BoP_triad

7/30/2019 BoP_triad

1/9

Globalizing Business Ethics Research

and the Ethical Need to Includethe Bottom-of-the-Pyramid Countries:

Redefining the Global Triad as Business

Systems and Institutions

Chong Ju ChoiSae Won KimJai Beom Kim

ABSTRACT. A majority of the countries in the world

are still considered developing, with a per capita in-

come of less than U$1,000. Hahn (2008, Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics 78, 711721) recently proposed an ambitious

business ethics research agenda for integrating the bot-

tom-of-the-pyramid countries (Prahalad and Hart, 2002,

Strategy and Competition 20, 214) through sustainable

development and corporate citizenship. Hahns work is

among the growing field of research in comparative

business ethics including the global business ethics index

(Michalos, 2008, Journal of Business Ethics 79(1), 919;

Scholtens and Dam, 2008, Journal of Business Ethics 75(3),

273284; Tsalikis and Seaton, 2008, Journal of BusinessEthics 75(3), 229238). This article is complementary to

Hahns work and it advocates an urgent need for business

ethics researchers to globally integrate the bottom-of-the-

pyramid countries through a fundamental re-definition of

the global economic triad, including the United States,

Western Europe, and Japan [Ohmae, 1985, Triad Power:

The Coming Shape of Global Competition (New York: Free

Press)]. The definition that we propose is based on

business systems and institutional perspectives that include

the bottom-of-the-pyramid countries. We also propose to

broaden the research in business ethics to enable com-

parisons across business systems indifferent income levels.

KEY WORDS: bottom of pyramid, business systems,

developing economies, ethics, global triad, institutions

Introduction

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, a majority

of the countries in the world are classified as low

income and developing, with a per capita income

of less than U$1,000. Recently, Hahn (2008) pro-

posed an ambitious business ethics research agenda

to globally integrate the bottom-of-the-pyramid

countries (Prahalad and Hart, 2002; UNCTAD,

2007) through the implementation of sustainable

development and corporate citizenship. Hahns

work supplements the recently growing field of

research in comparative business ethics, such as

the global business ethics index (Michalos, 2008;

Scholtens and Dam, 2008; Tsalikis and Seaton,

2008).

This article is complementary to Hahns work thatemphasizes a holistic approach by Rawls (1971), i.e.,

sustainable development and corporate citizenship,

to address the issues concerned with bottom-of-the-

pyramid countries. In addition, the article clarifies

the need for researchers in global business ethics to

more fully integrate the bottom-of-the-pyramid

countries through a fundamental re-definition of the

global economic triad, including the United States,

Western Europe, and Japan (Ohmae, 1985). The

definition we propose is based on the business sys-

tems and institutions that include the bottom-of-the-pyramid countries. In this respect, we propose to

broaden the scope of business ethics research

(Michalos, 2008; Scholtens and Dam, 2008; Tsalikis

and Seaton, 2008) to enable comparisons across

business systems at different income levels (devel-

oped, emerging, and developing).

The bottom-of-the-pyramid countries (Hahn,

2008; Prahalad and Hart, 2002) have been well

researched in economic growth and develop-

ment (UNCTAD, 2007). Prior studies agree on the

Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 94:299306 Springer 2009

DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0258-y
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-

7/30/2019 BoP_triad

2/9

crucial role played by institutions in the economic

growth of developing economies (North, 1990;

Olson, 1982; Ostrom, 1990). The transplantation of

foreign institutions or the adjustment of local insti-

tutions requires the involvement of local knowledgeand participation (Boddewyn and Brewer, 1994;

Boddewyn and Iyer, 1999; Keohane, 1988). Toyne

and Nigh (1998) called for social science and busi-

ness researchers to focus more on behavioral and

social sciences, such as psychology and sociology,

and less on mainstream Anglo Saxon economies that

tend to separate business processes from society

(ORiain, 2000; Toyne and Nigh, 1997, 1998).

Institutions in developing economies require the

analysis of their business systems (Peng, 2001, 2003).

In order to include developing economies, or thebottom-of-the-pyramid countries, in comparative

global business ethics research, there is a need to

redefine the global triad (the global triad originally

included the United States, Western Europe, and

Japan, but expanded over time to include North

America, the European Union, and East Asia). This

article is organized as follows. To begin with, we

analyze the traditional global triad and discuss how it

deters studies from including developing economies.

Secondly, we introduce the idea of a triad comprised

of three national business systems, relying heavily on

the comparative research on corporate governancemainly in the 1990s (Albert, 1991; Roe, 1994;

Thomsen and Pedersen, 1999). We compare the

stock market driven approaches of the Anglo-Saxon

countries such as the United States and the United

Kingdom with the more informal cross share hold-

ing system of Communitarianism adopted in Japan

and Germany. A legal contract with ultimate redress

to courts is fundamental to the operation of the

Anglo-Saxon business culture (Barzel, 1997; Roe,

1994). In contrast, in Continental European coun-

tries and Japan, major financial institutions act asexternal stakeholders by holding major shares in

firms and exercising governance and control over

internal management through more informal, rela-

tionship-based exchange. Communitarianism refers

to the advocacy of a social order in which individuals

are bound together by common values that foster

close communal bonds (Political dictionary). It is a

type of label loosely used to describe the ideas that

are critical of modern liberal political thought, be-

cause of the importance they attach to community.

Hence, there has been an antagonism between

communitarianism and liberalism, which may, how-

ever, be overdrawn. The fundamental division is

concerned with the nature of the self. Communi-

tarianism insists on the interaction of the socialcontext and individuals self-conceptions, while

liberalism allegedly works with an atomized indi-

vidual artificially, if not incoherently, divorced from

her/his social surroundings. Fundamental questions

about the desirable relationships between the

community, the nation, and the state remain

intellectually contentious and hotly contested in

various disciplines.

Further, in addition to the above difference

between the Anglo-Saxon business system and the

more collective or communitarian business system,we propose the inclusion of another business system:

the system of developing economies. China emerged

as a major global economy, predicted to be the

worlds second largest economy after the US by

2010. The communitarian business system model is

associated with the theory of property rights and

legal regulations, which both recognize the share-

holders as owners of assets, bearing the risks and

eventually deserve the residual income. China is

similar with Europe and other mature East Asian

economies such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Sin-

gapore in that it is a stakeholder business system(Freeman, 1984), even though Chinas business

system will be a hybrid a mixture of the two major

systems of Anglo-Saxon shareholder, and the

Communitarian stakeholder systems of mainly

Continental European countries (Donaldson, 2003;

Freeman, 1984). Thirdly, building on the institu-

tional analyses of North (1990) and Olson (1992),

we emphasize the informality within developing

economies and how this informality has contributed

to shaping their business systems.

Business ethics is often seen as the opposite ofeconomics in that economics tends to generalize due

to the fact that it is based on physics, whereas ethics

tends to be specific due to its basis in philosophy. In

this article, we advocate a middle road in terms of

comparative business ethics (Donleavy et al., 2008;

Michalos, 2008; Tsalikis and Seaton, 2008) and

connections to international management (not just

international business). In order to accomplish this,

we propose two approaches: (1) to incorporate

comparative research across business systems of

300 Chong Ju Choi et al.
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-

7/30/2019 BoP_triad

3/9

developed, emerging, and developing countries

(Hahn, 2008; Prahalad and Hart, 2002) and (2) to

implement comparative research across business sys-

tems. The rise of the BRIC countries (i.e., Brazil,

Russia, India, and China) and the current state of theglobal economy add a sense of practical urgency to

this effort.

Traditional global triad in comparative

business research

The bottom-of-the-pyramid economies of the world

such as India provide a potentially important area

of research for international business in terms of

the rapid development of their institutions andorganizations. Today, they also represent 80% of the

worlds population. As these developing, emerging

societies, which operate under greater uncertainty

and fewer institutional and legal structures than the

developed ones, turn more mature and developed, it

becomes more important to examine the differences

between them.

Although research in international business has

continued to develop rapidly (Dunning, 1993), the

fundamental focus of research has been on the

mature or traditional markets of the world. This

has made sense for various reasons. First, it is mucheasier to obtain data and perform research vis-a-vis

mature markets and corporations based in those

markets. Second, these markets provide the largest

and more sophisticated corporations. Third, vari-

ous rules of international business, including the

nature of multinational corporation (MNC) activi-

ties (Rugman, 2000) such as joint venture and

technology transfer, mostly originate from the tra-

ditional global triad markets (Ohmae, 1985; Vernon,

1971) of Western Europe, the United States, and

Japan (Rugman and Verbeke, 2003). However,other factors, including shareholder versus stake-

holder systems and low-income versus high-income

countries, should also be taken into account in

international business ethics research.

Shareholder and stakeholder systems

Comparative business systems and social sciences

studies have taken into account the importance of

the national institutional context for various aspects

of national business systems, especially in innovation,

financial, and technology areas (Andreff, 2002; Choi

et al., 1999; Chui, 2002; Danis, 2002; Foss, 1999;

OSullivan, 2000; Putnam, 1996). These worksfurther develop the tradition of continental Euro-

pean social science-based research on institutions

(Crozier, 1964; Levi-Strauss, 1969). These studies

have tended to categorize countries in terms of

income or gross national product (e.g., developed

economies).

It would be beneficial for international business

research to differentiate between shareholder and

stakeholder business systems (Albert, 1991; Andreff,

2002; Chui, 2002; Freeman, 1984; Lazonick and

OSullivan, 2000; Lenway and Murtha, 1994). Thegrowing academic debate on shareholder research has

focused on research in comparative corporate gov-

ernance (Lazonick and OSullivan, 2000; Pedersen

and Thomsen, 1999; Roe, 1994) that compare the

legalistic, stock market driven approaches of the

Anglo-Saxon countries with the more informal cross

share holding system adopted in Japan and Germany.

A legal contract with ultimate redress to courts is

fundamental to the operation of the Anglo-Saxon

business culture (Barzel, 1997; Roe, 1994). In

contrast, in Japan and Germany, and most of the

continental European countries, major banks andinsurance companies act as external stakeholders by

holding major shares in firms and further exercising

governance and control over internal management

through more informal, relationship-based exchange.

High income versus low income economies

Prior research on shareholder versus stakeholder

business systems has shown the importance of

comparative business systems research in interna-tional business. How important to research are

corporations from low-income countries such as

China and India (Prahalad and Hart, 2002)? Can we

create frameworks that can be generalized to define

the nature of business in these low-income, bottom-

of-the-pyramid (Prahalad and Lieberthal, 1998)

countries? The traditional definition of global triad

competition has tended to lump together Western

Europe, the United States, and Japan as the three

pillars of the global economic triad. These three

301Redefining the Global Triad as Business Systems and Institutions
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-

7/30/2019 BoP_triad

4/9

regional representatives, in turn, have been seen todrive global competition and international business

strategies through standardized products aimed at

sophisticated and high-income consumers. This

framework has been used in various studies vis-a-vis

international business (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989;

Ohmae, 1985, Prahalad and Doz, 1987; Thurow,

1996). The rest of the non-triad world has been seen

as either developing or third world countries with

relatively smaller, less developed markets without

major global corporations from the countries. This

traditional framework is demonstrated in Figure 1.

There are at least two fundamental problems withthis traditional framework in terms of its application

to the international business environment of the

twenty-first century. It is quite clear that the con-

sumers of Western Europe, Japan, and the United

States are not highly standardized to global products,

and that, in turn, corporations from these regions

also seem to behave under different rules, logic, and

strategies. Even within Western Europe, there is a

clear difference in the business behavior between

British and continental European, such as French or

Swedish, corporations (Lowenberg, 1999; OSulli-van, 2000; Ottaway, 2001; Thomsen and Pedersen,

1999; Westney, 1999).

Redefining the global triad

Studies on international business and business ethics

need to include a triad based on national business

systems. Past research on national business systems

includes how the role of national business systems

(Whitley, 1992), showing the sociological connec-

tions and networks between and among economic

and non-economic actors within a national business

system (Casson and Lundan, 1999; Foss, 1999;

Morgan et al., 2003; Thomsen and Pedersen, 1999),affect institutional knowledge transfer. Although

political economists and economic historians such as

Olson (1982, 1992) and North (1990) have helped

in the recognition of the importance of national

economic systems, Whitleys (1992) sociological

approach has been more relevant for international

business research, especially in the context of micro-

linkages that facilitate knowledge transfer within

national business systems.

Comparative research on corporate governance as

carried out in the 1990s has shown the clear dis-tinctions between two types of mature business

systems: the Anglo-Saxon system and the system of

continental Europe and Japan (Albert, 1991; Roe,

1994; Thomsen and Pedersen, 1999). Recent

comparative business ethics studies such as Michalos

(2008) and Scholtens and Dam (2008) have shown

the great diversity of cultural values and business

ethic frameworks in the world.

The framework we propose, which divides the

global environment based on the factors that influ-

ence and constrain the behavior of corporations in

their approach to international business, assumes aglobal economic triad divided as follows: Anglo-

Saxon countries such as the United Kingdom and

the United States, the non-Anglo-Saxon major

economies of continental Europe and Japan, and the

developing regions of the world, i.e., the bottom-of-

the-pyramid economies (Hahn, 2008; Prahalad and

Lieberthal, 1998). We refer to this as international

business systems approach to the triad.

The key distinction of the proposed approach is

that, rather than grouping countries and regions to-

gether vis-a-vis the traditional economic triad defi-nition (i.e., categorization by general income levels,

technology, and consumer sophistication) groupings

are made based on the business system or the type of

capitalism that exists in target countries, regions, and

societies. Based on this definition, a country such as

the United Kingdom, which has traditionally been

seen as a part of the Western European bloc of the

economic triad due to its proximities in geography

and its similar level in economy, should now be

categorized as a part of the Anglo-Saxon bloc, which

Figure 1. Traditional definition of the global triad. This

figure demonstrates the traditional triad of the US, Eur-

ope, and Japan. Together with the triad, the figure in-

cludes developing and emerging countries as the

emerging forces in global economy.

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-

7/30/2019 BoP_triad

5/9

would include various countries such as the United

States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia.

This new global triad, based on business systems, is

shown in Figure 2.

As the bottom-of-the-pyramid economies devel-

op economically, they can be seen as entering the

emerging market business system. The emergingmarket business system refers to those regions of the

world that seem to be rapidly entering the world

business system and includes most of the Asian

countries, some of the East European countries such

as Hungary and the Czech Republic, some of the

Latin American countries such as Mexico, Chile,

Brazil, and within Africa, and perhaps South Africa

and Egypt. In this sense, the nature of emergence

can be seen as relatively general and not specific to

any particular nation or region. Further, these

emerging countries have to be differentiated fromthe developing countries of the world. A few dec-

ades ago, it may have been appropriate to lump these

groups together as developing, but in todays

world, there are clear distinctions between the

dynamics of capitalism in these emerging markets

and the lack of economic and business success in the

developing countries of the world. Hence, we are

referring here two types of countries: the high

growth/dynamic/accelerating countries and the very

large emerging/developing economies. The large/

emerging economies are China, Brazil, and Russia;

the large developing economy is India. This division

is in accordance to the OECD criteria: Mature/

developed countries are defined as having a per

capita income of at least $10,000 USD ($20,000 mayalso be used, as all of the countries discussed are

above $20,000 in Asia, there are five countries that

fit this criterion, including Japan, Korea, Singapore,

Hong Kong, and Taiwan). Emerging countries

exhibit a per capita income between $1,000 and

9,999 USD. Developing countries have a per capita

income of less than $1,000 USD. Listed below are

some of the characteristics of emerging market

countries and how they differ from developing

countries.

Anglo-saxon, communitarian, emerging,

and developing categories

As we discussed above, our definition of the new

global triad is based on the business system

(Casson and Lunden, 1999; Foss, 1999; Thomsen

and Pedersen, 1999; Whitley, 1992) or the various

economic, political, social, and business issues that

could constrain and influence the behavior of cor-

porations within these systems (Andreff, 2002; Choi

et al., 1999; Chui, 2002; Danis, 2002; OSullivan,2000; Putnam, 1996). Thus, business systems can

form the foundation of a new global triad definition

that can more easily incorporate the bottom-of-the-

pyramid economies.

Despite the differences between Anglo-Saxon and

Communitarian capitalism, their distinctive features

have been the political, legal, and social institutions

that have evolved to enshrine the liberal democracies

in them. At its core, the system is characterized by

pluralistic participation, a system of accountability

governed by checks and balances between the legis-lature, executive, and the judiciary, and, despite the

rhetoric, ideological consensus among the ruling

elite. On the other hand, emerging markets, espe-

cially the Asian emerging market countries, have

embraced the capitalist mode of production, but have

either rejected the need for democratic participation

or have not succeeded in their attempt to institu-

tionalize the democratic features of western socie-

ties. Countries such as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan

have experienced strong government interventions,

Figure 2. A new global triad of business systems

Including the bottom-of-the-pyramid and developing

economies. This figure demonstrates the new global

triad of the Anglo Saxon, Communitarian and Emerg-

ing business systems. Anglo-Saxon covers the United

Kingdom, traditionally classified as European countries.

Communitarian covers Continental European countries

and Japan, Emerging systems include some of the tradi-tionally categorized as developing countries in East Asia.

Developing in this figure covers some of the developing

and less developed countries in the past.

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-

7/30/2019 BoP_triad

6/9

especially from the role played by government

ministries as opposed to political process. The newly

emerging China follows a business system where the

members of the political elite at the national, pro-

vincial, and local levels feel that they are above the

law, and it is difficult to discern the balance of power

in the system without appreciating the allegiance of

party officials to various patrons within the party

hierarchy.

One generalization across most emerging market

business systems is that the markets work alongside

other forces, notably as the state (Boddewyn andBrewer, 1994). Rather than the market to dictate

economic and business efficiency, as observed in the

Anglo-Saxon business system, coordination in

emerging market systems often takes place between

and among government, banks, and industry.

However, it is not surprising to witness the contrast

between the emerging market and Anglo-Saxon

business systems. The use of non-market mecha-

nisms for coordination is also a characteristic of the

Communitarian business system countries such as

Germany, Sweden, and France (Albert, 1991;

Thomsen and Pedersen, 1999). The key differences

among the systems are shown in the Table I.

Conclusions and further research

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, a staggering

80% of the worlds population live in countries

considered as developing and less developed with

low income levels. This fact brings to focus an

urgent need to more fully incorporate low-income

countries in international management and business

research and to globally integrate the base-of-pyramid

countries through a fundamental re-definition of the

global economic triad, including the United States,

Western Europe, and Japan. In this light, this article

introduced the idea of a new global triad based on

the business systems. This framework can provide an

inclusive approach that may better facilitate the

inclusion of low-income countries in research.

Further, these efforts may help expedite the global

integration of low-income countries which repre-sent an untapped business and economic potential

for todays MNCs.

Two areas warrant further research: first, it would

be beneficial to empirically investigate how low-in-

come countries can achieve economic and business

growth and development while reflecting global

developments in business ethics. Second, more the-

oretical work may be helpful in understanding the

implications for business ethics research that takes into

account the discrepancies in some of the key business

ethics questions and issues between developed

countries and the bottom-of-the-pyramid countries.

References

Albert, M.: 1991, Capitalism Against Capitalism (Seuil,

Paris).

Andreff, V.: 2002, Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Cap-

italism Japan and Germany Versus the Anglo-Saxons,

Journal of International Business Studies 33(1), 195203.

TABLE I

The new global triad of business systems including emerging, bottom-of-the-pyramid countries

Type of business system Key characteristics

Anglo-Saxon business system Strong legal system, reliance on contracts; importance of the individual; belief in free

markets and trade; support of major innovations and entrepreneurship; separation of

financial markets from banking and industries

Communitarian business system Importance of social groups and laws for communities; importance of banking rel-

ative to financial markets; government intervention in industry; managed trade rather

than free trade; overlap among banking, industry and financial markets

Emerging market system +

bottom-of-the-pyramid countries

High levels of uncertainty in business environment; volatility and rapid developments

in consumer demand; not always stable political systems; legal systems relatively weak;

important role of social networks in exchange

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-

7/30/2019 BoP_triad

7/9

Bartlett, C. and S. Ghoshal: 1989, Managing Across Borders:

The Transnational Solution (Harvard Business School

Press, Boston).

Barzel, Y.: 1997, Economic Analysis of Property Rights

(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Boddewyn, J. and T. Brewer: 1994, International-Busi-

ness Political Behavior: New Theoretical Directions,

Academy of Management Review19(1), 119143.

Boddewyn, J. and G. Iyer: 1999, International Business

Research: Beyond Deja vu, Management International

Review39(1), 161184.

Casson, M. and S. Lundan: 1999, Explaining Interna-

tional Differences in Economic Institutions, Interna-

tional Studies of Management and Organization 29(2), 25.

Choi, C. J., S. H. Lee and J.-B. Kim: 1999, Countertrade:

Contractual Uncertainty and Transaction Governance

in Emerging Economies, Journal of International Business

Studies 30, 189202.

Chui, A. C.: 2002, The Determination of Capital

Structure: Is National Culture a Missing Piece of the

Puzzle?, Journal of International Business Studies 33(1),

99128.

Crozier, M.: 1964, The Bureaucratie Phenomenon (Uni-

versity of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).

Danis, W. M.: 2002, Hungarian-Western Partnerships: A

Grounded Theoretical Model of Integration Processes

and Outcomes, Journal of International Business Studies

33(3), 423456.

Donaldson, T.: 2003, Editors Comments: Taking Ethics

Seriously A Mission Now more Possible, Academy ofManagement Review28(3), 363366.

Donleavy, G., K.-C. Lam and S. Ho: 2008, Does East

Meet West in Business Ethics, Journal of Business Ethics

97(1), 18.

Dunning, J.: 1993, Multinational Enterprises and the Global

Economy (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA/Woking-

ham, England).

Foss, N.: 1999, The Challenge of Business Systems and

the Challenge to Business Systems, International Studies

of Management and Organization 29(2), 924.

Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder

Approach (Pittman, Boston, MA).

Hahn, R.: 2008, The Ethical Rational of Business

for the Poor Integrating the Concepts of Bottom

of Pyramid, Sustainable Development, and Corpo-

rate Citizenship, Journal of Business Ethics 78(1), 711

721.

Keohane, R.: 1988, International Institutions: Two

Approaches, International Studies Quarterly 32(2), 379

396.

Lazonick, W. and M. OSullivan: 2000, Maximizing

Shareholder Value: A New Ideology for Corporate

Governance, Economy and Society 29(1), 1335.

Lenway, S. and T. Murtha: 1994, The State as Strategist

in International Business Research, Journal of Interna-

tional Business Research 25(3), 513535.

Levi-Strauss, C.: 1969, The Elementary Structures of Kinship

(orig. 1949) (Beacon Press, Boston).Lowenberg, A.: 1999, Why South Africas Apartheid

Economy Failed, Contemporary Economic Policy 15(3),

6272.

Michalos, A.: 2008, Ancient Observations on Business

Ethics: Middle East Meets West, Journal of Business

Ethics 79(1), 919.

Morgan, G., D. R. Sharpe, W. Kelly and R. Whitley:

2003, The Future of Japanese Manufacturing in the

UK, Journal of Management Studies 39(8), 10231044.

North, D. C.: 1990, Institutions, Institutional Change and

Economic Performance (Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge).

ORiain, S.: 2000, States and Markets in an Era of

Globalization, Annual Review of Sociology 26, 187213.

OSullivan, M.: 2000, The Innovative Enterprise and

Corporate Governance, Cambridge Journal of Economics

24(3), 393416.

Ohmae, K.: 1985, Triad Power: The Coming Shape of

Global Competition (Free Press, New York).

Olson, M.: 1982, The Rise and Decline of Nations (Yale

University Press, New Haven, CT).

Olson, M.: 1992, The Hidden Path to a Successful

Economy, in C. Clague and G. Rausser (eds.), The

Emergence of Market Economies in Eastern Europe

(Blackwell publishers, London).Ostrom, E.: 1990, Governing the Common: The Evolution of

Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK).

Ottaway, M.: 2001, Corporatism goes Global: Interna-

tional Organizations, Nongovernmental Organization

Networks, and Transnational Business, Global Gover-

nance7(2), 265292.

Pedersen, T. and S. Thomsen: 1999, Business Systems

and Corporate Governance, International Studies of

Management and Organization 29(Summer), 4359.

Peng, M.: 2001, The Resource-Based View and Inter-

national Business, Journal of Management27, 803829.

Peng, M.: 2003, Institutional Transitions and Strategic

Choices, Academy of Management Review28, 275296.

Prahalad, C. K. and K. Lieberthal: 1998, The End of

Corporate Imperialism, Harvard Business Review July

August.

Prahalad, C. K. and Y. Doz: 1987, The Multinational

Mission: Balancing Local Demands and Global Vision (The

Free Press, New York).

Prahalad, C. K. and S. Hart: 2002, The Fortune at the

Bottom of the Pyramid, Strategy and Competition 20,

214.


7/30/2019 BoP_triad

8/9

Putnam, R. D.: 1996, The Strange Disappearance of

Civic America, American Prospect7: 24.

Rawls, J.: 1971, A Theory of Justice (Belknap Press,

Cambridge, MA).

Roe, M.: 1994, Strong Managers and Weak Owners (Har-vard University Press, Cambridge, MA).

Rugman, A. M.: 2000, The End of Globalisation (Random

House, London, UK).

Rugman, A. M. and A. Verbeke: 2003, Extending the

Theory of the Multinational Enterprise: Internalization

and Strategic Management Perspectives, Journal of

International Business Studies 34, 125137.

Scholtens, B. and L. Dam: 2008, Cultural Values and

International Differences in Business Ethics, Journal of

Business Ethics 75(3), 273284.

Thomsen, S. and T. Pedersen: 1999, Business Systems

and Corporate Governance, International Studies of

Management and Organization 29(2), 4359.

Thurow, L.: 1996, The Future of Capitalism: How Todays

Economic Forces Shape Tomorrows World (Nicholas

Brealey Publishing, London).

Toyne, B. and D. Nigh: 1997, International Business: An

Emerging Vision (The University of South Carolina

Press, Columbia, SC).

Toyne, B. and D. Nigh: 1998, A More Expansive View

of International Business, Journal of International Busi-

ness Studies 29(4), 863876.

Tsalikis, J. and B. Seaton: 2008, The International

Business Ethics Index: European Union, Journal of

Business Ethics 75(3), 229238.

UNCTAD: 2007, The Least Developed Countries Report

(UNCTAD, New York).

Vernon, R.: 1971, Sovereignty at Bay: The Multinational

Spread of US Enterprises (Basic Books, New York).

Westney, E. D.: 1999, Organisational Evolution of theMultinational Enterprise: An Organisational Sociology

Perspective, Management International Review 39(1),

5575 (Special Issue).

Whitley, R.: 1992, Business Systems in East Asia: Firms,

Markets and Societies (Clarendon Press, Oxford).

Chong Ju Choi

C21st Investments Limited,

C804, Zizhu Garden, Zizhuyuan Road No. 88,

Haidian District, Beijing 100089, China

Sae Won KimGraduate School of International Studies,

Korea University,

Anam-dong, Seoungbuk-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea

E-mail: [email protected]

Jai Beom Kim

School of Business,

Sungkyunkwan University,

Seoul, Republic of Korea


7/30/2019 BoP_triad

9/9

Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

BoP_triad