War produces devastating impacts on humankind, especially in terms of lives and livelihoods. While war is a widely studied topic in history, it remains relatively understudied in business. To address this gap, this article explores the impact of war for business and society. To do so, this article undertakes a prospective evaluation of the Ukraine and Russia conflict as a recent case of war. In doing so, this article reveals that a war can impact society within (e.g., limit access to basic necessities and monetary resources, increase unemployment and reduce purchasing power, and increase asylum seekers and refugees) and outside (e.g., supply shortage and inflation and threat of false information) as well as business within (e.g., threat of cyberattacks, threat to digital and sustainable growth, and shortterm and long-term sanctions and support) and outside (e.g., test of business ethics and moral obligations and test of brand management) war-torn countries. The article concludes with an agenda for future research involving war, business, and society.

Many studies have focused on internationalization, with few shedding light on de-internationalization. In this article, we contended that de-internationalization is common in a world of matured globalization, yet it remains underexplored. We sought to build on the seminal articles on de-internationalization by extending our understanding of the concept from a voluntary to an involuntary perspective. In particular, we used intellectual property rights as an institutional coercive dimension and set theory as a discerning mechanism to enrich our understanding of de-internationalization. Our article, which demonstrates the multi-faceted conditions of de-internationalization, should benefit formal institutions and policy makers in developing a greater understanding of the relationship between public policies and focal firms' decisions to de-internationalize. We also hope that our article will contribute to greater visibility of de-internationalization and make the concept more approachable to our international business audience.

De-internationalization is a novel phenomenon that is gaining significant attention because of its proliferation in international business. However, unlike internationalization, literature on de-internationalization remains opaque and scarce, whereby the acts that characterize de-internationalization and the characters of those acts have remain largely underexplored. To address this knowledge gap and contribute to the body of knowledge on international business, this article aims to shed light on the acts and characters of acts defining de-internationalization. To do so, this article adopts a taxonomic method to conceptual development. In doing so, this article explains that (1) the act of de-internationalization can manifest as a firm's decision to adapt and stay or withdraw and exit an international market (what is happening), which can occur through (2) decoupling or psychic distance (how it is happening) due to (3) a means-ends or a needs-ends reason (why it is happening), respectively. Taken collectively, this article makes a seminal contribution by establishing a general theory of de-internationalization.

Few studies have focused on de‐internationalization. In this study, partial and full de‐internationalization are considered as export responses in the context of firms in a highly opaque field that were pursuant to a policy that would not serve their intended goals. With intellectual property rights (IPRs) serving as a coercive policy defining the domain of inquiry and compliance as the driver for firm responses, the institutional logic of national interest, firm orientation (interests, decisions), firm maneuvering (intentional‐reactive, involuntary‐proactive), and firm response (partial and full de‐internationalization) was unpacked alongside associated institutional complexities through the lens of organizational institutionalism. Noteworthily, the organizational institutionalism theory of de‐internationalization suggests that (1) partial de‐internationalization characterized by intentional‐reactive maneuvering across three variants of means‐ends decoupling involving balancing, pacifying, and bargaining, and (2) full de‐internationalization involving involuntary‐proactive maneuvering in exiting or withdrawing from the international market may occur in response to (3) institutional constraints such as IPRs in favor of national interest. Thus, this study sheds light on the asymmetry between institutional logic and institutional complexity and the firm responses to such institutional arrangements, thereby delineating the manner in which the aforementioned concepts could relate to each other to enrich our understanding of de‐internationalization in international business.

This conceptual study delves into the functional relationship between Resource Dependence and Institutional Theory. It describes, in particular, the interplay between resources and institutional settings on the one hand and organisations (context bound) on the other. This research reveals two paradoxical outcomes. First, context bound (Protected Designation of Origin or PDO) organisations are not necessarily resource dependent on specialised raw material producers due to the interplay between resources, home rivalry and finance; sidelining a robust relationship between resource producers and organisations. Second, institutions may not in some instances conform to institutional settings and adopt decoupling practices inappropriate to the environment by hampering the internationalisation of context bound organisations. This research which has an industry related focus shall in essence generate new insights for it attempts to lay a new foundation for future research in international business and context bound organisations therein.