Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Global platforms and ecosystems: Implications for international business theories

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The emergence of digital platforms and ecosystems (DPE) as a venue for value creation and capture for multinational enterprises holds considerable implications for the theory and practice of international business. In this paper, we articulate these implications by considering the dual perspectives of cross-border platforms and ecosystems – as a venue for multifaceted innovation and as multisided marketplace – and focusing on three overarching themes at the intersection of DPEs and international business, that is, DPEs as affording new ways of internationalization, as facilitating new ways of building knowledge and relationships, and as enabling new ways of creating and delivering value to global customers. We explain specific DPE-related concepts and constructs that underlie these themes and discuss how they could be incorporated into existing IB theories in ways that would enhance their richness and continued relevance as well as their ability to better predict a multitude of emerging IB phenomena.

Resume

L’émergence des plates-formes et des écosystèmes numériques (PEN) en tant que lieu de création et de capture de valeur pour les entreprises multinationales a des implications considérables pour la théorie et la pratique en international business. Dans cet article, nous articulons ces implications en prenant en compte la double perspective des plates-formes et des écosystèmes transfrontaliers – en tant que lieu d’innovation multifacettes et en tant que marché multidimensionnel – et en nous concentrant sur trois thèmes majeurs à la croisée des PEN et de l’international business, à savoir : les PEN qui offrent de nouvelles approches d’internationalisation, qui facilitent le développement de connaissances et de relations, et qui permettent de nouvelles approches pour créer et fournir de la valeur aux consommateurs globaux. Nous expliquons les concepts et les construits spécifiques liés aux PEN qui sous-tendent ces thèmes et nous discutons de la manière dont ils pourraient être intégrés dans les théories de l’IB existantes de manière à améliorer leur richesse et leur pertinence continue, ainsi que leur capacité à mieux prédire une multitude de phénomènes émergents en IB.

Resumen

El surgimiento de las plataformas digitales y los ecosistemas (DPE) como lugar para la creación de valor y captura para las empresas multinacionales tiene implicaciones considerables para la teoría y la práctica de negocios internacionales. En este artículo, articulamos estas implicaciones al considerar las perspectivas duales de las plataformas y los ecosistemas transfronterizos -como un lugar para la innovación multifacética y un mercado de múltiples lados- y nos centramos en tres temas de alcance global y la intersección de las plataformas digitales y los ecosistemas y los negocios internacionales, es decir las plataformas digitales y los ecosistemas ofrecen nuevas formas de desarrollo de conocimiento y relaciones, y permiten nuevas formas de crear y entregar valor a los clientes globales. Explicamos los conceptos específicos de las plataformas digitales y los ecosistemas y los constructos que subyacen estos temas y discutimos cómo podrían incorporarse dentro de las teorías existentes de negocios internacionales de manera que aumenten su riqueza y relevancia continua, así como su habilidad para predecir mejor una multitud de fenómenos emergentes de negocios internacionales.

Resumo

O surgimento de plataformas digitais e ecossistemas (DPE) como um local para criação e captura de valor para empresas multinacionais tem implicações consideráveis para a teoria e a prática de negócios internacionais. Neste artigo, articulamos essas implicações considerando as perspectivas duais de plataformas e ecossistemas transfronteiriços – como um local para inovação multifacetada e como mercado multilateral – e focando em três temas abrangentes na interseção de DPEs e negócios internacionais, isto é, DPEs como proporcionadores de novas formas de internacionalização, facilitando novas formas de construção de conhecimento e relacionamentos e possibilitando novas formas de criar e entregar valor a clientes globais. Explicamos conceitos e construtos específicos relacionados às DPE que fundamentam esses temas e discutem como eles poderiam ser incorporados em teorias de IB existentes de forma a aumentar sua riqueza e continuada relevância, bem como sua capacidade de melhor prever uma multidão de fenômenos emergentes de IB.

摘要

数字平台和生态系统(DPE)作为跨国企业价值创造和捕获的场所的出现对国际商务的理论和实践带来了相当大的启示。在本文中, 我们通过考虑跨境平台和生态系统的双元视角来阐述这些启示 – 作为多面创新和多边市场的场所 – 并关注DPE与国际商务交叉的三个总体主题, 即DPE提供新的国际化方式, 促进建立知识和关系的新方法, 以及为全球客户创造和提供价值的新方法。我们解释了这些主题背后特定的与DPE相关的概念和结构,并讨论如何将它们纳入现有IB理论中,以增强其丰富性和持续相关性,以及更好地预测大量新兴IB现象的能力。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Adner, R. 2006. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4): 98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R. 2017. Ecosystem as structure: an actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1): 39–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R., Chen, J., & Zhu, F. 2016. Frenemies in platform markets: The case of Apple’s iPad vs. Amazon’s Kindle. Harvard Business School Technology and Operations Mgt. Unit, Working Paper (15-087).

  • Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3): 306–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, M. 2006. Competition in two-sided markets. RAND Journal of Economics, 37: 668–691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., & Thomas, L. 2014. Innovation ecosystems. In: The Oxford handbook of innovation management: 204–288. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. 2000. Design rules: The power of modularity (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. & Morrison, A. 1995. Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4): 729–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogers, M., Zobel, A. K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L., et al. (2017). The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation, 24(1): 8–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. 2010. Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Science, 56(10): 1849–1872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. J. 2012. Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organization Science, 23(5): 1409–1427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. J., & Jeppesen, L. B. 2015. Unpaid crowd complementors: The platform network effect mirage. Strategic Management Journal, 36(12): 1761–1777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. 2009. Internalization thinking: From the multinational enterprise to the global factory. International Business Review, 18(3): 224–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J. 2011. International integration and coordination in the global factory. Management International Review, 51(2): 269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. 1976. The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J, & Hashai, N. 2004. A global system view of firm boundaries. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1): 33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., & Strange, R. 2015. The governance of the global factory: Location and control of world economic activity. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(2): 237–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Hałaburda, H. 2014. When does a platform create value by limiting choice? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 23(2): 259–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Yoffie, D. B. 2007. Wintel: Cooperation and conflict. Management Science, 53(4): 584–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casson, M., Porter, L., & Wadeson, N. (2016). Internalization theory: An unfinished agenda. International Business Review, 25(6): 1223–1234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavusgil, S. T., & Knight, G. 2015. The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1): 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. 2012. Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software. MIS Quarterly, 36(1): 263–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, T., & McGure, D. 1996. Collaborative ventures and value of learning: Integrating the transaction cost and strategic option perspectives on the choice of market entry modes. Journal of International Business Studies, 27: 285–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F., & Lorange, P. 1988. Cooperative strategies in international business. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coviello, N., Kano, L., & Liesch, P. W. 2017. Adapting the Uppsala model to a modern world: Macro-context and microfoundations. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9): 1151–1164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coviello, N. E., & Munro, H. J. 1997. Network relationships and the internationalization process of small software firms. International Business Review 6(4): 361–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3): 659–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. 1980. Toward an eclectic theory of international production: Some empirical tests. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(1): 9–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. 1988. The eclectic paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(1): 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of inter-organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. 2006. Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Business Review 84(10): 92–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. 2011. Platform envelopment. Strategic Management Journal. 32(12): 1270–1285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. S. 2003. Some empirical aspects of multi-sided platform industries. Review of Network Economics, 2(3): 191–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans D. S., & Schmalensee, R. 2008. Markets with Two-sided platforms, in ISSUES IN COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY 667 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008).

  • Evans, D. S., & Schmalensee, R. 2013. The antitrust analysis of multi-sided platform businesses (No. w18783). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Evans, D. S., & Schmalensee, R. 2016. Matchmakers: The new economics of multisided platforms. Brighton: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A. 1995. Technological and organizational designs to achieve economies of substitution. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 93–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A. 2014. Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43(7): 1239–1249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. 2002. Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. 2008. How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2): 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. 2014. Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3): 417–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Phillips, N. 2013. Institutional work as logics shift: the case of Intel’s transformation to platform leader. Organization Studies 34(8): 1035–1071.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. 1990. The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network, Academy of Management Review, 15(4): 603–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagiu, A. 2006. Pricing and commitment by two-sided platforms. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3): 720–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagiu, A. 2009. Two-sided platforms: Product variety and pricing structures. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(4): 1011–1043.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagiu, A. 2014. Strategic decisions for multisided platforms. MIT Sloan Management Review 55(2): 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagiu, A., & Wright, J. 2011. Multi-sided platform. Working Paper No. 12024. Harvard Business School.

  • Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G. 2007. Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. 2018. Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy, 47(8): 1391–1399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J. F. 1977. A theory of foreign direct investment. Maryland: University of Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J. F. 1982. A theory of multinational enterprise (pp. 81–116). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J. F. 1982. A theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, P., Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., & Wu, D. J. 2013. Appropriability mechanisms and the platform partnership decision: Evidence from enterprise software. Management Science, 59(1): 102–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. 2004. The keystone advantage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, A. C. 1998. Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategic alliances. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(4): 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, A., & Beamish, P. 1997. Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 177–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. 2018. Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8): 2255–2276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm-a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1): 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. 1990. The mechanism of internationalisation. International Marketing Review, 7(4): 11–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. 2011. International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6): 632–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kano, L. 2018. Global value chain governance: A relational perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(6): 684–705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. 1998. The dynamics of learning joint ventures: Competition, cooperation and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 193–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. 1996. The born global firm: a challenge to traditional internationalization theory. Advances in International Marketing, 8: 11–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, G. A., & Liesch, P. W. 2016. Internationalization: From incremental to born global. Journal of World Business, 51(1): 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(2): 383–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation, Journal of International Business Studies 24(4): 625–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1995. Knowledge, market failure and the multinational enterprise: A reply. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(2): 417–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, V., & Gupta, G. 2001. Appropriateness and impact of platform-based product development. Management Science, 47: 52–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landsman, V., & Stremersch, S. 2011. Multihoming in two-sided markets: An empirical inquiry in the video game console industry. Journal of Marketing, 75(6): 39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., Shenkar, O., & Gurnani, H. 2008. Control-cooperation interfaces in global strategic alliances: A situational typology and strategic responses. Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 428–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., & Tung, R. 2007. International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4): 481–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., & Tung, R. 2018. A general theory of springboard MNEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(2): 129–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. 2015. Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective. MIS Quarterly, 39(1): 155–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, M.E. 1995. Product strategy for high-technology companies. New York: Irwin Professional Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. H., & Lehnerd, A. P. 1997. The power of product platforms: building value and cost leadership. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi, R., & Zahra, S. A. 2007. The survival of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(2); 333–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S. 2017. Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6): 1029–1055.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. 2013. Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: entrepreneurs’ self‐regulatory processes and their implications for new venture success. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 37(5): 1071–1097.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. 2019. On the costs of digital entrepreneurship: Role conflict, stress, and venture performance in digital platform-based ecosystems. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. 2017. Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1): 223–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., & M. Sawhney. 2007. The global brain: Your roadmap for innovating faster and smarter in a networked world. Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., & Sawhney, M. 2011. Orchestration processes in network-centric innovation: Evidence from the field. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3): 40–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., Siegel, D., & Kenney, M. 2018. On open innovation, platforms and entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(3): 354–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. 1994. Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1): 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. 2005. Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship: Theory and practice, 29(5): 537–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. 2005. Two-sided network effects: a theory of information product design. Management Science, 51: 1494–1504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. 2018. Innovation, openness, and platform control. Management Science, 64(7): 3015–3032.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. 2016. Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy. New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. 2015. How smart, connected products are transforming companies. Harvard Business Review, 93(10): 96–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priem, R. L., Li, S., & Carr, J. C. 2012. Insights and new directions from demand-side approaches to technology innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management research. Journal of Management, 38(1): 346–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. 2018. What is co-creation? An interactional creation framework and its implications for value creation. Journal of Business Research, 84: 196–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, D., & Ulrich, K. 1998. Planning for product platforms. MIT Sloan Management Review, 39(4): 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. 2003. Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4): 990–1029.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. 2006. Two-sided markets: A progress report. RAND Journal of Economics, 35: 645–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, K., & Morrison, A. J. 1990. An empirical analysis of the integration-responsiveness framework in global industries. Journal of International Business Studies, 21(4): 541–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M. 1981. Inside the multinationals: The economics of internal markets. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 1992. A note on the transnational solution and the transaction cost theory of multinational strategic management. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4): 761–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2001. Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 237–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2003. Extending the theory of the multinational enterprise: internalization and strategic management perspectives. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 125–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2004. A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1): 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rysman, M. 2009. The economics of two-sided markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3): 125–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seamans, R., & Zhu, F. 2013. Responses to entry in multi-sided markets: The impact of Craigslist on local newspapers. Management Science, 60(2): 476–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader, R. C., Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. 2000. How new ventures exploit trade-offs among international risk factors: Lessons for the accelerated internationization of the 21st century. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6): 1227–1247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. 2011. Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37(5): 1390–1412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallman, S., Luo, Y., & Buckley, P. 2018. Business models in global competition. Global Strategy Journal, 8(4): 517–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6): 285–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13): 1319–1350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. 2010. Business models, business strategy, and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43: 172–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. 2014. A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1): 8–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vahlne, J. E., & Johanson, J. 2017. From internationalization to evolution: The Uppsala model at 40 years. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9): 1087–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vapola, T. J., Tossavainen, P., & Gabrielsson, M. 2008. The battleship strategy: The complementing role of born globals in MNC’s new opportunity creation. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 6(1): 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., & Greidanus, N. S. 2009. The end of the opportunism vs trust debate: Bounded reliability as a new envelope concept in research on MNE governance. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1471–1495.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J. 2007. The economic realities of open standards: black, white, and many shades of grey. In S. Greenstein, V. Stango (Eds), Standards and public policy: 87–122. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoffie, D. B., & Kwak, M. 2006. With friends like these: The art of managing complementors. Harvard Business Review, 84(9): 88–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. 2010. The new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4): 724–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. 2005. A theory of international new ventures: a decade of research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1): 20–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., Ireland, D. R. & Hitt, M. 2000. International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 925–950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Nambisan, S. 2011. Entrepreneurship in global innovation ecosystems. AMS Review, 1(1): 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Nambisan, S. 2012. Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business ecosystems. Business Horizons, 55(3): 219–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, F., & Iansiti, M. 2012. Entry into platform-based markets. Strategic Management Journal, 33(1): 88–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, F., & Liu, Q. 2016. Competing with complementors: An empirical look at amazon. com. HBS Working Paper.

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We greatly appreciate Professor Alain Verbeke and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 44106-7235, USA

    Satish Nambisan

  2. Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Shaker A. Zahra

  3. University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33124, USA

    Yadong Luo

  4. Sun Yat-Sen University Business School, Guangzhou, China

    Yadong Luo

Authors
  1. Satish Nambisan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shaker A. Zahra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yadong Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yadong Luo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Accepted by Alain Verbeke, Editor-in-Chief, 19 July 2019. This article has been with the authors for three revisions and was single-blind reviewed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nambisan, S., Zahra, S.A. & Luo, Y. Global platforms and ecosystems: Implications for international business theories. J Int Bus Stud 50, 1464–1486 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00262-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00262-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation