CALL FOR PAPERS Special Issue of the Journal of International Business Studies The Global Scope of CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY: Multinational firms, Supply Chains, and the Private Governance of Social and Environmental issues Special Issue Editors: * Sjoerd Beugelsdijk (University of Groningen, the Netherlands, [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ) * Jonathan Doh (Villanova University, USA, [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ) * Tatiana Kostova (University of South Carolina, USA, [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ) * Valentina Marano (Northeastern University, USA, [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ) * Miriam Wilhelm (University of Groningen, the Netherlands, [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ) Deadline for submission: now extended to October 1, 2021 Corporate sustainability in international business Societal expectations for corporations to be more sustainable continue to grow (BCG, 2018). The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified these expectations, because of the visibility of businesses’ role in the urgent health needs of their employees, workers and business partners along their global supply chains (Bain & Company, 2020; BSR, 2020; Gardiner, 2020). Reflective of these developments and their importance across countries, international business (IB) scholars have begun to examine the conditions that facilitate or impede the global diffusion of sustainable practices by multinational corporations (MNCs). Although historically focused on advanced economy multinational corporations (AE-MNCs; Kolk & Lenfant, 2010), this work is increasingly turning to emerging market MNCs (EM-MNCs) (Doh, Husted, & Yang, 2016; Marano, Tashman, & Kostova, 2017). Most of this research has taken an institutional perspective trying to explain the degree, patterns, and cross-country variation in the adoption of sustainable practices based on firm embeddedness in home and host country institutions (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2012; Surroca, Tribó, & Zahra, 2013). In addition to direct effects, scholars have examined the impact of institutional distance between countries in which MNCs operate as a mediator of the adoption of sustainable practices (Campbell, Eden, & Miller, 2012). Research has also identified several firm-level drivers and consequences of sustainable practice adoption by MNCs (Pisani, Kourula, Kolk, & Meijer, 2017). More recent contributions investigate headquarters-subsidiary dynamics that help explain environmental and social practice adoption patterns among MNCs’ foreign subsidiaries (Asmussen & Fosfuri, 2019; Jacqueminet & Durand, In Press; Moon, Gold, & Chapple, 2020). In most of this work, the focus has been on the transfer and diffusion of sustainable practices through foreign direct investment (FDI) networks in MNCs. Global supply chains Much less attention has been directed to firms’ embeddedness in global supply chains and how such embeddedness might shape sustainable practice adoption by focal firms and other actors in those networks. By global supply chains, we refer to the focal firm-specific nexus of inter-firm and intra-firm relationships that span multiple countries and move a product or service from supplier to end customer. Due to their central role, focal firms (which are often MNCs) are increasingly expected to demonstrate accountability for the social and environmental performance of the other actors in their supply chains, including the first- and even second tier suppliers (Parmigiani, Klassen, & Russo, 2011; Kim & Davis, 2016). IB research on sustainable practice adoption in global supply chains is rather limited. Only recently have some scholars begun to examine these issues as they relate to a range of social and environmental issues and practices, especially those related to labor and human rights (e.g., Marano & Kostova, 2016; Narula, 2019; Wettstein, Giuliani, Santangelo, & Stahl, 2019). Yet, global supply chains are key contexts for understanding MNCs’ ability and motivation to respond to growing global expectations about firms’ social and environmental impact. As a whole, the vertical extension of sustainable practices from MNCs to their global supply chains has not yet been subject to systematic research in IB. This gap is surprising given the evidence that MNCs’ social and environmental impact is not only linked to their FDI but also their sourcing decisions (McKinsey, 2016, 2020). Moreover, a number of countries, including the UK, US, Australia, and France have adopted legal expectations that companies seek to mitigate business and human rights violations along their supply chains and/or report on what steps they have taken to do so. For instance, Section 1502 of the Dodd–Frank Act of 2010, the 2012 Californian Transparency in Supply Chains Act, and the UK Modern Slavery Act require large MNCs to provide consumers with information about the origin of their products and the conditions under which they were produced. This has led to unprecedented pressures for MNCs to vouch for the conformance with ethical standards throughout their global supply chains. Private governance of CSR Related to the issues of sustainability in global supply chains, a number of allied disciplines outside IB have recognized that MNCs’ responsibilities extend beyond firm boundaries and have studied the various governance systems associated with sustainable practices in global supply chains. These include business ethics (e.g., Amaeshi, Osuji, & Nnodim, 2008; Egels-Zandén, 2017), corporate governance (e.g., Bondy, Matten, & Moon, 2008), strategy (e.g., Short, Toffel, & Hugill, 2016), supply chain management (e.g., Awaysheh & Klassen, 2010; Tong, Lai, Zhu, Zhao, Chen, & Cheng, 2018), development studies (e.g., Barrientos, Gereffi & Rossi, 2011; Gereffi & Lee, 2016), labor and employment relations (e.g., Anner, 2012; Lakhani, Kuruvilla & Avgar, 2013), political science (e.g., Locke, Amengual, & Mangla, 2009; Berliner & Prakash, 2013), and economic geography (e.g., Mayer & Gereffi, 2010; Nadvi, 2008). The predominant focus across these diverse disciplines has been on voluntary codes and standards as a form of “private governance” of human and labour rights (e.g., Bartley, 2005) and environmental standards (e.g., Aragon-Correa, Marcus, & Vogel, 2020) that can help constrain and upgrade MNCs’ social and environmental practices across their global operations. A key question has been whether such private standards based on voluntary and non-legally binding regulations – also known as “soft law” (Vogel, 2008) – complement or substitute formal regulations in suppliers’ countries (e.g. Locke, Rissing, & Pal, 2013; Mayer & Gereffi, 2010). These studies have suggested that the relation between private and state governance is complex and does not imply a simple ‘crowding out’ of one by the other (Bartley & Egels‐Zandén, 2015; Bartley, 2015). Voluntary initiatives have not been without critics. In particular, the effectiveness of certifications and audits as the main governing mode for social and environmental issues in MNCs’ global supply chains is rather limited (e.g., Locke, Amengual, & Mangla, 2009). Some have even suggested that after two decades of industry-led private governance, it seems that voluntary standards have done little to protect the human rights of workers in global supply chains (LeBaron & Rühmkorf, 2017) and reduce corporate environmental impacts (Aragon-Correa et al., 2020). Thus, important questions remain about how MNCs can effectively extend sustainable business practices to their global supply chains and how their subsidiaries, vertical and horizontal business partners, as well as state- and non-state actors should be integrated into this process. Aims and scope of this special issue We seek scholarly contributions that can help advance our understanding of MNCs’ social and environmental impacts in the context of global supply chains and identify the main drivers and outcomes of the diffusion of sustainable practices through these networks. We are particularly interested in contributions that can connect IB debates about these issues to ongoing conversations in other disciplines and fields. Given the complex, multi-level, and contextually embedded nature of sustainability in global supply chains, an interdisciplinary approach constitutes a promising next step in developing novel theoretical insights and practical understandings. We are interested in both quantitative and qualitative approaches and conceptual/theoretical contributions. Possible examples of research topics that would be suitable for inclusion into this Special Issue include (but are not limited to): - Inter-firm transfer of practices: How do MNCs respond to growing societal expectations that they be responsible for the social and environmental impacts of their broader supply chains? How do these firms go about diffusing specific social and environmental practices (e.g., sourcing requirements, human rights standards, environmental standards) among their global suppliers? What are the main challenges they face in doing so? In particular, since MNCs’ suppliers lie outside the legal boundaries of the firm, to what extent can MNCs model their efforts on those associated with the intra-firm transfer of CSR practices from their headquarters (HQs) to foreign subsidiaries, which have been extensively studied by IB scholars? Are there mechanisms and tools applicable to both inter- and intra-firm transfer processes, and are there any synergies that can be created? Also, what are the unique success factors for inter-firm vs. intra-firm transfers of social and environmental practices? - Monitoring of global suppliers and supply chain governance: Most MNCs have a limited capacity to effectively monitor the social and environmental impacts of their global suppliers (Kim & Davis, 2016) because of low visibility of suppliers’ daily operations, fake-compliance, and illegal subcontracting practices that reduce global supply chains’ traceability (e.g., Kim & Davis, 2016; Narula, 2019; Villena & Gioia, 2018). However, systematic research on this topic is lacking. What are the most significant challenges that constrain MNCs’ sustainability-related monitoring capabilities in their global supply chains? Is it more effective for the MNC to conduct its own monitoring or enlist third-party (private or NGO) monitoring organizations? Also, drawing on internalization theory, researchers could examine the effectiveness of different supply chain “governance modes” to strengthen suppliers’ compliance with MNCs’ social and environmental expectations (e.g., pure arm’s length relationships vs. strategic alliances) (e.g., Benito, Petersen, & Welch, 2019; Kano, 2018; Kano, Tsang, & Yeung, Forthcoming). Relatedly, what is the role of power and trust (and their asymmetries) between lead firms and their suppliers for managing the sustainability of global supply chains? And to what extent is sustainability managed differently in supply chains that are led by advanced economy vs. emerging market lead firms? - Firm boundaries: Business ethicists have questioned the morality of MNCs’ potentially limited control over their suppliers’ social and environmental impacts (e.g., Egels-Zanden, 2017). However, IB scholars are yet to systematically examine the question of where MNCs’ “responsibility boundaries” should be drawn in light of the wide variety of observed contractual arrangements governing their relationships with suppliers. To what extent do firm boundaries and responsibility boundaries regarding sustainabile business outcomes overlap? Could internalization theory (e.g., Kano, 2018; Kano et al., Forthcoming) help shed new light on how these issues may affect MNCs’ management of relationships across vertical value chain activities? How do MNCs decide on their “ideal” responsibility boundary to satisfy both legitimacy concerns and efficiency pressures, especially when competing against MNCs from countries with weaker social and environmental standards? - Multi-stakeholder institutions: Another emerging phenomenon related to governing sustainability in global supply chains is the multi-stakeholder private governance structure involving MNCs, industry associations, NGOs, labor unions, and local communities. This form of governance is referred to as horizontal, in contrast to the vertical governance that links MNCs to local suppliers (Gereffi & Lee, 2016; Lund-Thomsen & Coe, 2015). Political science, management and policy studies’ scholars have begun to examine the strengths and limitations of these initiatives (e.g., Bartley, 2007; Doh, Tashman, & Benischke, 2019; Potoski & Prakash, 2004), which have received limited attention in IB research. Given their growing popularity, it would be interesting to explore the conditions that make these multi-stakeholder collective efforts successful at improving sustainable development outcomes in global supply chains and the specific role of MNCs in such governance structures. Also, what conditions make MNCs more likely to lead such initiatives vs. follow the leadership of other key stakeholders? And how can insights from other disciplines regarding the strengths and limits of private governance for inducing better social and environmental impacts among local suppliers be extended to account for the institutional complexity of global supply chains? - Home country institutions: What is the “reach” of stakeholders and institutional pressures in MNCs’ home countries? To what extent do strong stakeholder and legislative pressures regarding social and environmental issues in MNCs’ home countries promote better sustainability outcomes across these firms’ global supply chains, for example in terms of suppliers’ greater likelihood of adopting stringent codes of conduct, certification requirements, and monitoring protocols? What is the role of transnational trade agreements (e.g., USMCA) in promoting sustainable development outcomes in global supply chains? Are they effective and under what conditions? - Host country institutions: Most research on the effectiveness of private governance initiatives in global supply chains does not take into account the role of suppliers’ host country contexts (Lund-Thomsen, Lindgreen, & Vanhamme, 2016). In turn, this creates an opportunity for advancing our understanding of the factors that may affect the effectiveness of MNCs’ private governance initiatives. Also, how do local communities, local workers and local stakeholders in the supplier’s country respond to MNCs’ expectations that they should adopt certain social and environmental standards, which may reflect more “Western” understandings about the role of businesses in society? Moreover, management scholars have criticized social and environmental standards for their universalistic nature and lack of context sensitivity (Wijen, 2014), increasing the risk of decoupling responses from suppliers. Can/should private governance be made more sensitive to the unique contextual conditions found in suppliers’ own countries? To what extent are MNCs standardizing their sustainable development goals and activities across countries and allow for local adaptation and variation based on local context? Are we as organizational scholars missing important CSR aspects by following the standard practices institutionalized in the West? - Advanced economy (AE-) vs. emerging markets (EM-) MNCs: To what extent do AE- and EM-MNCs differ in their approaches to managing social and environmental issues in global supply chains? What explains the possible differences in these approaches? How do these differences relate to differences in these firms’ home country institutional settings? How are social and environmental strategies and practices “negotiated” when firms from both emerging and advanced economies are involved? Are these two models converging as supply chains become more global and EM firms become increasingly international? Also, are there “best practices” of managing sustainability in global supply chains emanating from emerging and less developed countries? - The nature of global supply chains: Supply chains are characterized by multi-tier organizational structures (Wilhelm, Blome, Bhakoo, & Paulraj, 2016) but our understanding of the multiple institutional contexts that supply chains “cut through” is incomplete. The level of analysis is usually restricted to first-tier suppliers (and their institutional contexts). How can we better account for the vertical complexity of the institutional fields that define global supply chains? How can this vertical complexity enrich extant IB understandings about the organizational field in which MNCs operate, whether through the lenses of internalization theory-driven MNC governance (Kano, 2018) or institutional theory-driven transnational organizational field (Kostova, Roth, & Dacin, 2008; Marano & Kostova, 2016)? - Microfoundations of sustainability in global supply chains: There is a growing interest in the microfoundations of sustainability, as indicated by recent articles (e.g., Hafenbrädl & Waeger, 2017; Shea & Hawn, 2019) and calls for more research about the role of individuals in addressing social and environmental outcomes (e.g., Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Wang, Tong, Takeuchi, & George, 2016). Nonetheless, the role of individuals, including their values and cognitions in the process of adoption and diffusion of social and environmental practices within global supply chains has received very limited attention, which creates interesting research opportunities. It seems that a more micro approach could help shed new light on how and when social and environmental practices become institutionalized or “taken-for-granted” among the various participants in MNCs’ supply chains. For example, it would be interesting to examine the extent to which cultural “intermediaries” such as local sourcing agents (e.g. Soundararajan, Khan, & Tarba, 2018), private sector consultants (e.g., Lund-Thomsen & Coe, 2015), auditors (e.g., Short et al., 2016), social compliance managers, or local union representatives, may affect MNCs’ ability to convey social and environmental expectations to suppliers, by helping them overcome potential linguistic and cultural boundaries. - Measuring sustainability outcomes in global supply chains: Most empirical work on MNCs’ social and environmental outcomes focuses on the impacts attributable to their HQs and/or subsidiaries. If we expand the boundaries of MNCs’ sustainability beyond the firm to also include their global supply chains’ social and environmental impacts, how can we best assess and measure their outcomes in this area (e.g., Kim & Davis, 2016)? - Theoretical integration: How does the diffusion of sustainable practices in global supply chains present new challenges or opportunities to IB theory? How can IB understandings about the global diffusion of social and environmental practices learn from other fields and disciplines that have begun to examine the role of global supply chains in this area? Workshop and Symposium To help authors who receive an R&R develop their papers, we intend to organize a paper development workshop in late 2021 or early 2022. Furthermore, we plan to have a symposium at a major conference in 2022 for the final selected papers for publication, aiming to increase their visibility and impact. We encourage multi-disciplinary co-author teams. Submission Process and Deadlines All manuscripts will be reviewed as a cohort for this special issue. Manuscripts must be submitted in the window between August 15, 2021, and September 1, 2021 through the regular submission system at <http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jibs> http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jibs. All submissions will go through the JIBS regular double-blind review process and follow standard norms and processes. For more information about this call for papers, please contact the Special Issue Editors or the JIBS Managing Editor ( <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]). References Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. 2012. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932-968. Amaeshi, K. M., Osuji, O. K., & Nnodim, P. 2008. Corporate social responsibility in supply chains of global brands: A boundaryless responsibility? Clarifications, exceptions and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1): 223-234. Anner, M. 2012. Corporate social responsibility and freedom of association rights: The precarious quest for legitimacy and control in global supply chains. Politics & Society, 40(4): 609-644. Aragon-Correa, J. A., Marcus, A. A., & Vogel, D. 2020. The effects of mandatory and voluntary regulatory pressures on firms’ environmental strategies: A review and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1): 339-365. Asmussen, C. G., & Fosfuri, A. 2019. Orchestrating corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprise. Strategic Management Journal, 40(6): 894-916. Awaysheh, A., & Klassen, R. D. 2010. The impact of supply chain structure on the use of supplier socially responsible practices. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30(12): 1246-1268. Bain & Company. 2020. Covid-19 gives sustainability a dress rehearsal. April 17, 2020. Available at: https://www.bain.com/insights/covid-19-gives-sustainability-a-dress-rehearsal/ Bansal, P. 2005. Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 197–218. Barrientos, S., Gereffi, G., & Rossi, A. 2011. Economic and social upgrading in global production networks: A new paradigm for a changing world. International Labour Review, 150(3‐4): 319-340. Bartley, T. 2005. Corporate accountability and the privatization of labor standards: Struggles over codes of conduct in the apparel industry. Research in Political Sociology, 14: 211-44. Bartley, T., & Egels‐Zandén, N. 2015. Responsibility and neglect in global production networks: the uneven significance of codes of conduct in Indonesian factories. Global Networks, 15(s1): 21-44. BCG. 2018. The future of the corporation. Available at: https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/collections/future-of-the-corporation.aspx Benito, G. R., Petersen, B., & Welch, L. S. 2019. The global value chain and internalization theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(8): 1414-1423. Berliner, D. & Prakash, A. 2013. Signaling environmental stewardship in the shadow of weak governance: The global diffusion of ISO 14001. Law & Society Review, 47(2): 345-373. Bondy, K., Matten, D., & Moon, J. 2008. Multinational corporation codes of conduct: Governance tools for corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(4): 294-311. BSR. 2020. Rising to the top: Six big sustainability issues companies should watch during COVID-19. May 21, 2020. Available at: https://www.bsr.org/en/our-insights/blog-view/rising-to-top-six-big-sustainability-issues-companies-should-watch-covid-19 Campbell, J. T., Eden, L., & Miller, S. R. 2012. Multinationals and corporate social responsibility in host countries: Does distance matter? Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1): 84-106. Doh, J.P., Husted, B., & Yang, X. 2016. Ethics and corporate social responsibility in developing country multinationals. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26 (3): 301-315. 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. Egels-Zandén, N. 2017. Responsibility boundaries in global value chains: Supplier audit prioritizations and moral disengagement among Swedish firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(3): 515-528. Elkington, J. 1997. Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford, UK: Capstone. Gardiner, B. 2020. Why COVID-19 will end up harming the environment. Available at: <https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/06/why-covid-19-will-end-up-harming-the-environment> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/06/why-covid-19-will-end-up-harming-the-environment. Gereffi, G., & Lee, J. 2016. Economic and social upgrading in global value chains and industrial clusters: Why governance matters. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1): 25-38. Hafenbrädl, S., & Waeger, D. (2017). Ideology and the micro-foundations of CSR: Why executives believe in the business case for CSR and how this affects their CSR engagements. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1582-1606. Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. 2012. What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9): 834-864. Jacqueminet, A., & Durand, R. In Press. Ups and downs: The role of legitimacy judgment cues in practice implementation. Academy of Management Journal, Forthcoming. Kano, L., Tsang, E. W., & Yeung, H. W. C. Forthcoming. Global value chains: A review of the multi-disciplinary literature. Journal of International Business Studies. Kano, L. 2018. Global value chain governance: A relational perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(6): 684–705. Kim, Y. H., & Davis, G. F. 2016. Challenges for global supply chain sustainability: Evidence from conflict minerals reports. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6): 1896-1916. Kolk, A., & Lenfant, F. 2010. MNC reporting on CSR and conflict in Central Africa. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2): 241-255. Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. 2008. Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 994-1006. Lakhani, T., Kuruvilla, S., & Avgar, A. 2013. From the firm to the network: Global value chains and employment relations theory. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 51(3): 440-472. LeBaron, G., & Rühmkorf, A. 2017. Steering CSR through home state regulation: A comparison of the impact of the UK bribery act and modern slavery act on global supply chain governance. Global Policy, 8(S3): 15-28. Locke, R., Amengual, M., & Mangla, A. 2009. Virtue or necessity? Compliance, commitment and the improvement of labor conditions in global supply chains. Politics and Society, 37(3): 319-351. Locke, R. M., Rissing, B. A., & Pal, T. 2013. Complements or substitutes? Private codes, state regulation and the enforcement of labour standards in global supply chains. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 51(3): 519-552. Lund-Thomsen, P., & Coe, N. M. 2015. Corporate social responsibility and labour agency: the case of Nike in Pakistan. Journal of Economic Geography, 15(2), 275-296. Lund-Thomsen, P., Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. 2016. Industrial clusters and corporate social responsibility in developing countries: what we know, what we do not know, and what we need to know. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1): 9-24. Marano, V., & Kostova, T. 2016. Unpacking the institutional complexity in adoption of CSR practices in multinational enterprises. Journal of Management Studies, 53(1): 28-54. Marano, V., Tashman, P., & Kostova, T. 2017. Escaping the iron cage: Liabilities of origin and CSR reporting of emerging market multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(3): 386-408. Mayer, F., & Gereffi, G. 2010. Regulation and economic globalization: Prospects and limits of private governance. Business and Politics, 12(3): 1-25. McKinsey. 2016. Starting at the source: Sustainability in supply chains. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/starting-at-the-source-sustainability-in-supply-chains McKinsey. 2020. Supply chain risk management is back. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Operations/Our%20Insights/Supply%20chain%20risk%20management%20is%20back/supply-risk-management-is-back.ashx Moon, J., Gold, S., & Chapple, W. 2020. Micro-processes of translation in the transfer of practices from MNE headquarters to foreign subsidiaries: The role of subsidiary translators. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(3): 389–413. Nadvi, K. 2008. Global standards, global governance and the organization of global value chains. Journal of Economic Geography, 8(3): 323-343. Narula, R. 2019. Enforcing higher labor standards within developing country value chains: Consequences for MNEs and informal actors in a dual economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(9): 1622-1635. Parmigiani, A., Klassen, R. D., & Russo, M. V. 2011. Efficiency meets accountability: Performance implications of supply chain configuration, control, and capabilities. Journal of Operations Management, 29(3): 212-223. Pisani, N., Kourula, A., Kolk, A., & Meijer, R. 2017. How global is international CSR research? Insights and recommendations from a systematic review. Journal of World Business, 52(5): 591-614. Potoski, M., & Prakash, A. 2004. The regulation dilemma: Cooperation and conflict in environmental governance. Public Administration Review, 64(2): 152-163. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. 2011. The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4): 899-931. Shea, C. T., & Hawn, O. V. (2019). Microfoundations of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1609-1642. Short, J. L., Toffel, M. W., & Hugill, A. R. 2016. Monitoring global supply chains. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9): 1878-1897. Soundararajan, V., Khan, Z., & Tarba, S. Y. 2018. Beyond brokering: Sourcing agents, boundary work and working conditions in global supply chains. Human Relations, 71(4): 481-509. Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. 2013. Stakeholder pressure on MNEs and the transfer of socially irresponsible practices to subsidiaries. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2): 549-572. Tong, X., Lai, K. H., Zhu, Q., Zhao, S., Chen, J., & Cheng, T. C. E. 2018. Multinational enterprise buyers’ choices for extending corporate social responsibility practices to suppliers in emerging countries: A multi-method study. Journal of Operations Management, 63(1): 25-43. Villena, V. H., & Gioia, D. A. (2018). On the riskiness of lower-tier suppliers: Managing sustainability in supply networks. Journal of Operations Management, 64, 65-87. Vogel, D. 2008. Private global business regulation. Annual Review of Political Science, 11 261-282. Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. 2016. Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 534–544. WCED (The World Commission on Environment and Development, also know as the Bruntland Commission). 1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wettstein, F., Giuliani, E., Santangelo, G. D., & Stahl, G. K. 2019. International business and human rights: A research agenda. Journal of World Business, 54(1): 54-65. Wilhelm, M. M., Blome, C., Bhakoo, V., & Paulraj, A. 2016. Sustainability in multi-tier supply chains: Understanding the double agency role of the first-tier supplier. Journal of Operations Management, 41: 42-60. About the Guest Editors Sjoerd Beugelsdijk is a Professor of International Business at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. He earned his PhD at Tilburg University and explores how cultural and institutional diversity affect international business. He is currently serving as Reviewing Editor for JIBS. In 2019 he received the JIBS silver medal for his contribution to the field. He is a Fellow of the Academy of International Business. Jonathan Doh is Associate Dean of Research and Global Engagement, Rammrath Chair in International Business, Co-Faculty Director of the Moran Center for Global Leadership, and Professor of Management at the Villanova School of Business. He teaches and does research at the intersection of international business, strategic management, and corporate responsibility. Jonathan is author or co-author of more than 80 refereed articles, 35 chapters, a dozen teaching cases and simulations, and eight books. His articles have appeared in AMR, AMP, AMLE, BEQ, JIBS, JOM, JMS, MISQ, OS, and SMJ. He has been Associate or Consulting Editor of numerous journals and was Editor- in-Chief of Journal of World Business from 2014-2018. In January of 2020, he assumed the position of General Editor for Journal of Management Studies. In 2015 he was elected as a fellow of the Academy of International Business. He holds a Ph.D. in strategic and international management from George Washington University. Tatiana Kostova is Carolina Distinguished Professor, the Buck Mickel Chair and Professor of International Business at the Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina. Her research focuses on MNE management and includes topics like institutional embeddedness, institutional distance, institutional theory of the MNE, cross-border transfer and adoption of practices in MNEs, legitimacy, agency theory in HQ – subsidiary dyads in MNEs. She is an AIB Fellow and has served as Vice President of AIB, Chair of the IM Division of Academy of Management, and on many editorial boards. Valentina Marano is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Business and Strategy at the D’Amore-McKim School of Business at Northeastern University. She received her PhD from the University of South Carolina and explores the practice adoption, organizational legitimacy and performance of multinational corporations from both emerging and advanced economies, comparative corporate governance, and corporate social responsibility. Her articles have appeared in journals such as Global Strategy Journal, Journal of Business Ethics, JIBS, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, and Journal of World Business, among others. Miriam Wilhelm is an Associate Professor in the Department of Global Economics and Management at the University of Groningen. Her research focuses on the dissemination of sustainability in global supply chains, buyer-supplier relations, innovation in supplier networks, and organizational paradoxes. She has published her work in the Journal of Operations Management, Organization Science, Journal of Supply Chain Management, among others. _____  A common conceptualization of sustainability reflects the “triple bottom line logic,” which implies the simultaneous pursuit of economic, social, and environmental goals (Elkington, 1997). Drawing on these ideas, we define corporate sustainable practices as those firm activities that seek to “meet[s] the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (WCED, 1987: 43). ____ AIB-L is brought to you by the Academy of International Business. For information: http://aib.msu.edu/community/aib-l.asp To post message: [log in to unmask] For assistance: [log in to unmask] AIB-L is a moderated list.