Decoupling in International Business

Abstract

Following the academic discourses that the International Business (IB) has not yet seen the levels of academic intrusions on decoupling a thorny ethical dilemma evident in other fields that explains why organizations when strive for conformity, they may attempt to preclude the necessity of their formal structure with an intention to show obedience towards institutional settings while at the same time actually practicing business in ways that they believe are more efficient. This study attempts to bridge this important gap and understanding of decoupling in the burgeoning stream of IB where export organizations decouple from the actual substantive conformity to the Intellectual Property Rights and the Protected Designation of Origin certification requirements. This policy to practice decoupling in the form of avoidance from institutional pressures and concealment manifest itself in the organizations zeal to placate the pressures of resource criticalities brought about by this unique isomorphic setting of the home and host country institutional landscape(s). Thus theoretically, tight coupling between institutional rules (and pressures) and export organizations does not necessarily translate from form to function but rather ceremonial conformity, which may further be heightened by onward problems of enforcement of these rules in the same institutional settings therein.

De‐internationalization: An organizational institutionalism perspective

“…In contrast, practices in international markets are shaped by firms participating in international business (e.g., exporting‐importing, franchising licensing, foreign direct investment) in home and host countries. In this regard, decoupling in international business occurs when policies and practices in the international markets do not develop in the same way (Mandrinos et al., 2019). Although firms may develop policies, the resulting practices often depart from such policies, rendering such policies to be merely ceremonial and thus without substantiative implementation (Boxenbaum & Jonsson, 2017; Crilly et al., 2012; Meyer & Rowan, 1977).…”

Decoupling institutional pressure: how and why academic journals do it

“…Whiteman and Cooper (2016) described how rape resulted from the decoupling of rules imposed by a certification system, as it allowed institutional actors to create distance between them and the assessments of the certification process. Mandrinos et al (2019) investigated how decoupling occurs in international businesses and describe how European Union organisations use decoupling to export Feta cheese by disregarding the rules established to protect the designation of origin rights of the Greek products. Laguecir and Leca (2021) describe how a management control system articulated with an organisational culture that favoured unethical behaviour and how decoupling was used to manage a bank's reputational risks.…”

A general theory of de‐internationalization

“…Noteworthily, the idea of conformity is central to the understanding of decoupling, as that idea encapsulates meeting or exceeding (informal) norms and obligations exemplified through voluntary actions that constitute a decision in favor to fulfilling social and normative expectations (Durand et al., 2019). In this regard, decoupling can explain why firms, when striving for conformity, disrupt export decisions by practicing business in ways they believe are more efficient (Lim & Mandrinos, 2020; Mandrinos et al., 2019; Stal & Corvellec, 2021). In any instance, decoupling is less harmful for international business when firms adopt a pro‐international business orientation by engaging in international activities and operations, while the opposite (harmful) is true when firms decide to de‐internationalize.…”