Conference Agenda

Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).

Session Overview
21-PM2-06: ST5.4 - Global Innovations From and to Emerging Countries
Friday, 21/June/2019:
2:45pm - 4:15pm

Session Chair: Max von Zedtwitz, Kaunas University of Technology
Session Chair: Marine Hadengue, SKEMA Business School & École Polytechnique (CRG)
Session Chair: Monika Petraite, Kaunas university of technology
Session Chair: Dan Prud’homme, Pôle universitaire Léonard de Vinci
Session Chair: Tiago Ratinho, GLORAD
Location: Amphi Curie

Session Abstract

Economic globalization since the middle of the 20th century has led to a growing body of knowledge about how multinational corporations (MNC) leverage different geographies and organize functions and processes across locations (Vernon, 1966; Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Gassmann & von Zedtwitz, 1999; Doz et al., 2001; see Forsgren, 2013 for a review). The globalization of innovation within MNCs is one of the latest to evolve and one of the most recent to be studied (Boutellier et al., 1999; Doz and Wilson, 2012, Ben Mahmoud-Jouini et al., 2015).

MNCs have often targeted emerging new economies as new markets and, occasionally, as local capabilities improved, as hosts for new R&D and innovation (Vernon, 1979). It is, however, a recent phenomenon that developing nations without much history of advanced science and technology have made significant inroads in the global distribution of innovation. These countries -- with limited resources, huge needs and low-cost local competition -- have pushed global companies to seek new ways to innovate for these new markets. The notion of the “fortune at the bottom of the pyramid” (Pralahad, 2005) has reinforced the drive for frugal innovation. Performance and cost-reduction imperatives drove what has since been dubbed “reverse innovation” (Govindarajan and Trimble, 2012). Many traditional companies (such as Intel, ABB, or Siemens) have reassigned R&D control to centers in emerging countries, and innovation no longer flows exclusively from the center to the periphery but also in the other direction. The innovation process may be centered on an emerging market, but the process itself is intrinsically distributed and truly global (von Zedtwitz et al., 2015). Renault, for instance, discovered that the development of a low-cost, high-quality car delegated to its Romanian acquisition Dacia, exceeded local competencies. The Romanian project was discontinued, and ultimately the Logan model was engineered by Renault’s major innovation center in France (Jullien et al., 2012).

Even more recent is the emergence of global innovators indigenous to emerging economies (von Zedtwitz, 2005), and we are still in the early stages of this latest wave of globalization of innovation. Firms such as Huawei, Infosys, or Embraer are establishing themselves as leaders in their respective markets, and start using R&D resources outside their home countries -- and specifically in the industrialized home countries of those traditional MNCS – to globalize their innovation processes.

The rise of emerging markets (EMs) and their significant middle-class consumers have forced these organizations to reconsider not only their market's boundaries but also their go-to- market strategies. Differences between these EMs and the historical developed markets are so large that continuing to act as nothing has changed would unlikely lead to success (Meyer, Mudambi, & Narula, 2011). Indeed, EMs are characterized by specific constraints that did not exist in the context of advanced markets (AMs) (Govindarajan & Trimble, 2012). On the one hand, all these constraints change the demand to which MNCs were used to respond. EM customers are demanding products that are optimized for their own local environment. On the other hand, EMs today own a growing local system of innovation composed of very skilled labor force (Mudambi, 2011). New local MNCs are growing fast, representing at the same time potential partners and aggressive competitors on both local and advanced markets. These elements, coupled with the decreasing level of wealth in developed countries, represent the opportunity for MNCs to put forth novel new solutions of great value for EMs as well as for more advanced ones. In other words, MNCs now have to optimize their local R&D in EMs while also ensuring the global integration of the innovations developed in that context, i.e. to also successfully transfer EM innovations into AMs.

This aspect of global business has not been well examined yet, let alone understood in its various implications for international business and innovation theory. In addition to the R&D conducted by these newly emerging MNCs, this phenomenon will likely affect innovation by traditional MNCs, and the science and technology capacity of host countries in markets of various industrial maturity.

In the context, companies from countries with decades of global R&D experience are meeting MNCs that are beginning to follow this path. These firms often need to collaborate but compete as well, both indirectly in their home and host markets, and directly in joint efforts to develop technology standards or to deliver multi-partner solutions to local customers. More importantly, it requires knowledge management and integration skills, so that the valuable resources anchored in various parts of the firm and the firm’s networks can be leveraged despite the structural and cultural boundaries. This trend may prefigure a more networked, center-less and emergent process as the next challenge, and indeed the gateway to global innovation.

The management of global innovation therefore becomes only more important for firms and is increasingly at the heart of competitive advantage.

In this track we welcome papers addressing these issues. Some of the themes that are related are listed below :

- Internationalization of front-end innovation

- Coupling processes between markets and technological knowledge at the inception stage and emerging markets

- Cross-disciplinary pre-competitive globalization of R&D

- Open global innovation

- Localization of frugal innovation

- Reverse innovation as a source of strategic disruption

- Global vs. local innovations: exclusive or dual strategies

- Knowledge integration and combination across various R&D centers and subsidiaries

- Managing multi-actor networks of innovators in different countries

- Subsidiary initiated innovation and their diffusion

- New roles for entities in the diffusion of global innovation

- Reverse innovation

- Special-purpose subsidiaries for leveraging capabilities in unique environments.

- Open innovation in emerging markets

Show help for 'Increase or decrease the abstract text size'

Digging into Reverse Innovation Dynamics: Rationales and Adaptations from Emerging to Advanced Market

Marine Hadengue1, Sihem Ben Mahmoud-Jouini2, Florence Charue-Duboc3

1SKEMA Business School, France; 2HEC Paris, France; 3École Polytechnique, France


Many Western multinational corporations (MNCs) have recently succeeded in proposing breakthrough innovations in emerging markets. They could hardly have developed these innovations in a Western context. Furthermore, they have successfully transferred these innovations - firstly adopted in emerging markets (EMs)- in advanced markets (AMs).


The transfer of innovation from EMs to AMs, coined as reverse innovation, has been recently studied. However, in the literature so far, this transfer has been mainly considered as self-evident, or sometimes as a coincidence (Govindarajan & Trimble, 2012). However Zhu, Zou and Xu (2017) stress that it may not be spontaneous and that adaptations may be required for an emerging market innovation to be successfully marketed in an advanced market. Subramaniam, Ernst, & Dubiel (2015; p.9) establish that:

"(...) We lack a sound understanding of what it takes to successfully transfer an innovation from an emerging market into a developed market. It would be useful to further investigate if and how that subsequent transfer of innovations should be built into the initial development process."

Literature Gap

Despite a growing interest for this phenomenon, few studies focus on its rationales. Most of the literature on reverse innovation is firm-centered. It analyzes either the impact the organizational structure has on the practice of reverse innovation or the impact that its practice has on the firm's innovation processes.

Research Questions

The research question we intend to address is the following: what are the adaptations that might be required in order to successfully transfer an EM innovation in an AM and why?

We adopt a micro level analysis, i.e. the innovation itself, rather than the firm.


For that purpose, we used a cross-case synthesis approach. We conducted an iterative qualitative data analysis of several cases of reverse innovation following a process of theory development and analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2014). Each case was coded using the specialized software NVivo, in the light of an analytical framework categorizing adaptation types.

Our analytical framework is based on the literature on product adaptation and international marketing. It differentiates types of adaptation grouped in two broad categories: core adaptations, either technical or cosmetic and value proposition adaptations related to the targeting, pricing and promise of benefits of the innovative offer.

Empirical Material

We were able to identify more than 20 cases of reverse innovation in the existing literature on reverse innovation. We successfully collected an important amount of data for 9 of these cases. These data were public data (websites, specialized press, public interviews of the executives, etc.) or data from previous research (articles and case studies). When details were missing and the company was accessible, we directly reached to it so we could obtain the data. We complemented these 9 cases with 3 others from the author’s past research, reaching 12 cases in total.

These cases come from different companies, in majority in the Healthcare industry but other sectors such as telecommunication, food and automotive are also present. These innovations were firstly introduced in various emerging countries and region of the world and were developed either by profit or non-profit organizations. Hence the 12 cases exhibit a wide variety.


Compiling the data from 12 different cases of reverse innovation, we delineated the adaptations - either core or on the value proposition - that have been implemented for each innovation during the reverse innovation process. First of all, we show that several adaptations were made. Value proposition adaptations are largely predominant over the core adaptations (technical and cosmetic). Furthermore the latter often resulted from the former.

Digging into these adaptations, we have identified 4 rationales to the transition from EMs to AMs: (1) subsidizing non-profit innovation in EMs thanks to AM revenues, (2) addressing a new customer segment in AMs that values a specific attribute of the innovation and adopts it for a novel usage, (3) expanding the market in AMs without cannibalizing existing offers and (4) learning on a new segment considered so far as non profitable in AMs by reducing the uncertainty.

Contribution to Scholarship

We contribute to the reverse innovation stream of research per se by refining and expanding our comprehension of the reverse innovation process. We coin this process reverse innovation deployment and define it as the launching of an offer in a market after adapting certain elements. We distinguish reverse innovation deployment from the traditional diffusion of innovation from EM to AM but also from the transfer of bricks of knowledge.

We specify what reverse innovation brings to the innovation portfolio of Western MNCs. We contribute to research on NPD and international marketing by showing that the reverse innovation deployment is neither a new development that follows an NPD process nor a global launch as considered in the international marketing literature stream.

Contribution to Practice

In terms of managerial implications, our work demystifies the reverse innovation process by highlighting the various adaptations made to successfully transfer the innovation from EMs to AMs. Our framework can be used as a guide in exploring opportunities of innovation transfer from EMs to AMs. Furthermore, we show how an innovation developed for an EM can serve as a prototype to explore the value of new attributes for an AM and enable agile product development.


Reverse innovation addresses the two following challenges: tailoring innovative products to the needs and means of emerging markets and addressing social needs in an economically viable manner. Better understanding these innovation processes is core for the conference theme: bridging people, science and technology.


Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2012). Reverse Innovation: Create Far from Home, Win Everywhere. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Subramaniam, M., Ernst, H., & Dubiel, A. (2015). From the Special Issue Editors: Innovations for and from Emerging Markets. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(1), 5–11.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th Edition). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington D.C.: SAGE Publications.

Zhu, F., Zou, S., & Xu, H. (2017). Launching reverse-innovated product from emerging markets to MNC’s home market: A theoretical framework for MNC’s decisions. International Business Review, 26(1), 156–163.

Organizational Ambidexterity across Geographical Markets: The case of Essilor in Emerging Markets

Marine Hadengue1, Florence Charue-Duboc2

1SKEMA Business School, France; 2École Polytechnique, France


Emerging markets force established firms to be very innovative -and possibly disruptive-, proposing new solutions, products or even new business models: the Renault Logan, the portative General Electric electrocardiogram machine (Immelt, Govindarajan, & Trimble, 2009; Midler, 2013; Corsi, S., & Di Minin, A. 2014).


These solutions are not simplistic but rather the result of a shift of mindsets to circumvent obstacles. They require the reinforcement of creativity. However, numerous barriers impeding the pursuit of radical innovations within an established firm are underlined in the literature (Dougherty, 1992; Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000).

Organizational ambidexterity, emerging as a new research paradigm in Organization Theory (Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst, & Tushman, 2009), is highlighted as an efficient way to enhance incremental as well as radical and disruptive innovations (Tushman & O Reilly, 1996). However, to the best of our knowledge, there is still no study on how global firms explore and exploit across geographical market, what Winterhalter, Zeschky, & Gassmann, (2016), call “global ambidexterity”. Emerging markets also represent a challenge when it comes to ensuring local responsiveness and global efficiency, a crucial issue in theories of the multinational firm (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989).

Literature Gap

Answering the call of Winterhalter, Zeschky, & Gassmann (2016), we thus look at global ambidexterity as a means of resolving the promise of local responsiveness and global efficiency in the context of emerging markets.

Research Questions

How ambidexterity may be managed across various local markets? To what extent a dedicated innovation team targeting an emerging market may contribute more broadly to the ambidexterity of a multinational firm? Should organizations achieve this global ambidexterity through differentiation or through integration?


In order to absorb and understand the rich context in which this phenomenon is integrated, and to generate a deeper understanding of the internal and external variables that influence it, we have decided on focusing over a single case study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2014). The difficulty of accessing data and the need for contextualized analyses to reflect the complexity of this new innovation strategy reinforce this choice.

Empirical Material

In 2013 Essilor launched its 2,5 New Vision Generation (NVG) initiative, a program dedicated to tackle the 2,5 billion people living with uncorrected poor vision, most of them located in emerging and developing markets. In order to reach this unusual customer base, the company set up a dedicated large international team. This team has its decision-making center in Singapore where the Essilor Base of the Pyramid Innovation Lab, an "incubator, accelerator and connector" for this new and very ambitious mission, is also established. In addition, Essilor set up a local team in each emerging market it entered.

Using a semi-structured interview guide, we recorded and transcribed 18 interviews with Essilor employees at different hierarchical levels (from Essilor CEO to regular managers) and from different regions of the world. 10 of the interviewees were from Singapore, the decision-making center of the 2,5 NVG initiative. The others were part of the different missions in emerging markets: China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and Ivory Coast. One of the researchers, a former Essilor employee, also spent some time in the main office of the 2,5 NVG in Singapore. In parallel, we accessed to more than 50 internal documents as well as publicly available information.


We show the role of the geographical footprint of the dedicated team in charge of the development of this novel offer. We specify the respective roles of the core team in Singapore and of the complementary teams in local markets. We characterize to what extent the various innovations developed in order to reach their goal are radical. We find that, in that particular context, exploration and exploitation are to be reconciled.

We analyze whether this dedicated team leverage resources and competencies of the firm beyond the ones it has. We highlight the importance of the external acquisition of new knowledge for exploration. We also emphasize the links between the team and the rest of the organization.

We focus on the business model, specifically the Essilor 2,5 NVG inclusive business model. We thus improve the understanding of how organizational ambidexterity allow for an established multinational to develop a new business model adapted to the context of emerging markets while still ensuring their regular business.

Contribution to Scholarship

This article proposes Organizational Ambidexterity (OA) within established firms to tackle the challenges of innovating for emerging markets. Assuming that multinationals can explore and exploit across geographical markets and not only across units, we answer the call of Winterhalter, Zeschky, & Gassmann (2016): we enrich the notion of "global ambidexterity", and connect it to theories of the firm in tackling the issue of balancing local responsiveness and global efficiency. Adopting an international perspective and focusing on the business model as the level of analysis in the context of the OA, we open an entirely new stream of research.

Contribution to Practice

Our study gives managers the keys to successfully develop new business models adapted to emerging markets demand while staying competitive.


The understanding of how teams should be internationally organized in order to better manage business model innovation in emerging markets happens to perfectly fit the conference theme. Indeed it makes the link between people in the organization and new technologies developed in the specific context of emerging markets.


Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution.

Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202.

Corsi, S., & Di Minin, A. 2014. Disruptive innovation ... in reverse: adding a geographical dimension to disruptive innovation theory. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(1): 76–90.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

Immelt, J. R., Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2009). How GE Is Disrupting Itself. Harvard Business Review, 87(10), 56-65.

Midler, C. (2013). Implementing a Low-End Disruption Strategy Through Multiproject Lineage Management: The Logan Case. Project Management Journal, 44(5), 24–35.

Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685-695,829-831.

Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1147–1161.

Tushman, M. L., & O Reilly, C. A. I. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4).

Winterhalter, S., Zeschky, M. B., & Gassmann, O. (2016). Managing dual business models in emerging markets: an ambidexterity perspective. R&D Management, 46(3), 464–479.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th Edition). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington D.C.: SAGE Publications.

Internationalization of R&D in SMEs: Toward New Theory

Max von Zedtwitz1,3, Can A. Ozermoglu2,3

1Southern Denmark University (Denmark); 2Kaunas University of Technology (Lithuania); 3GLORAD - Center for Global R&D and Innovation


Global innovation is no longer a phenomenon of multinational companies (MNCs) but increasingly also of small companies (small & medium-sized companies (SMEs), startups, hidden champions, etc.). Internationalizing R&D is more difficult for SMEs than it is for already more established MNCs. This paper studies international R&D by SMEs.


Innovation requires some upfront investment in creating and securing resources and opportunities (‘front-end of innovation’) that can later be leveraged and commercialized (‘back-end of innovation’). This front-end of innovation is often R&D intensive even for SMEs. However, SMEs often have fewer resources available in general, and relatively less for R&D. They also have less international experience, and fewer available international resources they can leverage.

Internationalization is assumed to progress in small incremental steps (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977), although research also shows larger steps are possible (Barkema & Drogendijk, 2007) or a global setup from the start (e.g., born globals, Knight & Cavusgil, 2004). Given the intermittent nature of R&D investments due to large minimal critical mass, we propose that a) R&D internationalization is discontinuous for smaller MNCs, and b) R&D internationalization may temporarily recede in a jagged progression.

Literature Gap

We aim to fill a literature gap on how R&D-imposed constraints influence SME internationalization.

Research Questions

Q1: What are the challenges of R&D internationalization for small firms?

Q2: What is the progression of small firm R&D internationalization?

Q3: What explains specific turning points and thresholds in small firm R&D internationalization?


We sampled 20 small firms from Germany and Turkey with few or no international R&D and conduct semi-structured expert interviews with those responsible for R&D. Research questions included closed questions about the interviewee, the company structure, its R&D activities, but also open questions about managerial challenges and strategic issues that are more easily obtained when the interviewee has the chance to reflect upon his company’s experience. Where possible, site-visits and additional external information were used to expand on data quality, and moving towards data triangulation (Yin, 1994).

Empirical Material

We collected and developed mini-cases of SME internationalization, along with relevant R&D data such as R&D footprint and R&D investments.


We present both challenges and advantages of SMEs in R&D internationalization over the better researched MNC R&D internationalization. Organizational models are also discussed. We describe observed patterns of R&D internationalization for small firms, identifying threshold points and typical progression. We propose that R&D internationalization is uncharacteristically uneven, fragmented and granular for a class of large SMEs, respectively, infant multinational that we dub “small MNCs”.

Contribution to Scholarship

To IB theory, we contribute through a new model of internationalization which is not incremental, and counter-intuitively includes periods of receding internationalization.

To innovation theory, we contribute through the expansion of the conceptualization of R&D internationalization and the organization of global R&D.

Contribution to Practice

We identify managerial barriers, challenges and advantages of SME R&D internationalization. The process and organizational models are useful for strategic management of R&D in the expansion of SMEs into foreign markets, and inherent to their multinational growth.


The theme of this paper is firmly rooted in R&D and innovation management, and much of the empirical data relates to firms setting up R&D in emerging countries, or expanding from emerging economies.


Johanson, J. & Vahlne, J.E. 1977. The Internationalization Process of the Firm: A Model of Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments. Journal of International Business Studies 8(1): 23-32.

Barkema, H.G. & Drogendijk, R. 2007. Internationalizing in small, incremental or larger steps. Journal of International Business Studies 38(7): 1113-1131.

Knight, G.A. & Cavusgil, S.T. 2004. Innovation, Organizational Capabilities, and the Born Global Firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 124-141.

Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research Design and Methods: Applied Social Research and Methods Series. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Birds of a Feather Flock Together: Lower Corruption Distance Promotes Cross-Border R&D Investments

Max von Zedtwitz1,3,4, Severin F. Bischof2,4

1Southern Denmark University, Denmark; 2Columbia School of Business (New York); 3Kaunas University of Technology (Lithuania); 4GLORAD - Center for Global R&D and Innovation


MNCs invest in R&D in emerging economies that are often characterized by high corruption; this seems counter-intuitive given that the intellectual property rights of R&D results are less defensible and protectable in such countries.


Host-based corruption is a non-value-adding cost of doing business, and as such detrimental to inbound foreign direct investment (FDI) (e.g. Lambsdorff, 1999; Mauro, 1998; Wei, 2000). R&D and the resulting IP are especially sensitive to corruption (Cuervo-Cazurra, 2008). However, MNC R&D still flows into highly corrupt countries (Henisz, 2000). A possible explanation is that it is not absolute corruption that matters but relative corruption, i.e. whether the source or home country of FDI perceives the destination or host country to be corrupt (Habib and Zurawicki, 2002).

Literature Gap

Prior research has demonstrated that corruption has largely negative effects on incoming international investments. What is less clear, however, is to what extent these negative effects are a product not of a host country’s absolute level of corruption, but of the relative distance to the home country’s degree of corruption.

Research Questions

Using international R&D investment data from 1900 to 2016, we investigate not only whether the relative corruption distance between home and host country affects cross-border R&D investments, but also whether the origin of this R&D investment matters.


We run OLS regression on four econometric models that have the the inflow of R&D in a country as a dependent variable, the corruption perception index and the corruption distance as independent variables, and the GDP, GDP-per-capita, GDP growth, number of university graduates, heritage scores of the host countries, psychic distance, OECD membership, and geographical distance as control variables.

Empirical Material

Our RDIF dataset covers all published R&D centers of 500 technology-intensive MNCs taken from the Fortune 1000 list, or about 10,000 in total. We focus on the 15 most cross-border R&D-intensive countries, covering about 85% of all global international R&D investments.

Our CPI corruption data is taken from the Transparency International index covering the relevant focus countries. We calculate Directional Corruption Distances (DCD) from the available CPI scores.


We define the Directional Corruption Distance (DCD) as the arithmetic difference between two countries’ corruption levels. Avoiding distorted FDI measures, we analyze Research & Development Inflows (RDIF), as they represent critical MNE activities. we observe that RDIF flows towards countries of lower corruption (Trading Up Hypothesis). We further show that developed countries with lower degrees of corruption tend to prefer investments in other low-corruption countries (Comfort Hypothesis). High-corruption countries, conversely, do not exhibit this behavior and appear more open towards RDIF in high-corruption countries (Familiarity Hypothesis).

Contribution to Scholarship

Our research contributes to the discussion of the influence of corruption on international investment streams. Corruption is neither a clear-cut deterrent nor catalyst for incoming FDI, and moderated by market attractiveness of the recipient country. The difference in corruption-perception-related investment decisions depends on two factors: the type of investment and the corruption of the home country. Multinational firms seem to be drawn to invest in R&D in high corruption countries more than might be good for R&D, either because the decision-making process of initiating a transnational R&D investment is specifically prone to corruption-related influences, or because countries of high corruption provide most incentives for foreign firms, e.g. favorable endowment factors or a large market.

Contribution to Practice

The results from this research can help senior managers of MNCs (from either emerging or advanced economies, and from either corrupt or less corrupt countries) to identify benefits from locating R&D in countries of known corruption perception.


The present research deals directly with R&D and innovation in and from emerging economies.


Lambsdorff, J. G. (1999). Corruption in empirical research: A review. TI Working Paper, Transparency International.

Mauro, P. (1998). Corruption and the composition of government expenditure. Journal of Public Economics, 69(2), 263-279.

Wei, S. J. (2000). How taxing is corruption on international investors? Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(1), 1-11.

Henisz, W. J. (2000). The institutional environment for multinational investment. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 16(2), 334-364.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2008). Better the devil you don't know: Types of corruption and FDI in transition economies. Journal of International Management, 14(1), 12-27.

Habib, M., & Zurawicki, L. (2002). Corruption and foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 291-307.