Abstract
The concept of social innovation has garnered increasing attention across various disciplines, driven by a growing recognition of the need to address complex societal challenges. However, despite the thorough examination of traditional innovation forms and their influence on global business practices, the scrutiny of social innovation within the realm of international business (IB) remains relatively nascent. This introduction delineates the scope of this focused issue and emphasizes the critical need to expand research on social innovation within IB, a field dedicated to enhancing social value and engagement among diverse stakeholders. This focused issue explores the catalysts and impacts of multinational corporations' (MNCs’) social innovation endeavours in emerging markets. Departing from the profit-centric focus of conventional innovation studies, social innovation emphasizes the redistribution of knowledge, the encouragement of discovery, and the facilitation of co-creation, thus posing a challenge to the traditional paradigms and logics of innovation theory. This introduction provides a concise review of current social innovation literature in IB, highlights the contributions made by the articles in this focused issue, and concludes by outlining directions for future research in the domain of social innovation in IB.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The increasing societal expectations for multinational corporations (MNCs) to reconcile their economic performance with social development have often been underscored in academic literature, public discourse, and policy discussions (OCED, 2023; Savitz, 2011; Varadarajan, 2014; World Economic Forum, 2024). In recent years, MNCs have been increasingly leveraging their resources and capabilities to drive social innovation in emerging markets, addressing critical local challenges through the development of novel products and services. Philips, for instance, has introduced portable, low-cost ultrasound devices tailored for healthcare workers in remote areasFootnote 1 such as low- and middle-income countries. This innovation not only bridges the gap in medical imaging accessibility but also facilitates essential prenatal care and diagnostics in underserved rural communities. Similarly, Procter & Gamble has responded to the urgent need for clean drinking water by creating a low-cost, sachet-based water purifier.Footnote 2 This simple yet effective solution empowers individuals in emerging markets to easily purify contaminated water, significantly mitigating the risk of waterborne diseases. Additionally, Safaricom, a subsidiary of Vodafone, has pioneered M-Pesa, a mobile phone-based platform for money transfer and microfinancing.Footnote 3 This service has transformed financial accessibility in Kenya and other African nations by offering a secure mobile banking solution for populations previously excluded from the formal banking system. Collectively, these social innovations exemplify how MNCs contribute not only to economic development but also to social well-being in emerging markets.
Social innovation, characterized by novel solutions that address social problems and needs both effectively and efficiently, has profoundly transformed the landscape of global societal challenges. It is increasingly acknowledged as pivotal in addressing critical issues such as social inequality, energy security, sustainability, food safety, and healthcare (Adomako & Tran, 2021; Cajaiba-Santana, 2014; Lee et al., 2019). Distinct from commercial innovation, social innovation prioritizes societal advancement over profit, reflecting a shift towards value-driven approaches to problem-solving (Husted, 2015; Steinfield & Holt, 2019). This growing interest in social innovation has catalysed academic inquiry, enriching the field with a robust body of knowledge that is primarily derived from case studies (Dionisio & de Vargas, 2020; Rygh, 2020). These studies have illuminated various aspects of social innovation, yet there remains a notable gap in the development of comprehensive theories and the application of diverse empirical methods within the field of international business (IB). This is reflected in multiple calls for MNCs to address social challenges through social innovation (Ramus et al., 2018; Rao-Nicholson et al., 2017; Sinkovics et al., 2014).
Traditionally associated with non-profit organizations and the governmental sector (e.g., Lind et al., 2018; Sinkovics et al., 2014), social innovation research has seldom extended to MNCs engaged in cross-border activities. Nonetheless, there has been a growing call for MNCs to actively participate in social innovation (Auerswald, 2009; Dionisio & de Vargas, 2020; Halme et al., 2012), recognizing its critical role in addressing societal challenges (Van der Have & Rubalcaba, 2016) and fostering social change, particularly in emerging markets (Howaldt et al. 2015; Phillips et al., 2015). However, the prevailing theories within IB predominantly tend to emphasize the profit maximization objectives of MNCs, focusing on their investment motives and operations across borders. This dominant focus on financial imperatives calls for a significant reorientation of scholarly focus. There is a pressing need to elevate social innovation to a central position within IB research, together with a re-evaluation and expansion of IB theories to inclusively consider the genesis and attributes of social innovation within MNCs. This shift is not merely corrective; it opens up fertile ground for addressing existing scholarly voids and presents a rich tapestry of opportunities to deepen and broaden the scope of social innovation research within the IB domain.
In direct response to this identified need for a paradigmatic shift, and to catalyse a concerted scholarly effort towards filling these gaps, we initiated a call for papers for a focused issue in May 2022. The call aimed to solicit contributions that would enrich the growing field of social innovation in IB studies by elucidating the factors that propel MNCs towards engaging in social innovation, the mechanisms that influence the innovation process, and the conditions under which social innovation achieves the anticipated outcomes beneficial to a spectrum of stakeholders. We sought to attract a diverse array of submissions encompassing theoretical, conceptual, and empirical explorations of the antecedents, processes, and outcomes associated with social innovation in MNCs. While the enthusiastic response from the academic community was heartening, it also underscored the disparate nature of research on social innovation within the IB sphere, highlighting both the challenges and the imperative of synthesizing these diverse inquiries into a cohesive understanding.
The title of this focused issue, “MNCs and Social Innovation in Emerging Markets’’, encapsulates the essence of the articles featured herein. Understanding the social dimension of innovation entails examining the diverse stakeholders and objectives that drive organizations and individuals in their quest for novel solutions to societal challenges. These stakeholders and objectives are deeply rooted in specific contexts—be it geographical, technological, cultural, or otherwise—shaping and influencing the innovation process. However, it is essential to recognize that both the problems prompting social innovation and the objectives driving it often transcend national boundaries.
To contextualize the combined contributions of the articles to the field of social innovation, we discuss and reflect on the relevant literature on social innovation in general and in the context of IB in particular in order to offer a new perspective for research on social innovation in the IB literature. We then highlight the key contributions made by the articles included in this focused issue to show how they collectively advance our understanding of social innovation phenomenon in emerging markets. Finally, we conclude by suggesting important avenues for future research.
2 An Overview of Previous Literature On Social Innovation
2.1 Conceptualization of Social Innovation
Social innovation, characterized by its innovative approaches to tackling societal challenges with a focus on social objectives, has garnered significant attention within the academic domain (Dionisio & de Vargas, 2020; Lee et al., 2019; van der Have & Rubalcaba, 2016). A fundamental aspect that sets social innovation apart is its emphasis on creating social value, distinguishing it from innovations driven solely by economic considerations (Phills et al., 2008). The scholarly exploration in this area has largely focused on defining social innovation, alongside developing typologies and models to categorize and thoroughly understand its various forms and manifestations. Nicholls et al. (2012) have made notable contributions to this effort by examining diverse types of social innovation and proposing a comprehensive typology within the social sector. Nicholls (2015), for example, explore the concept of social innovation, underlining its increasing recognition as a means to address both localized and widespread systemic issues. They illustrate how the concept of social innovation has evolved over the years. In the initial period, social innovation embodied the introduction of new ideas aimed at addressing unmet social needs with effective outcomes (Mulgan et al., 2007). This encompasses a broad spectrum of initiatives including novel ideas, actions, models, processes, and organizational forms, which collectively seek to enhance social relations or address societal needs unmet by current market mechanisms. Specifically, they note that social innovation literature presents two main conceptual frameworks. One focuses on innovating social processes to improve social relations and address power imbalances (Moulaert 2013; Mumford, 2002; Westley & Antadze, 2010), whereas the other views social innovation as a solution to market failure in providing essential public goods, differentiating it from economic/business innovation through its emphasis on meeting societal needs rather than creating new market opportunities (OECD 2022).
Building upon their earlier work, Nicholls et al. (2019) propose a broad typology that identifies distinct types of social innovation within the social sector. This framework differentiates between product, process, position, and paradigm innovation, each addressing social needs or challenges through various avenues, from tangible goods and services to fundamental shifts in societal values and behaviors. Furthermore, they argue that social innovation is stratified into three levels: incremental, institutional, and disruptive. Incremental innovation enhances the efficiency or effectiveness of goods and services to fulfil social needs, often pursued by charities and certain commercial firms targeting underserved markets, like the ‘Bottom of the Pyramid’ approach (Prahalad, 2006). Institutional innovation seeks to adapt or overhaul existing socio-economic arrangements and reconfigure market structure for generating new social values, exemplified by initiatives like Fair Trade or mobile banking. Disruptive innovation, on the other hand, seeks systemic change, usually driven by social movements or politically motivated entities aiming to alter power dynamics and social hierarchies for the benefit of marginalized groups. This type of innovation can manifest itself through organized collective actions or through more fluid coalitions leveraging new technologies or social media. Together, the framework and levels of social innovation provide a multifaceted understanding of how new ideas and interventions can contribute to social progress and transformation.
The extant literature has also investigated the drivers and enablers propelling social innovation, recognizing a myriad of factors influencing its emergence and success (Bason, 2010; Dionisio & de Vargas, 2020; Moulaert 2013; Lee et al. 2019). These drivers articulate a compelling narrative of social innovation as a critical response to the inadequacies and failures of existing systems—spanning governance, markets, policy, and technology—to ensure equitable well-being and benefits across society (Moulaert 2013). Similarly, Bason (2010) identifies several key enablers within organizational and community contexts. Central to this narrative is the notion that traditional mechanisms often overlook or inadequately address the complexities of modern societal challenges, including poverty, exclusion, and environmental degradation. This shortfall underscores a pivotal distribution dilemma, emphasizing the need for innovative approaches that not only address these challenges but also actively involve marginalized populations in the solution-generation process (Davis et al., 2005). This literature identifies a series of global crises as key drivers of the surge in social innovation interest ranging from climate change to social inequality and healthcare dilemmas. At the same time, rapid technological advancements and economic changes have necessitated a re-evaluation of social relations, with a growing emphasis on inclusivity and the equitable distribution of benefits. This context highlights the role of social innovation in bridging the historical divide between the productivity mechanisms of the private and public sectors, advocating for a more integrated, systemic approach to innovation (Drayton, 2002; Hämäläinen and Heiskala 2007). In response, social innovation emerges as a versatile approach, capable of transcending sectoral boundaries to foster creative, impactful solutions (Murray et al., 2010).
Despite the abundance of examples and discourse surrounding social innovation, Nicholls et al. (2015) acknowledge that the field lacks a unified definition, standardized performance measures, and a universally accepted policy framework. This gap can be attributed to the novelty of the field and the diversity inherent in the activities classified as social innovation—a double-edged sword that presents both strengths and challenges in addressing complex social issues. Indeed, Beckman et al. (2023) attest to these issues in their comprehensive examination of the social innovation field. They argue that the field is currently hindered by a “social innovation trap,” which results from disciplinary silos and has led to a limited exploration of the field's full potential. The authors highlight three main insights that have been overlooked due to this trap: (a) A fragmentation of social innovation across different academic disciplines has obscured the advantages unique to each discipline in contributing to social innovation. This fragmentation has led to a narrow focus on certain aspects of social innovation while neglecting others; (b) The field’s heavy emphasis on management and market perspectives has overlooked the importance of considering social innovation within the context of space and place. This oversight has limited the exploration of scaling social innovations and understanding their impact within specific localities; (c) The preference for market-oriented approaches over more democratic methods in social innovation scholarship. Balancing these perspectives could open up broader inquiries into the role of collaboration, knowledge, innovation, and outcomes in social innovation.
This critical analysis of the social innovation field is a call to action for researchers and practitioners to broaden their perspectives and methodologies in studying and implementing social innovation. By addressing these limitations, there is potential for significant advancements in understanding and fostering social innovation to tackle complex social problems.
2.2 New Perspectives of Social Innovation in International Business
The exploration of innovation often traces its roots to seminal works like Schumpeter’s book (1934) in particular, though it can also be linked to broader research on capitalism (Sombart, 1927) and sociology (Weber, 1922). Notably, the social dimension remained peripheral in Schumpeter’s inquiries, and most subsequent work on innovation, gaining prominence only recently within innovation discourse; for instance, through discussions of innovation as a form of “social action” (Phills et al., 2008). This renewed emphasis on the social aspect of innovation has prompted scholars to delineate differences between social innovation processes and business innovation processes. A key distinction lies in their intended outcomes (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). While business innovation is primarily driven by the pursuit of economic value creation, with consideration of long-term financial benefits taking precedence (Dawson & Daniel, 2010; Lind et al., 2018), social innovation is geared towards affecting societal change, as reflected in shifts in attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions. Consequently, the motivations, objectives, and metrics of success between social and business innovations are likely to diverge (Howaldt & Schwartz, 2010).
MNCs are increasingly tasked with balancing corporate objectives, credibility, and strategy with local conditions and societal requirements in order to fulfil both business and social goals across different national markets (Husted & Allen, 2006). However, the relationship between MNCs and social innovation remains theoretically underspecified and empirically underexplored due to challenges in understanding the concept and managing institutional processes for combining social innovation with strategic planning and implementation (Canestrino et al., 2015; Porter & Kramer, 2006). MNCs continue to face growth and profitability challenges despite efforts to minimize cost, to enter new international markets, and to enhance global supply chain management through international expansion. Simultaneously, MNCs are increasingly pressured to address pressing social, economic, and environmental issues due to public scrutiny and rising stakeholder expectations, as MNCs are seen as powerful contributors to, and beneficiaries of, these problems (Mirvis et al., 2016; Kramer & Porter 2011).
The concept of social innovation in IB is intricately linked with and influenced by other related concepts, with the most pertinent being corporate social responsibility (CSR) which is considered a non-market strategy for the purpose of MNCs’ survival and growth in cross-border operations (Lee et al., 2022; Luo et al., 2021; Mellahi et al., 2016), thus differing from the notion of social innovation. More specifically, CSR has traditionally focused on altruistic or generic programs aimed at addressing stakeholder pressure, and enhancing the credibility of MNCs, whereas social innovation signifies strategic investment that MNCs undertake and manage similar to other corporate projects (Dionisio et al., 2020; Lind, et al., 2018). Social innovation involves significant financial and human capital investment, as well as collaboration with different internal and external entities to co-create sustainable solutions and address social needs. Thus, social innovation seeks to not only address social challenges but also to generate new revenue streams through fostering a more socially relevant innovation system and corporate culture, thereby potentially becoming a source of competitive advantage.
The concept of creating shared value (see Kramer & Porter 2011) posits that shared value arises from the reciprocal, beneficial impact on both the economy and society in comparison to expenses, thus central to sustainable competitive advantage. While this is similar to social innovation, creating shared value primarily focuses on policies and procedures geared towards economic outcomes. Nonetheless, creating shared value has been integrated into the social innovation framework, recognizing the importance of aligning economic success with social progress. Furthermore, there is a new generation of MNCs adopting hybrid business models that are in harmony with the objectives of social sustainability (Chen, 1999; Miska et al., 2016). In contrast to conventional MNCs, which might require adjustments to their pre-existing business frameworks (Austin et al., 2008; Dionisio et al., 2020), these enterprises construct their solutions, brand identities, and operational and innovation strategies with an inherent focus on fostering mutual economic benefits while allowing stakeholders to articulate and pursue their social and sustainability goals. This strategy, emblematic of social innovation, has garnered attention from larger corporations’ intent on integrating social principles into their corporate ethos and culture, product features, manufacturing processes, and engagements with stakeholders.
Given these dynamics, social innovation emerges as a novel concept that encapsulates the equilibrium businesses must achieve to generate value for both shareholders and society at large. It is embedded in the broader emerging IB literature which moves away from solely focusing on firm-level operational and performance outcomes by taking account of the broader societal and environmental aspects of MNCs’ cross-border operations (Doh et al., 2019; Odziemkowska & Henisz, 2021; Van Tulder et al., 2021).
3 An Overview of Articles in the Focused Issue
In total, we received 28 submissions for our focused issue, indicative of a vibrant scholarly interest in the intersection of social innovation and IB. After undergoing a rigorous review process, which typically involved at least three rounds, we ultimately accepted 7 articles. Collectively, these articles advance the domain of social innovation within IB research by exploring the determinants of MNCs’ social innovation, examining the influences on the innovation process, and delineating the circumstances under which social innovation yields the anticipated benefits for a diverse array of stakeholders. The articles in this focused issue employ various methodologies and datasets, ranging from cross-sectional surveys to large-scale panel data. Moreover, they consider a diverse array of stakeholders engaged in social innovation in MNCs. The articles compiled in this focused issue illustrate the extensive domain of social innovation in emerging markets, offering valuable insights for IB scholars, practicing managers, and executives alike. Below, we provide a concise summary of the articles in Table 1.
The first article by Nwoba et al., (2024) explores (i) the relationship between first social mover MNCs and social innovation; (ii) the impact of MNCs’ CSI on social value creation; and (iii) the moderating role of local embeddedness on the relationship between the first social mover MNCs, CSI, and social value creation. This article is theoretically grounded in the behavioral theory of social entrepreneurship, and the empirical analysis uses primary data from 150 MNCs operating in Nigeria. This article makes a theoretical contribution by showing that social innovation has a positive influence on social value creation. It further extends the literature by revealing that local embeddedness is an important contextual moderator that strengthens the path between first social mover MNCs, social innovation, and social value creation paths.
In the second article, Nkrumah et al., (2024) draw on the knowledge-based perspective to explain why MNE subsidiaries differ in their ability to pursue social innovation successfully in developing countries. The article uses primary data from 207 MNC subsidiaries in Ghana. The article reveals that relationship learning has a positive relationship with social innovation. Moreover, subsidiary autonomy enhances the positive association between relationship learning and social innovation and this moderating effect is stronger for subsidiaries with equity entry mode as opposed to non-equity entry mode. This article contributes to the social innovation literature by showing that MNEs’ relationship learning adds to social innovation variability under varying levels of subsidiary autonomy and modes of entry. It further expands our limited understanding of the factors driving social innovation by MNCs in developing nations. The authors also provide valuable guidance on the effective implementation of social innovation initiatives by MNC subsidiaries in such contexts.
The third article by Attah-Boakye et al. (2024) utilizes the upper echelons theory and employs data from 115 healthcare MNCs operating in 13 emerging economies. This study shows that older CEOs exhibit a greater propensity to champion, instigate, and execute social innovation on a broader scale and with more depth. It further provides evidence that CEOs and board members tend to play a more significant societal role as they age. Additionally, this article offers empirical validation for the greater contributions of senior board members and female board chairs. By complementing existing research on social innovation in developed nations, the article demonstrates the influence of CEO and board attributes on the scope and intensity of social initiatives in emerging economies. This article extends the social innovation and IB literature by providing empirical evidence reinforcing the increased influence of senior board members and female board chairs. This contribution supplements prior studies on social innovation in developed nations and elucidates the impact of CEO and board characteristics on the two dimensions (extent and scope) of social innovation initiatives in emerging economies.
In the fourth article, Chu et al. (2024) use financial data from large, listed subsidiaries of foreign MNCs in India based on a hand-collected dataset of firms’ disclosures of CSR activity. The findings show that as the subsidiary becomes more integrated into the local context, it may initiate social innovation projects aligned with community needs, aiming to mitigate adverse externalities. Applying the theoretical lens afforded by the institutional logics perspective, this article contributes to the IB and social innovation literature by exploring the role of MNE subsidiaries in resolving societal grand challenges through social innovation in order to improve positive externalities and reduce negative externalities in developing countries.
In the fifth article, Banna et al. (2024) draw on stakeholder and institutional theories to investigate the influence of social innovation on financial risk in emerging economy multinational corporations (EMNCs). The article utilized data from 90 EMNCs based in 14 emerging economies. It contributes to the IB and social innovation literature by revealing that social innovation reduces EMNC financial risk and challenges assumptions regarding the potential negative implications of excessive social innovation on financial risk. The article further reveals the moderating effects of institutional legitimacy on this linkage.
In the sixth article, Qu et al., (2024) utilize insights from eco-innovation research and the literature on MNC and foreign direct investment (FDI) spillovers to formulate hypotheses regarding the relationship between regional knowledge spillovers from MNCs and the eco-innovation efforts of emerging market firms (EMFs) operating in a multi-dimensional task environment characterized by munificence, complexity, and dynamism. The empirical investigation was conducted using data from Chinese manufacturing firms from 2003 to 2013. This article extends the literature by revealing that regional knowledge spillovers from MNCs amplify the positive impact of munificence and alleviate the negative impacts of complexity and dynamism on the eco-innovation endeavors of EMFs. Further, the analysis of how MNC knowledge spillovers interact with the organizational environment offers fresh perspectives on the eco-innovation of EMFs.
The article that concludes this focus on social innovation by Pillai et al. (2024), extends the IB literature by deriving insights from legitimacy, institutional, and social alliances literature to develop a conceptual framework elucidating the significance of fostering social, institutional, and commercial legitimacy within international social alliances operating in bottom of the pyramid markets (BOPMs). The authors examine the hurdles encountered by international social alliances in BOPMs and identify factors facilitating the establishment of diverse forms of legitimacy by MNCs and social enterprises. This article enriches the field of IB by offering new insights into the array of legitimacy-building strategies employed by international social alliances situated in BOPMs to drive social value creation.
4 Future Research Agenda in International Business
Given the complexities of integrating social innovation research in IB theorizing, it is advantageous to pinpoint specific areas for future investigation. Instead of outlining detailed research questions, we propose overarching research priorities to better assist IB scholars engaged in social innovation research. Based on the overview of previous literature and the articles featured in this focused issue, we have identified some critical areas for researchers in the field of social innovation in IB to explore further, aiming to advance social innovation research in the IB domain.
First, the literature on social innovation in the IB area has not fully recognized the diverse mechanisms that can enhance social innovation. Future research should explore additional processes and structures beyond MNCs’ strategic intent and local embeddedness that contribute to the enhancement of social innovation and its outcomes. By investigating alternative mechanisms, such as MNCs’ strategic partnerships, supply chain integration, or community engagement programs, scholars can uncover new avenues for fostering social innovation within international business contexts. IB literature has mainly addressed the issues associated with collaborations between MNCs and local firms for the purpose of profit maximization (Buckley et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2020), while limited attention has been paid to how MNEs work with host country governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local communities to develop novel solutions for tackling social grand challenges (Lee et al., 2022). Thus, more research is needed to unpack the mechanisms facilitating collaboration between MNCs with different types of organizations and stakeholders, as well as the process of co-social innovation. Strategic partnerships and interactions between global actors and local actors are essential to fostering effective social innovation, given that social problems are often rooted in a host of interconnected challenges, many of which arise from deeply entrenched societal structures (Van Tulder, et al., 2021). Therefore, engaging in social innovation requires synergistic coordination between various organizations and stakeholders. For example, NGOs have in-depth knowledge about local societal problems, while MNCs can use financial resources and skills to support social innovation projects. For firms operating across borders, establishing partnerships with local governments, NGOs, and community organizations can be vital for addressing complex social issues. Future research should examine how MNCs and various local actors can achieve synergy in social innovation by combining their unique resources and capabilities.
Second, future research can advance our understanding of the effect of learning on social innovation by examining how these processes vary across institutionally distinct settings. In line with the suggestions of Nkrumah et al. (2024) in this focused section, by proposing and testing frameworks that account for country-level factors such as national cultural characteristics (House et al., 2004), political stability (Behera et al. 2024), and governance quality (Zhang et al., 2024), scholars can elucidate the contextual contingencies shaping the effectiveness of relationship learning in fostering social innovation within MNC subsidiaries. Additionally, the literature lacks studies that use a comparative analysis approach across various countries (Cinar et al., 2024). To overcome biases towards emerging and underdeveloped economies, future studies should incorporate data from a broader spectrum of economies, including advanced ones. By comparing the experiences of MNCs operating in diverse institutional contexts, researchers can ascertain the generalizability of findings and discern whether similar patterns emerge across different economic and institutional landscapes. Relatedly, comparative analyses across various geographical contexts can provide insights on the multifarious contextual factors influencing social innovation initiatives, thereby enriching our understanding of social innovation dynamics in diverse regions. Focusing on different institutional and geographical contexts will enable researchers to tease out how MNCs engage with social innovation given the support or constraints of regional institutional environments, or under what conditions regional and institutional settings act as barriers or enablers for MNCs’ social value creation.
Third, the social innovation literature, as illustrated by Chu et al. (2024) in this focused section, often explores social innovation in the manufacturing industry and large firms. Future research avenues could explore social innovation in sectors beyond manufacturing, and encompass firms of varying sizes, including small and medium-sized enterprises, in line with the suggestions by Chu et al. (2024). Additionally, comparative studies across different industries can offer detailed insights into the diverse determinants and outcomes of social innovation initiatives, as suggested by several articles in this focused section (Attah-Boakye et al., 2024; Chu et al., 2024). Firms operating across borders need to develop a nuanced understanding of social innovation in different sectorial contexts and tailor their solutions by considering sector heterogeneity in order to effectively align their social innovation strategies with local needs and expectations. This could involve redesigning MNCs’ business models (Gasparin et al., 2021) and reconfiguring their global value chain (Ambos et al., 2021) by incorporating social innovation goals, given the local conditions of industries or sectors in which the MNCs operate. Further, while large MNCs can leverage their financial resources and global reach in addressing social problems, international SMEs may team up with well-established MNCs to maximise social value creation in social innovation ecosystems (Audretsch et al. 2022). Future research could examine the factors which enable SMEs to provide niche solutions for social problems and the mechanism through which international SMEs can effectively collaborate with MNCs to tackle social challenges.
Finally, studies adopting qualitative research approaches are scarce and provide limited empirical evidence in the social innovation literature. While the empirical studies in this focused section are all quantitative, several of them suggest qualitative studies for further exploring the mechanisms and process of social innovation (Chu 2024; Nwoba et al., 2024). Thus, we encourage future IB studies on social innovation to adopt a wide range of qualitative approaches to data collection and offer deeper insights into the motivations and decision-making processes driving MNCs’ investments in social innovation within the context of emerging markets. By capturing the nuanced perspectives of key stakeholders and exploring the underlying reasons behind social innovation initiatives, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the drivers shaping MNCs’ social innovation strategies across borders, and the related outcomes. Future research should move beyond firm-centric quantitative analysis to adopting a variety of research methods, such as a case study approach or a mixed research method, to further advance IB research on social innovation by exploring the role of IB in general and MNCs in particular in addressing social grand challenges and leading to societal transformation and system change.
5 Conclusion
Spurred on by urgent societal demands, the field of social innovation is growing swiftly. These innovation endeavors regard social value creation as a paramount objective, championed by industry pioneers, policymakers, and scholars alike. Yet, considering the limited exploration of social innovation research in the IB literature (Dionisio & de Vargas, 2020; Lind et al., 2018), we extend an invitation to fellow IB scholars and practitioners to engage in the ongoing discourse to propel this intriguing research agenda forward. We hope that the articles presented in this focused issue will inspire further exploration in this field.
Data availability
No data was used in this article.
References
Adomako, S., & Tran, M. D. (2021). Local embeddedness, and corporate social performance: The mediating role of social innovation orientation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2203
Ambos, B., Brandl, K., Perri, A., Scalera, V. G., & Van Assche, A. (2021). The nature of innovation in global value chains. Journal of World Business, 56(4), 101221.
Attah-Boakye, R. Adams, K., Honglan, Y., Mali, D., & Lim, H. (2024). Growing old, but paying back: understanding how age influences corporate social innovation depth and breadth of multinationals in weak institutional contexts, Management International Review (forthcoming)
Audretsch, D. B., Eichler, G. M., & Schwarz, E. J. (2022). Emerging needs of social innovators and social innovation ecosystems. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1–38.
Auerswald, P. (2009). Creating social value”. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7(2), 50–55.
Austin, J. E., & Leonard, H. B. D. (2008). Can the virtuous mouse and the wealthy elephant live happily ever after? California Management Review, 51(1), 77–102.
Banna, H., Mostafiz, M.I., Ahmed, F.U., & Tarba, S.Y. (2024). Social innovation and the financial risk of EMNCs - the contingent role of institutional legitimacy, Management International Review (forthcoming).
Bason, C. (2010). Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society. Policy Press.
Beckman, C. M., Rosen, J., Estrada-Miller, J., & Painter, G. (2023). The social innovation trap: Critical insights into an emerging field. Academy of Management Annals, 17(2), 684–709.
Behera, B., Behera, P., & Sethi, N. (2024). Decoupling the role of renewable energy, green finance and political stability in achieving the sustainable development goal 13: Empirical insight from emerging economies. Sustainable Development, 32(1), 119–137.
Buckley, P., Doh, J., & Benischke, M. (2017). Towards a renaissance in international business research? Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9), 1045–1064.
Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 42–51.
Canestrino, R., Bonfanti, A., & Oliaee, L. (2015). Cultural insights of CSI: How do Italian and Iranian firms differ? Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 12.
Chen, H. (1999). International performance of multinationals: A hybrid model. Journal of World Business, 34(2), 157–170.
Chu, I., Sewak, M. & Trivedi, R. (2024). Market or Community? An Institutional Logics Interpretation of how MNE Subsidiaries Respond to Mandated Social Innovation in India, Management International Review (forthcoming)
Cinar, E., Simms, C., Trott, P., & Demircioglu, M. A. (2024). Public sector innovation in context: A comparative study of innovation types. Public Management Review, 26(1), 265–292.
Davis, G., McAdam, D., Scott, W. R., & Zald, M. (Eds.). (2005). Social Movements and Organization Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Dawson, P., & Daniel, L. (2010). Understanding social innovation: A provisional framework. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 9–21.
Dionisio, M., & de Vargas, E. R. (2020). Corporate social innovation: A systematic literature review. International Business Review, 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.
Drayton, W. (2002). The Citizen Sector: Becoming As Entrepreneurial and Competitive As Business. California Management Review, 44(3), 120–132.
Gasparin, M., Green, W., Lilley, S., Quinn, M., Saren, M., & Schinckus, C. (2021). Business as unusual: A business model for social innovation. Journal of Business Research, 125, 698–709.
Halme, M., Lindeman, S., & Linna, P. (2012). Innovation for inclusive business: Intrapreneurial bricolage in multinational corporations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 743–784.
Hämäläinen, T. and Heiskala, R. (eds) (2007) Social Innovations, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Making Sense of Structural Adjustment Processes in Industrial Sectors, Regions and Societies. Cheltenham, UK: SITRA and Edward Elgar.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.
Howaldt, J., Kopp, R., & Schwarz, M. (2015). Social innovations as drivers of social change—Exploring Tarde’s contribution to social innovation theory building. In New frontiers in social innovation research (pp. 29–51). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Howaldt, J., & Schwartz, M. (2010). Social innovation: Concepts, research fields and international trends. Imo International Monitoring, 7(17), 21–41.
Husted, B. W. (2015). Corporate social responsibility practice from 1800–1914: Past initiatives and current debates. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(1), 125–141.
Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprise: Strategic and institutional approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 838–849.
Kramer, M. R., & Porter, M. (2011). Creating shared value (Vol. 17). Boston, MA, USA: FSG.
Lee, R. P., Spanjol, J., & Sun, S. L. (2019). Social innovation in an interconnected world: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(6), 662–670.
Lee, J. Y., Choi, J., Xiao, S. S., Lew, Y. K., & Park, B. I. (2022). How do the institutions matter for MNE subsidiaries’ CSR in host countries? Evidence from Chinese overseas subsidiaries. Business Research Quarterly, in press.
Lind, C. H., Kang, O., Ljung, A., & Forsgren, M. (2018). MNC involvement in social innovations: The issue of knowledge, networks and power. Critical Perspectives on International Business., 16(1), 79–99.
Liu, S., Napier, E., Runfola, A., & Cavusgil, S. M. (2020). MNE-NGO partnerships for sustainability and social responsibility in the global fast-fashion industry: A loose-coupling perspective. International Business Review, 29(5), 101736.
Luo, H., Liu, X., Wu, A., & Zhong, X. (2021). Is it possible to escape? Local Protectionism and the Outward Foreign Direct Investment of Privately Owned Enterprises in a Transition Economy. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management., 38(4), 1499–1524.
Mellahi, K., Frynas, J. G., Sun, P., & Siegel, D. (2016). A review of the nonmarket strategy literature: Toward a multi-theoretical integration. Journal of Management, 42(1), 143–173.
Mirvis, P., Herrera, M. E. B., Googins, B., & Albareda, L. (2016). Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5014–5021.
Miska, C., Witt, M. A., & Stahl, G. K. (2016). Drivers of global CSR integration and local CSR responsiveness: Evidence from Chinese MNEs. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(3), 317–345.
Moulaert, F. (Ed.). (2013). The international handbook on social innovation: collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., & Ali, R. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. The Young Foundation.
Mumford, M. (2002). Social Innovation: Ten Cases from Benjamin Franklin. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 253–256.
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The Open Book of Social Innovation. Young Foundation.
Nicholls, A., von Jacobi, N., Chiappero-Martinetti, E., & Mildenberger, G. (2019). The impact of social innovation. Creating Economic Space for Social Innovation, 228, 389–417.
Nicholls, A., & Murdock, A. (2012). Social innovation: Blurring boundaries to reconfigure markets. Palgrave Macmillan.
Nicholls, A., Simon, J., & Gabriel, M. (2015). New frontiers in social innovation research. Springer Nature.
Nkrumah, M., Owusu-Yirenkyi, D., Nyuur, B.N., Donbesuur, F., & Essuman, D (2024). Examining the drivers and boundary conditions of social innovation: Evidence from MNE subsidiaries in a developing economy, Management International Review (forthcoming)
Nwoba, A.C., Kusi, S., Adebajo, A., & Prempeh, M.K. (2024). MNCs’ corporate social innovation in emerging markets: Antecedents, outcomes, and boundary conditions, Management International Review (forthcoming).
OCED (2023). OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct. https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/mneguidelines/
OECD (2022). Social Innovation. https://www.oecd.org/regional/leed/social-innovation
Odziemkowska, K., & Henisz, W. J. (2021). Webs of influence: Secondary stakeholder actions and cross-national corporate social performance. Organization Science, 32(1), 233–255.
Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N., & James, P. (2015). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group and Organization Management, 40(3), 428–461.
Phills, J. A., Jr., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43.
Pillai, K.G., Nair, S.R., Zahoor, N., and Khan, Z (2024). Driving Social Innovation in Bottom-of-the-Pyramid Markets through International Social Alliances: The Role of Legitimacy. Management International Review (forthcoming)
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
Prahalad, C.K. (2006) The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton Publishing.
Qu, Y., Wang, C., Wei, Y., Wu, L., & Zheng, N., (2024). Does Eco-Innovation of Emerging Market Firms Benefit from Knowledge Spillovers of MNC in a Multi-dimensional Task Environment?, Management International Review (forthcoming)
Ramus, T., La Cara, B., Vaccaro, A., & Brusoni, S. (2018). Social or commercial? Innovation strategies in social enterprises at times of turbulence. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(4), 463–492.
Rao-Nicholson, R., Vorley, T., & Khan, Z. (2017). Social innovation in emerging economies: A national systems of innovation based approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 121, 228–237.
Rygh, A. (2020). Social value creation by multinational enterprises: The next “Big Question” for international business research? Critical Perspectives on International Business, 16(1), 47–75.
Savitz, E. (2011). How The Private Sector Can Drive Social Innovation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2011/06/29/how-the-private-sector-can-drive-social-innovation/?sh=5ff5de8a41c2
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Transaction Publishers.
Sinkovics, N., Sinkovics, R. R., & Yamin, M. (2014). The role of social value creation in business model formulation at the bottom of the pyramid–implications for MNEs? International Business Review, 23(4), 692–707.
Sombart, W. (1927). Der moderne Kapitalismus. München: Duncker & Humblot.
Steinfield, L., & Holt, D. (2019). Toward a theory on the reproduction of social innovations in subsistence marketplaces. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(6), 764–799.
Van der Have, R. P., & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies? Research Policy, 45(9), 1923–1935.
Van Tulder, R., Rodrigues, S. B., Mirza, H., & Sexsmith, K. (2021). The UN’s sustainable development goals: Can mulitnational enterprises lead the decade of action? Journal of International Business Policy, 4, 1–21.
Varadarajan, R. (2014). Toward sustainability: Public policy, global social innovations for base-of-the-pyramid markets, and demarketing for a better world. Journal of International Marketing, 22(2), 1–20.
Weber, M. (1922). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of CA Press.
Westley, F., & Antadze, N. (2010). Making a Difference: Strategies for Scaling Social Innovation for Greater Impact. The Innovation Journal: THe Public Sector Innovation Journal, 15(2), 1–19.
World Economic Forum (2024). Social innovation needs $1.1trn – these companies just committed to act. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/social-innovation-needs-700bn-these-companies-just-committed-to-act/
Zhang, S., Xie, W., Sun, S., Wu, F., & Xue, Y. (2024). Nexus of green energy innovation, governance quality, and CO2 emissions in natural resource sector: The role of sustainable human development. Resources Policy, 88, 104493.
Acknowledgements
We extend our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their invaluable assistance in shaping and enhancing these significant contributions. Our gratitude also goes to the Editors-in-Chief of Management International Review, Prof. Michael-Jörg Oesterle and Prof. Joachim Wolf, for their steadfast support and guidance throughout this process. We are thankful for the opportunity to guest-edit and elevate these issues to the forefront of scholarly discourse. Xiaohui Liu would like to acknowledge funding support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant numbers 72091310, 72091314 & 71832012.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Adomako, S., Liu, X., Sarala, R.M. et al. Multinational Corporations and Social Innovation in Emerging Markets. Manag Int Rev (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-024-00540-w
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-024-00540-w