-Amoah, Danso, Adomako, Khan & Tarba, 2020), MNEs’ challenges and opportunities within the context of climate change (e.g., Bohnsack, Ciulli & Kolk, 2020; Ghauri et al., 2021), MNEs’ typologies concerning specific SDGs (e.g., Comyns,
2018), MNEs’ impact on SDGs through GVCs (e.g., Amador & Cabral, 2016; Hult, Gonzalez-Perez & Lagerström, 2020; Gonzalez-Perez et al., 2021), and MNEs’ negative effects on widening the inequality gap (e.g., Márquez-Ramos, 2018; Giuliani, 2019; Zhao et al.,
2021). However, what is crucial and remains less known is whether and how MNE innovation activities and outcomes are sustainable for society at large. Herein, we consider those innovation activities or outcomes as ‘sustainable innovations’ that have a wider
and deeper impact - beyond the traditional single consideration of firm-level performance - on the social, economic, environmental aspects of societies and contribute to achieving the SDGs. More specficially, we view sustainable innovation activities as entailing,
for example, new knowledge creation and renewal, knowledge transfer and exchange, and (re)combination and dissemination at local level and/or across the MNEs’ global innovation network , with concerns for social, environmental or economic issues in these processes. Thus,
sustainable innovation outcomes are those that dually address profit-making and one or more of the SDGs, which result in positive impact on social, environmental and economic conditions. The outcomes can consist of, for example, new or renewed product development
and service solutions, technologies and patents, operational, management and marketing capabilities, business models, organizational methods, expertise (Baregheh, Rowley & Sambrook, 2009; OECD, 2018), and of inclusive and sustainable industrialization processes.
Indeed, knowledge on MNEs’ global innovation activities for achieving sustainable development is largely missing from the literature. Whilst research on MNE global innovation strategy and structure is substantial
(e.g., the literatures on MNE R&D internationalization and knowledge seeking by EMNEs), apart from a few studies that broadly link MNEs, innovation and SDGs (Dionisio & Vargas, 2020; Nylund, Brem & Agarwal, 2021; van der Waal, Thijssens & Maas, 2021), the
IB literature offers little insights into the conceptual and empirical relationship between MNE innovation and sustainable development in home and host countries. Given that MNE innovation is commonly characterized as being geographically dispersed across
advanced and emerging economies (Chaminade, De Fuentes, Harirchi & Plechero, 2016; Zhao, Tan, Papanastassiou & Harzing, 2020; Zhao, Papanastassiou & Pearce, 2021), MNEs have become embedded not only at home but often profoundly in host-country environments.
Their innovation activities and outcomes thus influence and are influenced by actors, processes and systems of home and host countries’ knowledge and business networks (Chaminade & De Fuentes, 2012).
Given the ever more significant sustainability challenges posing impact on all actors and aspects of society, there is an increasing urgency and need within these networks to overcome the challenges and ensure sustainable
development (Gonzalez-Perez, 2020; Gonzalez-Perez et al., 2021), often through innovation activities that connect different actors and processes at the local and global levels. In this context, MNEs face major strategic challenges whereby they must balance
internal financial objectives and sustainability pressure. However, the question of how MNEs consider, undertake and develop innovation that not only address their interests, but also address sustainability needs is critical, and remains largely unanswered
in the IB literature. Particularly, little is known about the important processes through which MNEs create or acquire the knowledge, resources, skills and experiences necessary for developing sustainable innovations within the local and global multi-stakeholder
networks within which they are often deeply embedded.
A multi-stakeholder approach for MNE sustainable innovation
Given that MNEs’ success has often been subject to the breadth and depth of their relationships with different stakeholders in the local and global networks (encompassing not only customers and business
partners - as portrayed by the dominant IB thinking - but including governments, higher education, research centres, communities, non-for-profit organizations, environmental groups, advocacy groups), we posit that the wide range of stakeholders and the networks
themselves can be important sources of knowledge critical for MNE learning and dissemination of innovative solutions that go beyond financial performance and shareholder value to generate wider societal impact. A similar assertion is made by the United
Nations (2015:25) whereby it encourages firms “… to apply their creativity and innovation to solving sustainable development challenges” and it also recognizes the role of the multiple stakeholders
in this process. Relatedly, the need for, and the benefits of a multi-stakeholder approach as the conceptual basis for MNEs’ sustainable innovation have been increasingly discussed in recent literature through the lens of a systemic perspective (Chaminade,
2020; Peerally & De Fuentes, 2020), whereby the creation and application of knowledge for achieving the SDGs may be viewed as an interactive and collaborative
process among multiple stakeholders, including (but not exclusively) the firm sector (i.e., MNEs and domestic enterprises who are producers buyers, suppliers, subcontractors), local and foreign actors from
the non-firm sector (i.e., public science and technology and other research institutions) (Narula, 2014), the third sector (i.e., social purpose organizations/enterprises), civil society and consumers, and which are context-specific (Peerally, De Fuentes &
Figueiredo, 2019) and embedded in local and/or global socio-institutions.
In IB research, such a system can be defined as the business world organisations– including stakeholders, organizations, and countries – involved in exchanges, production, business functions, and cross-border
trade through both marketplace competition and cooperation (Hult et al.,, 2020). The systemic approach to innovation considers different modes of interactions with different types of actors, and include a variety of processes for innovation under different
institutional and sectoral contexts and arrangements. For example, the concept of ‘innovation systems’ which was first discussed in innovation literature (e.g., Nelson,
Freeman, Lundvall & Pelikan, 1988; Freeman, 1995; Lundvall, 1992) encompasses
domestic and foreign economic actors (e.g., domestic firms, foreign MNEs), non-economic actors (e.g., government agencies, research institutes), and institutions (e.g., policy regimes) that connect
them both within and across countries (Narula & Dunning 2010; Binz & Truffer, 2017; Peerally et al., 2019; Peerally & De Fuentes, 2020). These actors determine
the stock of knowledge within any given location because they embody the knowledge available within an innovation system. It centers
on the interrelationships between these actors for understanding the dynamics of knowledge creation for innovation activities, especially by EMNEs. The framework has also been applied to examine systemic
failures which impede emerging economies’ domestic and multinational enterprises innovation activities (e.g., Enderwick & Buckley, 2021). Another example is the innovation
ecosystem concept, which was first discussed in the strategy literature. Its central thesis is the presence of a common platform for firm-stakeholder interaction and innovation whereby firms create and capture value (Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Autio & Thomas, 2014,
Nylund et al., 2021). This value creation process is conditioned upon pre-existing high levels of knowledge stock and innovation capacity
which enables firms, often AMNEs, to engage in sustaining, deepening and renewing their innovation activities and competitive (ownership) advantages.
Given the dual macro and micro natures of the SDGs which often require multisectoral involvement for their achievement (Natera, Tomassini & Vera-Cruz, 2019)
and the multifaceted nature of innovation, we posit that a more holistic, multi-stakeholder approach - underpinned by a systemic perspective - for analysing MNEs (AMNEs and EMNEs) and their cross-border hierarchical and quasi-hierarchical knowledge activities
is useful for generating novel insights into how these MNEs consider and undertake innovation activities to develop innovative solutions that not only contribute to firm-level performance but effectively address current and future sustainability challenges
and contribute to the SDGs (Nylund et al., 2021).
KEY THEMES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Given that global innovation is central to MNEs’ survival and performance and that MNEs are often key actors in the innovation networks of home and host countries, it is believed that their processes for undertaking
innovation activities to achieve SDGs is complex and significant. This Special Issue, therefore, serves as a much-needed platform to initiate scholarly conversations concerning the ways in which AMNEs and EMNEs generate sustainable innovation to achieve the
SDGs in their home and/or host countries, which in turn adds clarity to the debates in the overlapping IB and sustainability fields, on whether MNEs’ activities do indeed lead to positive outcomes for society at large.
In this Special Issue, we thus call for empirical studies that apply quantitative and/or qualitative approaches as well as conceptual/theoretical papers, both of which should offer significant theoretical contributions
to understanding AMNEs’ and EMNEs’ innovative activities and outcomes for achieving the SDGs through their deep involvement with local and global stakeholders as well as in the innovation (eco)systems. We
welcome studies that examine,but are not limited to the following illustrative research questions:
Macro/Institutional level -
-To what extent do different sustainability challenges in home and host countries affect how MNEs consider and develop sustainable innovations?
-What are the institutional arrangements (e.g.,
concerning science technology and innovation) for promoting MNE-level innovation aligned with sustainable development?
-How do different institutional factors influence MNEs’ decisions and activities to innovate for addressing sustainability challenges?
-How do the innovation networks or (eco)systems in advanced, emerging and less-developed economies variably affect MNE’s sustainable innovation activities and outcomes?
-To what extent do different processes of knowledge creation, learning, transfer, integration, and dissemination between the MNEs and the broad set of local and/or global stakeholders help MNEs
to develop sustainable innovations?
-What types of knowledge, resources, skills and experiences are needed by MNEs to create the innovative capabilities necessary for developing sustainable innovations?
-How do MNEs interact (through organizational mechanisms or processes) with different local and/or international stakeholders to create the knowledge, resources, skills and experiences needed for
-What are the key managerial, technological and/or organizational considerations/factors that contribute to --or hinder-- MNEs’ willingness or ability to innovate and address pressing sustainability
-How do MNEs leverage on the different resources, processes, actors, local or global innovation networks to develop innovative solutions which are useful for addressing the various SDG goals?
-How do AMNEs and EMNEs vary in terms of their approach to sustainable innovation?
-Are specific types of MNEs more motivated to or effective at developing sustainable innovations than others? What are the explanatory factors for these differences (e.g., firm attributes, nature
of innovation network or (eco)systems, or home-country characteristics)?
-How do interactions with different stakeholders in the innovation networks or (eco)systems contribute to or hinder MNEs’ motivation and ability to develop sustainable innovation?
-To what extent do different mechanisms or processes within the innovation networks or (eco)systems facilitate the internalization
or externalization of MNEs’ sustainable innovation activities and outcomes?
-In terms of innovation (eco)systems, what are the systemic failures that may inhibit MNEs from innovating sustainability?
-What are the connections or strength of dialogues between MNEs and other stakeholders within the realm of innovation policies and SDG-oriented policies? How do these affect the way MNEs consider
and undertake innovation activities that address sustainability challenges?
-To what extent the interplay between individual-, organizational-, institutional-, and locational factors influence or explain MNEs’ decisions and activities to develop innovative solutions for
achieving SDGs? What are the variations?
-In what ways do MNEs interact with different stakeholders at the micro and macro levels to learn and develop sustainable innovation capabilities?
-What are the appropriate theoretical frameworks for conceptualizing the links between MNEs, innovation, and SDGs?
-To what extent can the (eco)systems of innovation perspective extend the explanatory capacity of IB theories to better explain the role and impact of MNE innovation for sustainable development?
-What new methodological approaches can be effective for measuring and assessing the empirical links between MNEs, innovation, and SDGs?
All manuscripts will be reviewed as a cohort for this special issue. All submitted manuscripts will be subjected to double-blind peer review following the journal guidelines. Authors should follow the journal guidelines.
Any queries regarding the special issue can be directed to the guest editors.
A dedicated workshop will be organized for authors who submitted their manuscripts to this Special Issue and/or have been offered the opportunity to revise and resubmit. Depending on the potential for global travel,
this workshop may be offered in-person or virtually. Participating authors will be offered the opportunity to present their papers and benefit from receiving developmental feedback from peers and the guest editors to enhance the quality and contribution of
their papers. Furthermore, a symposium in 2023 will be organized for the final selected papers for publication to enhance their visibility and impact.
Shasha Zhao is Associate Professor of International Business and Innovation at Surrey
University Business School and Associate of Centre for International Business and Development at Sussex University, UK. Her research focuses on (E)MNE innovation strategy and
knowledge management, and the impact on sustainability. She is Co-Founding Chair of Academy of International Business Sustainability SIG. She has published in International Business Review, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Human
Resource Management Journal, International Marketing Review, and Thunderbird International Business Review, and Critical Perspectives on International Business, and book chapter in AIB
UKI Chapter Best Paper Book Series (Palgrave Macmillan). She is Associate Editor of
Asian Business and Management and Senior Editor of European Journal of International Management, on the Editorial Board of Management International Review, and reviews for Journal of International
Business Studies, amongst others. Her lead-authored paper on innovation of (E)MNEs in emerging Asia won the Best Paper Award at Euro-Asia Management Studies Association Annual Meeting, 2019.
Jahan Ara Peerally is Associate Professor of International
Business at HEC Montréal, Canada. Her research encompasses the activities of multinational versus domestic and social enterprises in developing and emerging economies. Her publications have focused on the technological capabilities and innovation activities
of foreign subsidiaries, domestic and social enterprises and on the other socio-economic development effects of these enterprises through inclusive and social innovation. She has published scientific articles in peer-reviewed books (e.g., Edward Elgar) and
journals (e.g., World Development, Long Range Planning, Economics of Innovation and New Technology) and
teaching case studies and notes in peer reviewed journals as well.
Claudia De Fuentes is
Associate Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Sobey School of Business at Saint Mary's University. Her research experience includes innovation in firms, systems of innovation, the creation and use of knowledge in a globalized economy, innovation
in global value chains, new forms of academia–industry collaboration, and science, technology and innovation policy. Her work has circulated internationally. She has collaborated with several research groups to work on projects financed by SSHRC (Canada),
CONACYT (Mexico), the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS), the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), the Foro Consultivo científico y tecnológico (FCCT) in Mexico, and for the International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Maria Alejandra Gonzalez-Perez is Full Professor of Management at
Universidad EAFIT, Colombia. She was the Vice-President of Administration at the Academy of International Business (AIB) (2015-2018) and the regional chapter chair for Latin America and the Caribbean (AIB-LAC) (2018-2021). She is Area Editor of the Cross-Cultural
and Strategic Management (CCSM) Journal; Associate Editor of Transnational Corporations; and Editor-in-Chief of the business journal AD-minister. Her research areas are: internationalization of firms from emerging economies; sustainability; corporate social
responsibility; sustainable development; and international migration. Alejandra has published 12 books, and papers at Journal of International Business Studies, Management
and Organization Review, Journal of Business Research, Critical Perspectives
on International Business, Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, Multinational Business Review, Journal of World Business, amongst others.
Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4):
Adner, R. & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation
ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations, Strategic Management Journal,
Amador, J. & Cabral S. (2016). Global value chains: a survey of drivers and measures. Journal of Economic Surveys,
Asheim, B. T., & Isaksen, A. (2002). Regional innovation systems: the integration of local ‘sticky’ and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge. The
Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1): 77-86.
Autio, E., & Thomas, L. (2014). Innovation ecosystems: implications for innovation management. In:
Dodgson, M., Gann, D.M., & Phillips, N. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Azevedo, G., Carneiro, J., Rodriguez, C., & Gonzalez-Perez, M. A. (2020). Rebalancing society: Learning
from the experience of Latin American progressive leaders. Journal of Business Research, 119: 511-521.
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J. & Sambrook, S. (2009), Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation, Management Decision, 47(8):1323-1339.
Barnard, H., Deeds, D., Mudambi, R., & Vaaler, P. M. (2019). Migrants, migration policies, and international business research: Current trends and new directions. Journal
of International Business Policy, 2(4): 275-288.
Binz, C., & Truffer, B. (2017). Global innovation systems
- A conceptual framework for innovation dynamics in transnational contexts. Research Policy, 46(7): 1284-1298.
Bohnsack, R., Ciulli, F., & Kolk, A. (2020). The role of business models in firm internationalization: An exploration of European electricity firms in the context of the energy transition. Journal of
International Business Studies, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00364-4
Chaminade C., Barnard, H., De Fuentes, C., Harirchi, G. & Plechero, M. (2016) The geography and structure of Global Innovation Networks: global scope and regional embeddedness. In Shearmur,
R., Carrincazeaux, C., Doloreux, D. (Eds.) Handbook on the Geography of Innovation, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham
Chaminade, C. & De Fuentes, C. (2012). Competences as drivers and enablers of globalization
of innovation: the Swedish ICT industry and emerging economies, Innovation and Development, 2(2): 209-229.
Chaminade C. (2020) Innovation for What? Unpacking the Role of Innovation for Weak and Strong Sustainability. Journal of
Sustainability Research, 2(1), https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20200007
Comyns, B. (2018). Climate change reporting and multinational
companies: Insights from institutional theory and international business, Accounting Forum, 42 (1):65-77
Dionisio, M. & Raupp de Vargas, E. (2020). Corporate social innovation: A systematic literature review, International
Business Review, Volume 29(2):101641,
Doh, J. P., Tashman, P., & Benischke, M. H. (2019). Adapting to grand environmental challenges through collective entrepreneurship. Academy
of Management Perspectives, 33(4): 450-468.
Enderwick, P. & Buckley, P.J., (2021). The role of springboarding in economic catch-up: A theoretical perspective, Journal of International
Freeman, C. (1995). The National System of Innovation in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics,
Ghauri, P. N., Strange, R & Cooke, F.L. (2021). Research on international business: The new realities, International Business Review,
Ghauri, P. N., & Yamin, M. (2009). Revisiting the impact of multinational enterprises on economic development. Journal of World
Business, 44(2): 105-107.
Giuliani, E. (2019) Why multinational enterprises may be causing more inequality than we think, Multinational Business
Review, 27(3): 221-225.
Gomez-Trujillo, A.M. & Gonzalez-Perez, M.A(2020) What we know about organizational sustainability and international business? , Management
of Environmental Quality, Vol 31 (2): 292-305.
Gomez-Trujillo, A.M.; Velez-Ocampo, J. & Gonzalez-Perez, M.A(2020) A literature review on the causality between sustainability and corporate reputation, what goes first?. Management
of Environmental Quality, 31 (2): 406-430.
Gonzalez-Perez, M.A (2013) Corporate Social Responsibility and International Business: A Conceptual Overview. Advances
in Sustainability and Environment. 11, 1-35.
Gonzalez-Perez, M.A. (2013) Global Civil Society and International Business: A Review. Advances in Sustainability and Environment.
11, pp. 37-63.
Gonzalez-Perez, M.A. (2013) An eclectic review of critical perspectives on globalization and International Business: Setting the context for corporate social responsibility and sustainability. Advances
in Sustainability and Environment. 12, 1-21.
Gonzalez-Perez, M.A (2016) Climate Change and the 2030 Corporate Agenda for Sustainable Development. Advances in Sustainability
and Environmental Justice, 19, 189 - 20
Gonzalez-Perez, M. A. (2020) When business continuity could be social irresponsibility, Forbes Colombia, 29/03/2020
Gonzalez-Perez, M.A; Mohieldin, M., Hult, T.G. & Velez-Ocampo, J. (2021) COVID-19, sustainable
development challenges of Latin America and the Caribbean, and the potential engines for an SDGs-based recovery. Management Research. Doi: 10.1108/MRJIAM-12-2020-1119
Hult, G.T.M., Gonzalez-Perez, M.A. & Lagerström, K. (2020). The theoretical evolution and use of the
Uppsala Model of internationalization in the international business ecosystem. Journal of International Business Studies, 51: 38–49.
Hult, G.T.M Mena, Jeannette; Gonzalez-Perez, M.A; Lagerström, K. & Hult, D.T (2018), A Ten Country-Company Study of Sustainability and Product-Market Performance: Influences of Doing Good, Warm
Glow, and Price Fairness, Journal of Macromarketing, 38 (3): 242-261.
Iansiti, M. & Levien R. (2004). The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation,
and Sustainability. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
Johnson, R. (2017) Measuring Global Value Chains.
NBER Working Paper Series, Nov.
Kaartemo, V.& Gonzalez-Perez, M.A (2020) Renewable
energy in international business, critical perspectives on international business, 16(4): 325-226.
Kolk, A. (2016). The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to CSR and sustainable development. Journal
of World Business, 51(1): 23-34.
Kolk, A., Kourula, A. & Pisani, N. (2017) Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: what do we know and how to proceed? Transnational
Corporations, 24(3): 9-32
Lartey, T.A., Amankwah-Amoah, J., Danso, A., Adomako, S., Khan, Z. & Tarba, S.Y. (2020). Environmental
sustainability practices and offshoring activities of multinational corporations across emerging and developed markets, International Business Review,
Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning.
Márquez-Ramos, L. (2018). Value-chain activities and individual wages. Critical Perspectives on International business,https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-12-2017-0102
Moore, J.F. (1996). The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems.
Harper Business: New York.
Narula, R. (2014). The limits of ‘new’ multinational enterprises: Institutions, systems, and ‘members-only’ location advantages. A. Cuervo-Cazurra, R. Ramamurti (Eds.), Understanding
Multinationals from Emerging Markets, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp.81-107.
Narula, R. & Dunning, J. H. (2010). Multinational enterprises, development and globalization: Some clarifications and a research agenda. Oxford
Development Studies, 38: 263-87.
Natera, J. M, Tomassini, C & Vera-Cruz,
A.O. (2019). Policy analysis and knowledge application for building a healthy health innovation system in developing countries, Innovation and Development, 9(2):
Nelson, R., Freeman, C., Lundvall, B.A., & Pelikan, P., (1988). National systems of innovation. In: Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G.,
Soete, L. (Eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter.
Nylund, P.A., Brem, A. & Agarwal, N., (2021). Innovation
ecosystems for meeting sustainable development goals: The evolving roles of multinational enterprises, Journal of Cleaner Production,
OECD (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation
Activities, OECD Publishing: Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en.
Park, S.H; Gonzalez-Perez, M.A & Floriani, D.E (2021) The
Palgrave Handbook of Corporate Sustainability in the Digital Era. Palgrave
Peerally, J. A. & De Fuentes, C. (2020). Typifying
Latecomer Social Entrepreneurs by Ownership Structure: Learning and Building Knowledge from Innovation Systems, Tsvetkova, A., Schmutzler, J., & Pugh, R. (Eds.) Entrepreneurial
Ecosystems Meet Innovation Systems: Synergies, Policy Lessons and Overlooked Dimensions. Edward Elgar: Northampton, MA.
Peerally, J. A, De Fuentes, C., & Figueiredo, P.N. (2019). Inclusive
Innovation and the Role of Innovative Technological Capability-Building: The Social Business Grameen Danone Foods Limited in Bangladesh. Long Range Planning. 52(6): 101843
Rygh, A. (2019). Social value creation by multinational enterprises. Critical Perspectives on International Business,
United Nations, (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development,
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York
United Nations Global Impact (n.d.) How Your Company Can Advance Each of the SDGs,
United Nations: Geneva
van der Waal, J., Thijssens, T. & Maas, K., (2021). The
innovative contribution of multinational enterprises to the Sustainable Development Goals, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Witt, M. A. (2019). De-globalization: Theories, predictions, and opportunities for international business research. Journal of
International Business Studies, 50: 1053-1077.
Zhao, S. (2019) Healthy cities and sustainable innovation, in Leal Filho W., Azul A., Brandli L., Özuyar P., Wall T. (Eds), Sustainable
Cities and Communities. Encyclopaedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Springer: Cham.
Zhao, S., Gooderham, P., Harzing, A.W. & Papanastassiou, M. (2021) Do multinational enterprises contribute to, or reduce global inequality? Critical
Perspectives on International Business, 17(1): 1-7
Zhao, S., Papanastassiou, M., Pearce, R.D. & Iguchi, C. (2020) MNE R&D internationalization in developing Asia. Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-020-09705-1
Zhao, S., Tan, H., Papanastassiou, M. & Harzing, A.W. (2020). The internationalization of innovation towards the South: A historical case study of a global pharmaceutical corporation in China (1993–2017). Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 37: 553–585