Dr Jill Juergensen

We consider how the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged European small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector, and draw suggests policy implications. The sudden onslaught of the pandemic has acted as an economic shock, and we consider how it is likely to affect different types of manufacturing SMEs. We distinguish between immediate effects, a result of the almost-simultaneous lockdowns across Europe and its major trading partners, and longer-term implications for both SMEs and the global value chains where they are inserted. In the shorter run, most SMEs have faced logistical challenges in addition to demand disruptions, although the severity has differed across firms and industries. We argue that in the longer-term, there will be different challenges and opportunities depending on the type of SME. Policy interventions will also need to be sensitive to the different types of SMEs, rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. The policy mix will need to shift from its initial focus on the survival of European SMEs in the short term, towards a more structural and longer-term approach based on promoting their renewal and growth through innovation, internationalization and networking.

We conduct a systematic review of the relationship between international diversification (ID) and firm-level innovation (I), considering articles published between 1989 and 2020. The relationship between international diversification and innovation strategies is dynamic and complex, and recent evidence challenges the traditional notion that upgrading firm-specific advantages through technological innovation can be sufficient to guarantee international firm growth and performance. We develop a unified framework that integrates findings from extant ID-I research while also proposing new avenues for further research on topics such as: how firms deal with potentially conflicting ID-I goals, how underlying firm motives shape the interactions between these goals, and how new technologies and institutional dynamism increasingly influence the ID-I relationship. We also discuss how and why the new contexts in which decisions are made, together with the prevalence of relatively newer types of firms (e.g., those associated with global value chains, latest wave of emerging market multinationals, digitalized service MNEs), require a more modern conceptualization of the ID-I relationship. •We conduct a review of the international diversification (ID) and innovation (I) relationship, as studied since 1989.•Recent evidence challenges the traditional notion that (technological) innovation is sufficient for ID and performance.•Given new contexts and relatively newer types of firms, we require a broader conceptualization of the ID-I relationship.

Purpose Organizational innovation (OI) is important for multinational enterprises to adapt to changes in their broader technological and market environments. Despite its power to transform organizations, OI has remained at the periphery of international business (IB) scholarship. The purpose of this paper is that IB is particularly equipped to further the understanding of OI. IB studies place significant value on “context” and how the context in which the firm operates can enable or hinder the evolution of internal routines and practices, leading (or not) to OI. Design/methodology/approach The authors identify the key challenges which have contributed to the seemingly less important role of OI in IB, notable among them being the ambiguity of concepts associated with OI across different research fields. The authors advance the research agenda by offering a comprehensive definition of OI. The authors then put forward an integrative framework where the authors discuss the importance, and contribution, of IB to OI and vice versa. Findings The literature is characterized by terminological and empirical ambiguity. Some management scholars have coined the term “management innovation” with a clear element of invention and state-of-the-art attached to it. Others have referred to “organizational innovation,” when exploring incremental and targeted changes to extant team- and firm-level practices. In turn, IB scholars developed their own terminology, often (implicitly) referring to technological innovations as “asset-type firm-specific advantages” (FSAs) and associating OI with “transaction-type” FSAs. Originality/value The authors offer a new definition for OI – to address the challenges associated with terminological ambiguity. The authors put forward an integrative framework of OI in IB. The proposed framework of OI emphasizes the wider organizational context in which OI takes place, i.e. firm heterogeneity; and the broader external (IB) context of OI.

Drawing on organizational learning theory, this study examines the strategic role of organizational innovation in learning to innovate by exporting, commonly known as ‘learning-by-exporting’ (LBE). We explain that mere knowledge access is distinct from the enactment of knowledge, and this matters for LBE. Despite growing interest in how firms enhance product innovation performance through exporting and thus, LBE, previous literature has remained silent on the role played by strategically induced changes to organizational routines when learning. We hypothesize that some exporters will introduce organizational innovations – aimed at changing internal practices and routines – which then allows them to enact new knowledge and enhance innovation performance following engagement in export markets. We study our hypotheses, using panel data of 1489 medium-sized manufacturing firms taken from the Mannheim Innovation Panel, the German contribution to the Community Innovation Survey (CIS). We find LBE effects solely amongst firms which adopted organizational innovations during the studied period. Further, our findings revealed that the extent and type of organizational innovation markedly influences LBE. Our study uses a novel context to explain that it is the presence and extent of organizational innovations which influence firms’ abilities to enhance product innovation performance following international engagement through exports. •This study examines the strategic role of organizational innovation in learning by exporting, (LBE).•The data are drawn from the Mannheim Innovation Panel (MIP), which provides information on the innovation behavior of German firms since 1993. Conducted by the Centre for European Economic Research (in German: Leibniz-Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung, ZEW) with the Institute for Applied Social Science Research and the Fraunhofer Institute of System and Innovation Research, the MIP is designed as a panel survey.•We find no significant support for a LBE effect amongst our sample of German, mid-sized manufacturing firms.•Instead, we uncovered an important mechanism which allows some German exporters to learn by exporting: we show that (1) firms are heterogenous in how they learn from their experiences abroad and (2) organizations are not static but may change and evolve internally by adopting organizational innovation(s).•Our findings suggest that LBE is not automatic.